So...is Jordan Peterson /ourguy/ now?

We are all ugly incels

Yeah, Peterson and Houellebecq are /our guys/.

I checked twitter trends and there's literally thousands of lefties ripping their lungs out. Goal achieved.

I'm a communist on economic issues but I have to agree with him on this.
Redistribute the roasties.

it's funny watching all the feminists and numale whiteknights have a fucking aneurysm over this

It's better than being single for everyone involved.
Being single as a woman is a huge risk factor for abuse and crime.
Being single as a man means you have no stake in society and encourages risky, fringe behavior.

Forced monogamy today won't solve anything. Women will still lust after Chad and will be miserable and resentful for being forced to settle for a beta/incel. That won't lead to a healthy relationship and those incels will probably be better off alone. Female standards and hypergamy have gotten so bad, and that's the real problem that needs to be fixed and changed.

This is pretty /ourguy/ish. I loved his book, I am barely following it but doing things like enforcing regulations and patterns in my life is good. But dang, did Peterson take the black pill now?

How would you fix it though? There is no way, we'd need to master genetic engineering and psychology and re-engineer women to not be hypergamous. It's not possible.
So, we need to accept most women being resentful for not having chad, or most men being resentful for not having anyone. Take your pick, which system do you think is better?

Not forced marriage, forced monogamy. Basically you still get to choose who to be with, but you have to stick with them. With forced marriage you don't get to choose.

He is a good kind man, now I respect him even more

People are quite good at being shown that they need to do things contrary to what they may feel like doing.
You see many people not eating cake and ice cream and pizza, who are able to manage their weight to stay healthy, when cake, ice cream and pizza are not only abundant, but cheap.

I think women can be shown that pursuing chad is unhealthy and self defeating, and some of those women will change their behavior. Contingent on the quality of how this message is delivered, and other factors.

I agree with him completely. The destruction of the family and the feminist project to end monogamy has been entirely responsible for the current state of sexual inequity

He'll make an ass out of himself inb4 white sharia.

But it's not like exercising user. Even if you could tap into women's human rationality, and even if they intellectually understood the moral superiority of your argument, they would still EMOTIONALLY feel only attraction to Chad and that will wear them down over time.
The source of this isn't that women lack rationality, it's that women are innately hypergamous. Plus, even if you were to break it down and prove to them the 80/20 stuff, they'd just so "so what? Everyone has the right to be with whoever they want. If we all want to form Harems around chad that's our right you fascist!" And they'd just go with that.
There is no way forward.

I guess he is kinda right, be it's not like they are going to do anything about it. This just bolsters women's victim complexes:
>Uhh, excuse mee? you think that we should fuck those creepsters?

And virgins will be hated even more.

You say this, but hunger is the single strongest impulse you can feel as a man or a woman.
People are very good at acting against impulse and deferring gratification. When they understand it's to their benefit.

But people actually get a benefit from only eating the proper amount of dessert, and exercising, and all that.
Women DONT actually get anything from being with men they don't percieve as worth it. Women would rather be celibate than be with a man who isn't worth it - see spinsters, crazy cat ladies, etc.
Women aren't like men, like I said women are relative. EVEN IF all men were "chad" as he's defined now, over 6'2" and handsome with positive canthal tilt and strong jaw etc., women would still only want the top 20% of men.
Women would rather not have a man than have a man they don't like 100%.

Yeah they do.
Women are not safe alone. If you are single and a woman, you are significantly more likely to be a victim of abuse and violent crime than if you were in a long term relationship with a loving partner.

It doesn't matter what people want, once informed, they should act in their best interests. I would dearly love to eat icecream all day, and not get fat. But I can't. So I eat like two icecreams a fucking year.

None of the replies I've seen from whiteknights and roasties breaks down what he's saying and give a clear rebuttal. It's all OMG muhsoggyknees! women are not your playthings! type faggotry

No, it doesn't matter user. They won't do it. They'd rather take the risk and not settle, their biological disposition is too strong.

When lefties (well, righties and everybody else too) don't have anything meaningful to say, they attack personality.

That's the single most powerful tool humans have at their disposal.
The ability to ignore what is immediately expedient and sacrifice it for the potential of greater return in the future.

If we couldn't do that, we'd be very intelligent hairless apes.

What I will say though is that currently, it is both expedient and beneficial over time for women to pursue only high status males.
Society has erected a large number of safety nets to ensure that women are shielded from the consequences of bad decision making with regards to who they select as a partner. Or more specifically, for choosing nothing.

Nuclear family best family.

It really is one of the best units of social stability. The problem seems to be that it is not economically sustainable.

Unless of course it really is just a women in the workplace issue. I'm skeptical that we can dial back on women's rights that far though. Not without beta revolution

Ugly women will always breed, forced monogamy just lets the ugly men breed as well.

It's literally impossible to get rid of beta males. You can raise the standard, but betas will always exist and so will problems like this.

Posting the other part.

Attached: DdfMq8-VQAAAtdu.jpg large.jpg (1172x348, 47K)

nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

heres the interview

Teenagers don't shoot up schools because they can't get married. This guy is fucking retarded and a weirdo and he's spreading dangerous misinformation

Let's just get things straight here, if you are undesirable you have to accept that, women will always go for the better option
It's like when you are picking fruit, for example an apple, do you choose the one with no bruising, or the one with bruising? Of course you go for the the one without bruising

It's the same with women picking men, they will always go for the better option. We Beta males need to accept that and just indulge ourselves in everything else.
Also Beta males do have a savior in the future: VR, Androids etc, it's not going to be totally bleak unless you desperately want a real GF.

However what i do want in this world is people to openly say what i have stated above, instead of hiding it and saying you just need to improve yourself, because in most cases what a Beta male needs to improve on, cannot be changed as it usually down to Genetics and your upbringing, which is not in your control

>Teenagers don't shoot up schools because they can't get married
They do it because they're shunned and ignored by girls (and a lot of the bullied by guys as well), which is pretty much what he's saying in a broader sense.

>Is the racist sexist guy still racist and sexist

Damn, he's hittin' the nail right on the head.

They need psychological help. Plenty of people can't get laid, get bullied in highschool etc and don't end up going on a shooting spree

Holy shit he actually said it.
Have to reevaluate my opinion of JP

This user is 101% correct

Those guys probably end up as losers and NEETs like us who drop out of society. That's still a problem that needs to be solved even if they aren't shooting up schools.

JP is redpilled on women but bluepilled on jews
I'm still not sure what to think of him

based /ourguy/ wow

Attached: peterson's witches and dragons 1.jpg (689x528, 78K)

the man is the genius of our time

Attached: peterson's witches and dragons 2.jpg (656x116, 16K)

What hashtag?

>big snibeddy snab dominates the small snibeddy snab, therefore women shouldn't be allowed to choose partners

Attached: Girls.jpg (600x536, 77K)

>the man is the genius of our time
In the land of the blind and all that...

wtf I'm Petersonian now

You're unironically correct. Otherwise everyone starts snibeddy snabbing each other to death.

Forced monogamy just feels so insulting for men in this day and age. It may have worked in the past, but women's standards have gotten way higher and they pretty much treat anyone less than Chad with disdain. Most of these guys who can't get women just want someone who genuinely wants to be with them and cares about them. Giving them resentful women who are bitter about not getting Chad isn't going to work and will just end up insulting the betas who have to deal with them.

>Petersonian

Attached: 1514717906076-1.jpg (900x840, 56K)

So much for not being a misogynist LMAO

Women become attached to their first sexual partner.

Doesn't the US take pride in *not* being Saudi Arabia?

(En)forced monogamy is simply a fancy way of saying marriage.

Peterstein is telling roasties that they need to start settling, or they will start getting mass-raped killed by roaming packs of incels.

Sure, but look where it got us.

Well then these incels would have to be paired up with 12-year-olds then, because modern girls have their first partners at around that age.

Not a bad suggestion t b h

>"Half the men fail," he says, meaning that they don't procreate. "And no one cares about the men who fail."

>I laugh, because it is absurd.

>"You're laughing about them," he says, giving me a disappointed look. "That's because you're female."

Holy fucking shit

Attached: 1526391152308.jpg (322x322, 15K)

why should people be forced to sacrifice their right to live life as they want, just to appease a handful of nutjobs?
shouldn't the west accept shariah law by that same line of thought?

Attached: 1487267245685.jpg (613x533, 107K)

Maybe we should. Can hardly make things worse

>a handful of nutjobs
Tens of millions of men.

>half the men don't procreate
lol, wut?
also, the only answer to this must be taking away womens rights

Attached: 1479533327637.png (890x913, 1.61M)

Still a handful when compared to the total human population

Yes, but they can decide how the rest of the population behaves through force.

except, you know, living under a violent theocracy where deviation from the norm will LITERALLY get you killed
Im sure many robots will thrive under that
pic rel

Attached: 1525004863542.jpg (837x960, 85K)

>handful of people
>80% of all men in the world

just lmaoing at your life

Attached: 1518925992206.jpg (480x272, 41K)

what if the other 7990000000 individuals of the population decide to kill them, by force you know?

Attached: 1469030476372.png (940x707, 1.04M)

I actually agree with that picture. Endless lists of sources will never convince anyone, so it's better to give no sources and say "fuck you" to anyone autistic enough to ask for one.

How do you know who they are, though? Penis inspection day?

is he really wrong though? in a state of nature, as in, civilization minus patriarchy, men act like violent sociopathic niggers and women become thots. We can see this because this very state of affairs was brought about in American blacks. having a partner gives men a reason to invest in society and not act like a nigger.

what kind of a fucking brainlet are you?
and no, those tinder "experiments" dont count
hookup sites dont represent the entirety of human population
have you actually ever went outside and look at people? all sorts of ugly motherfuckers are in relationships

Attached: 1474787702415.jpg (807x605, 145K)

>Nah I'm an ugly once
>incel
You're part of the reason why this board has gone so shit,kys reddit pussylips

well, how about they start with the ones who are trying to decide how the rest of the population behaves through force?

Attached: 1481749116513.jpg (340x371, 50K)

>mfw I see all the outraged women on twitter
How could normalfags deny 80/20 when they see how so many women panic when someone suggests they should lose the ability to have polygamous relationships?

do you really just see all men as retarded baboons who have no aspirations in life, rather than getting their willies wet?
and they say feminists look down on men...

Attached: 1500257344338.jpg (640x853, 160K)

>why do people not like it when other suggest that their rights should be taken away?

Attached: 1524946602892.jpg (850x399, 55K)

only problem with that is it's bad for humanity. enforced monogamy means more beta genes, means more sexual dysfunction in human relations. mammal sexual dynamics aren't designed to promote social stability. JP is a faggot.

He's right but people aren't meant to know these things.

Attached: 1524402037328.jpg (768x761, 63K)

look at any tribal civilization without patriarchy. without any reason to invest in society men become nonproductive and violent as hypergamy spirals out of control. having a child and a wife is likely to make men behave themselves better, and women too. this is in fact an unnatural state of affairs, and that is a good thing because the state of nature is shit.

Why do they need the right to share high value men if they don't intend to use it, leaving average and below average men with nothing?

this presupposes that jawline definition, canthal tilt, midface length, eye area, height, aggresion, etc. are long-term beneficial for society. we should note that the smartest people, who pretty much drive everything good in the world, are typically not that attractive.

Also, why should this behavior be allowed when other damaging behaviors are prohibited despite being natural?

>people think monogomy sprang out of thin air
Did we learn nothing from the neolithic age?

you realize for most of human history people were hypergamous right? Something like 60% of all the men who've ever lived never reproduced, so by your logic ugly people shouldnt have existed by the time monogamy became a thing.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a fuinctioning human being out of one cell? Our attractiveness is relatice to one anouther we already live in the world where everyone's a chad relative to our distant anscestors

>implying what was evolutionarily beneficial 200,000 years ago and what women are attracted to are what is the "best" genes now
brainlet spotted.
this

Fucking pathetic. How do you not have enough discipline or self-control and blame it on women?

[citation needed]
arent you going against all the notion of individualism that jordan oh so loves?
we no longer live in an age where it is necessery to abide by such rules to survive
you literally just want to keep it so for the sake of tradition

You mean the armed forces? Yeah, I'm sure a bunch of angry fat women is really gonna overcome the military.

SOURCE NOW, this is juicy

You have to admit Destiny is right.

streamable.com/bxxms

is the military entirely compromised of bitter angry virgins who refuse to take self responsibility and want to force women into marriges with themselves?