Is Jordan Peterson Hollywood’s New Villain? 

❤️

It's like Patreon but you don't even need an account, guys.

@@JaredBauer Personally, I don't care. I just hate the fact that he denied The West's bad influence on Africa. Sorry but Europe underdeveloped Africa. That's a fact. Africans would do better with zero Western influence. We'll see with China how it's gonna grow into the 21st century

@@suzygirl1843 I don't know about that since western powers left tons of advanced infrastructure for them to to use, which has largely been abandoned, like the stuff the Dutch left in the Congo. It could have been used to uplift themselves. The same way England largely wasted away after the Romans left instead of quickly developing. Yes, the remaining infrastructure also left Africa divided because all the infrastructure leads to the sea, and yes that has made it so cooperation between neigboring countries is more expensive than shipping overseas, but people like to forget that Africa is a continent. They are not a homegenous, friendly coalition, they are neigboring countries with some of the oldest rivalries known to history. Without these wars already in Africa, the whole slave trade wouldn't have existed. Once they realised their profits, the wars got worse, and the West got better prices. But, this is by no means a Western only problem. Even earlier, trade with Muslims along the Silk Road was also abundant in slaves, for like 400 years. And then there's the cultural decline of Northern Europe from all the slaving in the Slavic countries. It's not quite as simple as you make it out to be. Would Africa be better if the West never went there? I don't think so, because the East was too. Would Africa be better if it was completely isolated? Maybe not, they wouldn't have got nearly as rich and powerful as they did before collapsing without outside resources. And now, many countries a developing which would be impossible without external forces. I'm also pretty scared about China...their envolvement is pretty exploitative. Not a fan.

@@maxtheawesome4255 Dude, I'm not reading an essay.

That's why "they're" doing it. That's fascisim and tyranny at work. No better way to silence people than to have them apply their own gag out of fear, shame, and doubt. Literally how every evil ideology works.

Well Peterson is a media attention whore..he brings it on himself

So true. This is the great harm of the culture war, the chill factor utterly kills creativity, where so many good ideas originate.

Yeah being a public figure is really hard. You have to wake up, lie to a bunch of dullards who already believe in what you say, and then get paid millions of dollars by the Daily Wire. Unfortunately the culture war has made it illegal to do free speech, due to the chill factor. I love being a serious adult with fully formed organic thoughts about important topics.

Longtime fan myself. Similar obsession with the matrix. Jared is a little older han myself and has read more philosophy. I want to be like Jared when I grow up.

Wisecrack has really fallen off since he left, tbh. A lot of the nuance and thoughtfulness is gone. It now feels like the department of Critical Theory at your local college nowadays imo

Just unsubbed from wisecrack and subbed here. Didn’t know he left.

@@TEGRIDY_FARMS lol same

You just got yourself at least one more view. If you make content on par with Jared, you will get a like and subscription as well.

Hey Mr beat, big fan of your video.

^^^

everything is black and white

RU-vid is packed full of nuanced takes on everything. You just have to look, and not just wait until it pops up into your home feed.

@@FINNSTIGAT0R Okay.

@@FINNSTIGAT0R Do you have any recommendations? I have the home page & recommendations tabs disabled (otherwise I'd scroll for hours!).

My biggest gripe with a lot of his "critics" is how they call him the Incel King and shit like that. He constantly denounces the idea of lonely men victimizing themselves and blaming women, and tries to encourage them to look within themselves for what needs improving.

That used to be true, but he's been pretty cruddy lately.

@@mycaleb8 Yeah, the guy only has himself to blame, what Jared talks as the "sensationalized" view was literally propagated by Peterson himself, by meddling in stuff he had little knowledge about and chiming into whatever topic was trending. Case in point, his obsession with Elliot Page. The supposedly individualist guy lost his mind because someone decided for transition, not to mention labeling the surgeon "criminal", that's like the language used by anti-abortionist to provoke ppl to attack clinics and I haven't seen him attack women/surgeons who do breast enlargement. He literally gives away Ye vibes at this point, it's more sad than frustrating

@@nobubblegums-1899 A near death experience and horrible drug adiction will do that to you I guess. He was never truly great, but he was a man I at least respected. I don't hate him now, but I don't respect him either.

You'd be surprised. My ex really hates Jordan, and she's listened to at least a couple of his videos. She did misinterpret a lot of what he said though.

I agree

He's gone full mask off how are people still trying to pretend like the guy is reasonable or normal. I honestly think people like you are poisonous to public discourse because none of you can just admit " I love right wing talking points" you have to hem and haw about how everyone is treating the great doctor unfairly. At this point in time he's a complete joke, he works for the daily wire, his credentials are being questioned and he's wearing garish suits and screaming at Elmo on twitter. Just admit that you want him to be coddled because you identify with his conservatism.

You are definitely over-simplifying why Jordan Peterson wears that villain hat so well. It's not just about sticking up for disenfranchised men, and quite frankly it was his lectures about getting yourself moving while you're at the pit of despair that drew me to him in the first place. His problem is that, for him, sticking up for disenfranchised men means putting down people who are different from him. It means holding up the current power structure that is unfair to everybody who isn't a rich white man. He uses a lot of big words and grand ideas in order to say, out loud, that the current power structure and "traditionalist" values of women and people of color being second class citizens is NATURAL...It's SUPPOSED to be this way, he argues. And the reason why, among many other things, is because of his observations of lobsters outside of their natural habitat... He seems to excel in finding many reasons to infer that lgbtq, women, and darker skin toned people should just stay as they are and not fight for more equality. As a matter of fact, according to Peterson, we WANT to be subjugated by the current hegemony. There's a reason he's become a defacto spokesperson for far right wing groups. You'll find his talking points and ideas spouted by actual nazis. It's THESE people who really take to his messages of "disenfranchised young men." Racists love playing the victim...Jordan Peterson makes it a little easier for them to feel smart while they do it.

Yeah, the way the media responds to the whole topic of incels often seems a bit sad to me. This is supposedly a group of disenfranchised young men, who feel like they are locked out of the dating/sexual world due to factors out of their control, and the media's response to them often seems to be shame or outright ridicule. I don't blame the incels who feel like nobody is listening to them or cares about their struggles.

Brother, no one has a problem with trying to help disenfranchised men, it's all the other baggage Peterson has. What does lying about bill C16 and feeding hatred towards trans people have to do with "sticking up for disenfranchised men"? People say the exact same thing about Andrew Tate, almost like his entire persona and rethoric revolves around solely helping men. Get real and stop being dishonest, actually try to understand what point the other side is trying to make. There are plenty of people who can give good general advice to men without being right wing lunatics.

@@CuZtuga > What does lying about bill C16 and feeding hatred towards trans people have to do with "sticking up for disenfranchised men"? I don't know, you tell us. You're the one that brought it up. Nobody was talking about it. It's possible to discuss/criticise a particular perspective a person has without having to talk about every single belief they have. If you want to talk about Peterson's other views, feel free to start your own conversation about them. And if you really think "no one has a problem with trying to help disenfranchised men", then you haven't paid any attention to how the media talks about incels.

@@The_CatalyztI’m a white man, not too rich. What would you say of me?

Your inner space and outer space are reflections of each other. You have to master your self before you can hope to master the world around you. You have to have at least one vague truism in a self help book before you can throw your opinions in as fact.

This. 100%. As far as I can tell JBP has gone off the rails a bit recently but when he first came to public prominence his consistent message was one of empathy and _care_ in general for men in general and for young men in particular. The Guardian of all publications did a great video series interviewing people who had been positively affected by his work.

first, no. he gets emotional in lots of different instances, not only because "disaffected young men" are being "villanized". that, i suppose, is because he is a very unstable individual who seems reluctant in seeking the very help he believes he can offer to other people while simultaneously exposing himself with all those issues. second, only because said young men feel his advices are good does not guarantee they are good. they are mostly common sense, such as "clean your room", "have an active life", "walk with a straight posture". when he tries to go deeper, into topics such as causes to human suffering and how to alleviate them, he either talks pseudoscience, religious (christian) self-help or political right-wing fearmongering. and i don't believe he acutally cares for the people who look up to him. he may have convinced himself that he does, but i actually believe he likes the money more

@@guest_informant ever since he came back from his coma he hasn’t been the same. Really short and sharp with the people around him and his talks.

Nonsense. Peterson only cares about the "disenfranchised" men who revere him. If you happen to be part of a disenfranchised minority with whose politics don't agree with his reactionary right-wing politics then watch out. And his emotional outbursts when talking about those alienated men who revere him talk more to his narcissism and Messiah complex than any real care. This was the same guy who wanted to found his own church with himself as its figurehead remember?

@@rlsxs4ever "gets emotional [...] because he is a very unstable" Burned his bra just yesterday.

I mean, that's all well and good. But when you're dealing was a bad faith agent of misinformation division for profit like JP. I Don't think we need any nuance. He's just a bad person being paid to do bad things

They could've done that if Olivia wilde actually understood the general nuances of what these communities are and why they are a thing in the first place. Problem is she doesn't want to see these types of people as human. I would argue that most of this is really more of a side effect of how social media algorithms work. Instead of uniting people it has created a huge mess of these isolated communities who pretty much refuse to understand each other.

That would be interesting but I have zero faith in Wilde and little in Hollywood's ability to do that without making a dumb hateful men = bad show.

Wisecrack = the cell “Postmodern neomarxism” aka critical social justice = the virus

I'm not gonna lie. My perception kinda mixed up between him and the bald guy with the same orange hair😅. Idk, when I kinda got mixed up and therefore didn't know he left.

It's honestly quite disappointing for wisecrack

People who don't understand metaphor

no you are clearly the one who doesn’t understand the metaphor. calling feminism chaos and masculinity order is about as fucking retarded as it gets. take a step back. realize what feminism is. is it chaos? no………. not even close.

I've noticed that people seem to reflexively assume that anyone's saying order=good, chaos=bad, and that therefore man=good, woman=bad. Actually, the very fact that someone has this reflexive assumption might say something about their own implicit beliefs.

@@Hemlocker that’s the definition🤦‍♂️

​@@teamhammerbros8466 No, it isn't. Neither Peterson nor any dictionary I've checked says that the definitions are "order: good, chaos: bad". It would take you about 60 seconds to Google this.

great comment

Haven’t watched the movie, and I love Jared, but this sounds like a better interpretation if interpretation without watching is possible lol.

Afaik Peterson isn't out here telling men to kidnap women. He's just controlled opposition to stop men from lashing out at societal problems.

Jack doesn't just fails to meet the image of masculinity protrayed by incel. He's a loser. He fails the image everyone would expect of a man. Everyone looking at him and his behaviour would think he's a failure. He's objectively a loser. Putting the blame on incels is such an easy cope out. He is an incel. Incels could not have popped out of thin air. Something made them and it could not have been other incels. This is what Jared is saying by it just stops at the bad guy(s), there's no exploration beyond.

I've actually never seen a movie that delves into "Jack's" movie. It's always shallow, and any time a man in something is shown as even slightly like an incel they're the villain, pathetic, or just an afterthought. I'd love to have some examples of movies that show the daily struggles of these kinds of men in an actual thought provoking way.

Kind of a Freudian slip...

Her own very tragic reasons.

yeah wisecrack took a nosedive when this guy left.

"You're a beta male, Sonic"

a tually if you listen closely thats not what he said

​@@daltonbedore8396 'because he thought it was cruel to be villainized'. Verbatim.

For people to villanize so called incels

You're right, he didn't cry for himself, he cried for all the young men who are suffering so badly and nobody cares and in fact this rich and famous actress married to a prince is actively mocking them. You see that level of suffering among that many people -- often people who have the capacity to be wonderful people but nobody's ever bothered telling them once in the lives they're worth something -- and you see people laughing at them and kicking them while they're down. Honestly it has nothing to do with being villainized at all, it's about basic empathy for all the people who are suffering out there.

That's not what he said. Also, it depends on what you mean by villainized. If, by your estimation, villainization is the metaphysical substrate upon which rests the Jungian archetype of the knighted hero entering the belly of the serpent surrounded by a sea of chaos, then one must, by necessity, concede that Cain, in all his reprehensive vigor, nonetheless sought the promise of the covenant granted to Moses in Exodus.

starting for trying to defame J Peterson... very poorly btw.

Not true at all, I've watched two of his videos on his channel so far and they're both false equivelency, golden means bs takes. If anything it makes me wonder whether his exit was truly of his own volition. I suppose he would need this mythologizing to build a loyal audience for his personal channel. But given his work on Wisecrack I'm disappointed to see his unfiltered pop criticisms.

@@futurestoryteller your comment confuses me. I found this channel just now. Can you tell me what you mean?

@@hebercluff1665 He attempts to be even handed in a comically over-compensated way. In a video where he breaks down memes - which might be all you need to know, frankly - he criticizes a left-wing twitter user over their use of the phrase CRT. Critical Race Theory. Apparently an advanced law school elective designed to teach students the ripple effect of prior discriminatory legal practices on current law. I may be wrong on some details, but while Jared might pedantically assert that these details are actually important - assuming he cared what I had to say anyway, the fact is that the actual, original and intended meaning of the phrase does not matter. This is not how it was used, it was used to insist that children (not law students) need to be taught the history of racism in this country and how it effects our culture today. So arguably it is the same basic idea. Jared claims this misrepresents the right-wing position against teaching CRT to children, by reducing it down to an opposition to teaching kids the history of racism. Even though there is _more_ than enough evidence to support the argument that this is exactly what they *are* doing. Especially since they have no reason to oppose CRT being taught to children in the first place because CRT is not being taught to children, CRT by this purist's definition _can't_ be taught to children. He criticized someone for a misdefinition set by oposition in bad faith by arguing that *they* are setting a bad _precedent_ by misdefining the word so that they can argue in "bad faith" that opposition is doing what they _are _*_self-evidently_*_ trying to do!_ No reference at all to where this concession or misattribution originated, just "that's ridiculous, lefty, CRT isn't being taught to children, come on." That's the argument! That's already _the_ left-wing argument when these terms are set for this conversation. So why not argue against the party resetting the terms? He just needs to dig up some random leftie to criticize so he can do his best impression of the Neutrals from Futurama He calls these memes "thought terminating cliches" I couldn't believe that one reaction so much that I scrolled through and found him trashing somebody who said the "The people who say you won't get pregnant if you don't have sex are the same people who believe a virgin gave birth to their messiah two thousand years ago." Setting aside the myriad ways we can discuss this as an actual conflict in logic, the fact remains, this clearly IS meant to be nothing more than a funny observation, and not an intellectual conversation starter. Jared is actually the one acting in bad faith by treating it as anything different. He thinks it is of no value to to criticize in this way. So what is the value in focusing in on these "criticisms" narrowing the field of view far and away from the actual issues at hand. Just like it doesn't make sense to criticize Olivia Wild's movie by claiming it makes the same mistake Peterson does while all but taking Peterson at his every word regardless of how his actions contradict them. Makes it seem like the movie can be hypocritical, but Peterson can't.

@@futurestoryteller I see. First, I do appreciate that you have an in depth response to my question. I have a personal grudge against people who self-righteously assert their opinions on people without having the respect to actually explain their thoughts. Pressing your opinion without taking the time to do this means that you don't respect other people's autonomy and free will. I mean, I don't normally like talking about politics - not because I don't think it's an interesting or relevant topic, but because most political discussions comprise of a bunch of children all but screaming their opinions at each other. Anyway, so reading your comment did make me feel happy. It's good to see that some people are ok with just explaining their reasoning rather than taking offense at someone questioning them. ______ Now, about your comment, you are referencing many videos that I haven't watched before, so I can't really refute or agree with you. (Frankly, I probably won't watch them, simply because I found this video - thinking it was a simple movie review for a movie I hadn't heard of before. Plus, I respect Jordan Peterson for the most part, and I saw his name on the video title.) However I still have SOMETHING to say, at least. ______ First off, content creators of any kind (RU-vidrs, journalists, movie directors, even politicians) will thrive in their industry more if they cater to humans' instinctual thirst for conflict. People like to watch one person verbally rib apart another person - hence, all the "[insert person we like] DESTROYS [insert person person we don't like]!!!" videos you'll find. To conclude that point, I suspect that so many people watch videos like that because, more than looking for enlightenment or self improvement, they're looking to be entertained. Frankly, watching someone sit back and batter someone else's movie into oblivion IS entertaining. But to me, that's all videos like this are - entertainment built to satisfy human instinct. (I went on this tangent as a response to you mentioning this guy attacking a meme.) ________ Now, as for your point about CRT, I really think there's a lot of confusion about that topic on all sides of the political spectrum. Heck, I'm confused too. I hate the kind of arguments that only exist because nobody can define a word or phrase. Instead of whining at each other over what CRT means, isn't it better to just forget the label and take about raw ideas? So instead of trying to define what it (CRT) means, I'll just say this. Teaching people the natural, historical effects and realities of slavery is completely necessary. However, using the history of slavery as an excuse to hate white people is reprehensible, since I believe that hatred is evil. Basically, I've heard some say that CRT is just a desire to teach the realities of slavery, and explore how the history of such a thing can still be felt today. If that's what it is, then it's a good thing in my opinion. However, I've also heard others say that CRT is a racist philosophy that asserts that black people are good, white people are evil, and that white people today should feel personally guilty for what other white people did decades or centuries ago. If that's what CRT is, then I can never support it. All that line of thinking breeds is resentment on all sides. It's the kind of philosophy that can only destroy - not build. Anyway, I like to stay away from the term "CRT". Words or phrases that don't have a concrete definition, or that nobody can agree on.... ... What's the point of using those words? Anyway, I just think that children should be taught the good, the bad, and the ugly of history. I don't think children should be fed political activism of any kind. After all, teaching children political activism makes the subject an emotional one for them - not a rational one. It hurts them a lot. Trust me. My middle school history teacher was a very "American nationalist, conservative" old lady. I won't get into the specifics, but I lost the ability to critically think about the subject for a very long time. (Nowadays, I don't really love America, but I don't hate it either. The more I look at it, the more the US just seems like a country full of normal people, and founded by normal people.) For the same reason that I hate conservative activism being taught in history class, I also hate progressive activism being taught to children. People should just be encouraged to think for themselves, then talk things out like civilization adults. ______ Now, as for you talking about this guy pretending to be fair and centrist in his videos, yet being heavily biased and looking for faults where there were none, I'd like to just say this. I don't really think that anyone can talk about anything without being biased. However, it's good to at least TRY to be fair minded. To me, being fair means that you allow other people to have their opinions - giving them free space to express themselves. You can try to convince them, but you inevitably have to walk away WITHOUT MORALLY CONDEMNING THEM. It's far too tempting to chalk up your differences to "It's all because they're a horrible person! If they were a good person, then they'd agree with me!" Now, I don't know if this RU-vidr is: 1) trying to be fair, yet failing. 2) feeding off of humans natural lust for conflict so that he can get views. Those are the only two options for me since, by nature, I think that nobody can completely succeed at being fair-minded. The best we can do is try. ________ Anyway, I don't really know if any of your points are valid, and I'll probably never know (since I'll probably float my way to another portion of the internet soon enough). However, you have a long, thorough response to my question, and I appreciate that - hence, I'm giving you the same treatment.

That's an excellent counterpoint. Blaming the economy also ignores that generally speaking married people tend to generate and retain wealth much better than single and unmarried couples. It's a not insubstantial reason why black Americans have struggled to create and maintain generational wealth (notwithstanding other factors). It's also a big reason why the general economic fortunes of the poor white, black and otherwise across the west has been getting worse in almost direct correlation with declining marriage rates. It isn't as simple as "feminism bad" nor "capitalism bad" there are comorbidities that are pushing everyone down both culturally and economically.

thats a good point. "jordan peterson" as a buzzword

Its great to hear somebody who is familiar with peterson be critical of him while not misrepresenting him. I wish more people could be critical of people they disagree with without taking it to an emotional place.

Good movie, I agree that it kind of lost its way in the 3rd act but it was nice to see a modern day movie show the problems with cancel culture and these Zoomer adults that are so childish that they view people from different centuries with a modern day mindset.

@@BishopWalters12 I thought that was where we were going, but by the end I felt they muddled their messaging with her infatuation with her new orchestra member and her cancellation. I also felt that it kind of lost track of itself and what it was trying to say in the end. I'd say we got a "new age" structure about the classical composer. Still some good acting and beautiful shots.

For example: Two different left YTers, Step Back & Anark, who both recently released videos on this topic, made horribly inaccurate videos on the subject. Just atrocious: They both expressed basically no interest in logic or empirical truth. We are in a deplorable state for left YT…

Listen kid there is a lot more to politics than just a simple XY axis designation of your beliefs. You need to get off reddit and instagram and start reading actual books

That's just one step better than the typical left vs right view. Our political stances are made up of many spectrums that interject at many different places. Left (cooperation/social responsibility) vs right (competition/personal responsibility). Progressive vs conservative. Authoritarian vs liberal. Environmentalist vs industrialist. Globalist vs nationalist. etc. The only reason people (especially Americans) keep lumping these all together into left vs right, is because of the two party "system". You're either blue or you're red. Most democratic countries however, have at least 3 parties, some have like 20. The voting system has to be changed to address this, but neither party will ever do that, because they don't want to invite competition.

@@user-wl2xl5hm7k i have 600 channels i sub to on youtube, no time to watch everything. can you debrief me on what SB and Anark did wrong?

@@transsexual_void_fairy Sure! Just go to the Anark video, Anarcho-Capitalism is Not Capitalism, and you’ll see my comment thread there. It explains everything thoroughly. And his response was not relevant- and did not address the info I stated. And he did not respond to my adequate criticism from there. Enjoy

In what way would you say she tried to create nuance?

@@konstantinosstag6436 none of the characters were 100% bad or good. The wife had a thriving career but neglected her personal life. The husband was ideal until his career wasn't exactly flourishing. The founder believed he held the solution to these "modern problems", but executed it in an immoral fashion.

@@myteli I see. I haven't brought myself to watch it just yet. Thank you for your input.

How tolerant.

@@Skrenja Do you know what tolerant means?

Your complaint has been seen and will be forwarded to the manager. thanks for the input Karen

This is literally what happened. What nuance has been missed concerning these immutable facts concerning Peterson?

@Kato Funtato Sorry, didn't mean to insult the patron Saint of incels.

@@ryandague4473 would you like another complaint to be submitted Karen?

You try living with even 1% of the pressure, vilification and outright hatred Peterson has had to endure. Guaranteed you'd crack too.

because its hollywood. they are funded largely by the same corporations that create thecurrent dystopia we endure

it doesnt prove the opposite point. the simulation isnt real, that's the point. incels who think theyd be happier in a more hierarchical 50s because their imagination of it isnt real. how do you come to the conclusion you did? it's a massive cope

I mean he isnt happy, and its fake and was never real. But guess thats on themovie to npt make clearer

@@azeemkhan1066 the simulation may be a dream world but the idealised version of relationships it protrays, is made to look more appealing than the real world. The film should have been clearer about its message.

@@Mysticmegster1 lmao you cant possibly be this dumb. this has to be a bit

Alice clearly isn't happy in the Dreamworld. And that she was miserable is something that Jack claims, but Jack is just justifying her enslavement. Yes, she was tired from work after doing long shifts, but she also clearly said that she loved her job. And it was clearly a more fulfilling life for her. It's Jack that was miserable. He's gaslighting her. Probably not even understanding that he does.

literally as a “psychologist” the man talks in too many subjects that has nothing to do with psychology.

Could you not have asked your parents to teach you about responsibility? You do not need a far right-wing grifter for that. Have some self-respect.

​@@Ninjaananas That's not how developing brains work. As children and teenagers, we don't think to ourselves, "my parents aren't teaching me about responsibility, let me ask them about it". If we aren't taught something by our parents, or we don't have any, then not only are we not taught about it, but we're not taught to even think about it in the first place. It's unreasonable and frankly disrespectful to tell people to just "have some self-respect" out of thin air. Many people don't have that luxury.

@@Hemlocker There is straight up no excuse to take this schizophrenic drug addict as your guru. Take any other celebrity and they are very likely a better role model. Peterson just panders people to manipulate them.

​@@Ninjaananas I just don't agree that "taking __ as your guru" is something that people consciously choose. A lot of young men come across someone like Peterson and are drawn in because they haven't come across anyone else (whether at home or in the media) to fill that gap. The alternative is not to tell people "just don't be brainwashed bro", but rather to: a) openly explain why they're a bad role model; b) provide better alternative role models. Then again, maybe you're not actually trying to enact change in the world, and are just venting frustration. Which is understandable. Either way, have a good 2023.

@@Hemlocker It is true that they are drawn in by him. He is a grifter, after all. Drawing people in to manipulate them is his goal. But self-reflexion is a moral duty of anyone capable of it. A little bit of critical thought should make you realize that cleaning your room is common sense. That is exactly why we must speak up against Peterson. I am here to show that he is a bad role model. And we cannot trust American education to warn people against people like Peterson because the dominant parties want people to be exactly as they are right now. Disorientated and manipulatable.

I bet Mary Tyler Moore was also worried about men that feel like failures because they prefer to stay home taking care of the kids and doing house work instead of having a job.

Yeah, the dude has probably written and spoken about the oppressive nature of facsistic structures more than most people who make this claim.

short answer: while overall poverty is extremely reduced globally since decades back, the gap between rich and poor is ever-expanding. plus, fascism is on the rise again in several countries incl USA.

he wants to take us back to the 50’s because he wants to literally force women to be married to men. 🤥

@@teamhammerbros8466 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NtTIu7C6l0A.html

@@michaelmonaghan1124 yeah just ignore all his ignorant and divisive statements. jordan peterson says times are good therefore peterson is a wonderful person. you are being overly simplistic and you must be unaware of all the times peterson wmbarresses himself with completely stupid things he says.

@@teamhammerbros8466 There's plenty of valid criticisms of Peterson, like his amorphous description of God, Christianity, and atheism, but this ain't it. Many pro-Trump Americans want to go back to the 60s because there was a manufacturing boom in the United States. However, Peterson isn't American, and he seems to idolize Europe (particularly the UK) which is pretty common among Canadians. He loves capitalism because of the global increase in wealth that we experienced this century. I think he's wrong by the way, but that's another matter. To say that Peterson wants to go back to the 60s is like criticizing Biden for being too socialist, or criticizing Bush for being too libertarian. It just doesn't make sense. If you're going to criticize someone, do it right.

@@michaelmonaghan1124 olivia wilde’s critique isn’t Peterson’s ideas are old fashion. the critique is the loss of agency women have if you have his enforced monogamy concept going on in society.

Agreed. I have actually never once heard a conservative-leaning man romanticize the 50's specifically because of the low housing prices, job security, GI Bill, etc. They romanticize the "work ethic" of the "masculine men" and the role of women as housekeepers and mothers, which is what allows them to devote themselves fully to being "masculine men" in the first place. I don't see any conservative men out here advocating specifically for more accessible home loans and college education or better policies for job security. They advocate primarily for society being built up from its alleged atomic unit: the nuclear family, wherein women are financially dependent and subservient and thus "men can be men."

yeah sure you have kid. in the last 6 years quite a few women have acted like shitheads and need to do better and treat men better. men literally hold the world up and keep it running in many many ways that women dont. it has been disgraceful the way men have been treated and talked about in the media. i doubt those made up men you are talking about want a 50 s style women per se as they would really just like women to stop being so hostile. 99 percent of men have very little power. it is the ones at the top , the richest who have all the power that includes some very shitty women. the patriarchy is lie and most people know it so the left need to gets its shit together and treat men better. i have a degree in sociology and politics and am center left i have seen this unfold over the last 30 years as the left has made it beyond stupid for a man with any sense of pride and interest in their future. there is no longing for lost privilege, who told you that lol men were always disposable and still are. you really know nothing educate yourself about history and mean properly not this youutbe divisive rubbish where you clearly get your education. god you know we have big problems to solve in the world and dishonesty aint going to solve it.

Have you really or did you just interpret what they said in a hugely unfavorable way? If you say you did ok but most the time I find it is just bad faith interpretation when I hear claims like that.

@@williamjenkins4913 This person can see inside people to know their true desires! They are like a superhero, and will save us all with their advanced morality.

bro thats like a small minority of people. If a lot of people thought that way, the world wouldn't be what it is