Can we talk about the fact that this nerd is against wealth redistribution while also claiming to be for some kind of...

I should also point out that people often look up to Japan on this site but Japan is closer to being a 20th century social-democracy then it is to your typical Western neoliberal shithole.

Ah this is where you messed up.

See, you can't tell boomers about their own lives because they'll tell you that you weren't alive so you don't know how good they had it, which was really, really good.

Now get a job and pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Just give 'em a good ole handshake, kiddo. You can do it.

Arranged marriages, adultery laws, lack of child support, lack of women in the workforce. Women are then required to find a husband, who by law can only have one wife. It's a roundabout method but it works.

do you even know what neoliberal means

>Fuck you, I got mine, lmao

But it never actually stopped hypergamy or the Pareto principle when applied to relationships. There was still cheating and there were no paternity tests in those times. Also, prostitution was rampant in pre-20th century times as well.

>t. 19-year old who just got introduced to gommunism by his t.a.
glad we established that

There was less hypergamy 100 years ago than there is now. Nothing is perfect.

>There was less hypergamy 100 years ago than there is now. Nothing is perfect.
[citation needed]

You really believe that Western societies aren't neoliberal when they preach that shit everywhere?It's been the dominant form of economic thinking since the 80s, just pick up a book. It's one fo the reasons why even left-leaning politicians like Obama wouldn't even attempt to create a society even slightly more equitable. If you look at Obamacare it was really a business-friendly market-oriented reform.

It wasn't a classical Keynesian social democratic reform.

>hayek, mises and ayn rand give the best, lowest priced blowjobs the free market can offer

be gone liberal thot

Nothing inconsistent about it.He has talked about 'socially' enforced monogamy ,not 'state' enforced monogamy.He wants to bring back slut shaming.Wealth distribution is state enforced.I do not see how this is being inconsistent.
All these cucks in this thread misrepresenting him,go gargle on Tyrone's dick you pathetic faggots.

>the sky is blue
>[citation needed]
Fuck off sperg.

Never forget that Obama put mustard on his burger.

Therefore, he's gonna take your guns.

Never forget 9/11.

>He has talked about 'socially' enforced monogamy ,not 'state' enforced monogamy.He wants to bring back slut shaming
Is that even possible now?You do realize a lot of this shit was enforced by the state back in the day as a last resort when socially-enforced monogamy failed.

Why is he obligated to be "consistent" in the first place? Who imposed that restriction? What authority do they have?
>you have to behave the same way under all circumstances, even at your own expense
WHY

See divorce rates,single motherhood rates,avg female partner count etc.
America is becoming a matrifocal society.

how the fuck would you redistribute wealth ? you want the goverment to raise taxes ,so it can pay you monthly a salary ? what liberals and soclialists mean by redistribution ?

It's called being a serious thinker and not being eclectic twat. You guys would absolutely rip on some SJW roastie if they said something inconsistent with their views but you don't require this of Peterson?

Anyone can be an eclectic (most people are) but being a serious thinker at least requires some attempt at logical consistency and internal coherence.

>still 0 answers for what neoliberal means
reminder that neoliberalism was a response to the collapse of the left and the inability of the left to get votes from its traditional voter base

He's for culturally enforced monogamy, and he's in favour of it because he believes it's superior for childrearing and it reduces violence. Culturally enforced monogamy would be, for example, bosses favouring married employees for promotions, or parents pressuring their kids to get hitched instead of living in a polyamorous relationship.

Peterstein has expressed positions in favor of wealth redistribution before and is a fan of orwell.

People flipped out at Peterstein over this shit but the media is literally unable to report on him honestly. They just can't do it.

I agree with you.The demand of consistency in regards to questions about society is stupid.Society is way too complex and has contradictory elements in it. Only mathematical and scientific theories can be expected to be completely consistent.In fact ,I believe extreme consistency in social philosophies can be dangerous.

>how the fuck would you redistribute women? you want the goverment to appoint you a girlfriend ,so it can pay you monthly allotment of sex ? what do incels and redpills mean by redistribution ?
There are many ways and not all of them are state-oriented. In Nordic social democracies there actually was no minimum wage until recently because unions have such a prominent and are extremely successful at protecting their members which happens to constitute a large portion of working people in those countries

Slut shaming has always been socially enforced.The state just created laws that reflected the society of that time.Adultery was punishable back in the day when people cared about slut shaming and things.Not anymore.

Neoliberalism tends to be a right-wing interpretation of both the work of Keynes and monetarist economists. It's typically associated with the idea that free markets ALWAYS perform better than governments; that governments only role is to regulate markets and not to shape them in anyway, to protect industries or protect labor. It favors liberalization of goods, capital movement and people.

The last one is the only part of the neoliberal program that the user base of Jow Forums seems to be against.

Peterstein I don't think would nessecarily see a monogamous society with cheating and cuckoldry as that much of a failure, because you're still reducing violence by keeping a lot of people in relationships, and you're still improving childrearing by keeping a lot of people in relationships.

In a sense monogamy + cheating actually straddles a fairly good balance between polygamy and monogamy because you also get the benefit of stronger sexual selection than you would get in pure monogamy.

>well, its not state-enforced, if everyone happens to think like me
Top Kek

>he thinks you can't just take it all away

Attached: 1533267692603.jpg (643x537, 46K)

jordan peterson is a moron . thats not a way to redistribute wealth you douche . without state you cannot do it . to me it seems imposible .

Exactly nigger.Because the state is different than mere citizens, you aboriginal abomination

You know the police protect employers from strikers, right? There are numerous laws that limit or prohibit the ability of labor to organize in some capacity.

No police support for employers would mean that employers would have to pay more to avoid strikes and/or unionization.

>take it all away .
>he doesnt know that the rich can hire mass murder maniacs with ar 15's fully automatic to rek you .

He does not merely believe it.There is quite a lot of anthropological evidence that monogamous societies benefit women and children.

But when a group of citizens get together and say "we want to abolish these slut-shaming laws and/or support single mothers" is this somehow different from a group of citizens getting together who want laws that punish sluts and thots? It's still the state dictating behavior in the final sense and stepping in as the authority of last resort.

They already do that, their called the police, after all...

I do not think that the 1950s ,which is the period that gives both white nationalists and tradcons wet dreams,had laws that punished promiscuous women,atleast promiscuous single women.There was also a pressure on women to get married early.Divorce was looked down upon.The state was not telling people to treat divorced women differently,the society just did it.

>if you aren't consistent you aren't serious
WHY

This guy gets it.

Yeah, but if I was wealthy would I want to share that wealth with a thot?

Why the hell not. Put some of these thots asses to good use and the sex workers will probably be relieved they don't have to fuck the same drug lords and jewish bankers over and over.

Have you ever considered the idea that it's the state that ALLOWS for extreme inequality to exist? How do you think people like Jeff Bezos accumulate a hundred billion dollars without the masses just stealing his shit? He has an awful lot of shit to protect yet Amazon hires very little security. It's because state entities protect his property from being taken, used, or copied by others.

One of the bigger ideas behind the libertarian left is essentially that the state is what allows inequality to exist. The libertarian left opposed the TPP hard because it was going to introduce ISDS courts (which only corporate entities can use), expand patent rights for pharmacuticals (For corporate entities infamous for tax dodging), and expand copyright terms (For corporate entities infamous for tax dodging). Countries will often have schemes like government-enforced monopolies. There is a ton of shit the government does at the publics expense essentially just to help the rich get richer, because the rich are the ones who write the laws. The police often essentially act as an armed wing of monied interests who stop the rabble from interfering with their big projects.

Historically the four things that reduce income inequality are war, revolution, state collapse, and pandemics. Amazing how when the great equaliser, the state collapses, everything becomes more equal. Really activates my almonds.

press.princeton.edu/titles/10921.html

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 18K)

>The police often essentially act as an armed wing of monied interests who stop the rabble from interfering with their big projects.
And throw the occasional riff raff under the bus because the poor deserve to be as miserable as possible!

Why is inequality undesirable? Why shouldn't proles live like proles? Giving them a higher standard of living is like pearls before swine.

>He has talked about 'socially' enforced monogamy ,not 'state' enforced monogamy.He wants to bring back slut shaming
This. If marriage and monogamy were the norm, there would be equal numbers of available men and women. But because the norm is 1 Chad fucking 10 girls at a time, each Chad indirectly produces 9 incels. The reason humans invented monogamy is that polygamous societies tend towards chaos when the number of unsatisfied young men gets too high.

There were still adultery laws with some attempt made at enforcement, no? I'm not actually saying thats a bad thing, if you're in a committed monogamous relationship there should be punishment for stepping out without consent. It's not just a social issue its actually a consent issue if you think about it (would you fuck your wife if you knew she was cheating? etc.)

But even considering that, its still an attempt by the state to control behavior, no? That's all I'm saying, some of these things that you guys say would be socially-enforced, actually did rely on state-enforcement as a last resort in the past.

Why is is inceldom undesirable? Why shouldn't incels live like incels? Giving them pussy is like pearls before swine.

Equality is generally desirable because it tends to result in a more efficient allocation of resources, since the poor tend to need money more than the rich do, it tends to promote social cohesion and stability, it tends to disincentivize crime because what's the point when none of your neighbours are richer than you, it tends to result in economic growth happening for longer periods of time, and there's a whole fuckton of benefits I could make a really TL:DR post about.

The issue is there is no real way to stop things from becoming more and more unequal over time. The sacrifices you have to make eventually aren't worth it because you end up fucking over your most productive citizens for the sake of the losers. The TPP I mentioned earlier was justified on the basis that giving patent holders more rights would incentivize the development of more medicine, ISDS courts would improve investment and the economy, and copyright protection would bolster art production and incentivize the restoration and preservation of older works.

People inevitably end up gradually giving into the jews and tolerating gradually rising inequality and fucking over the poor. You can only really slow inequality down, which may or may not be worth it. Eventually war, revolution, state collapse, or a pandemic happens and acts as a reset switch by fucking society up so hard that people can't become rich without getting murdered by a gang of mad max style raiders or getting guillotined by a mob of angry frogs.

Attached: 5acd0464046f2c3f442add948a155ace.jpg (650x650, 77K)

>WHY
Any scientific worldview is about arguing for or against a specific position. Spouting opinions just isn't really useful to anyone. Btw the post-modernists that Peterson claims to hate thrive on inconsistency and even think there is no grand meta-narrative that can explain our world; so really, its natural to be intellectually inconsistent and even hypocritical. Peterson also thinks in semi-mystical terms like the post-modernists as well.

This sexual welfare bullshit is absolutely stupid for any incel who argues "Women shouldn't have rights" or whatever is the meme for women hate. In order for ANY woman, especially an attractive woman that every guy wants attention from to sleep with random men who can't get laid, they would have to get paid wicked good. So not only would my tax dollars be used to fund these women's payroll it would make these women pretty well off. To be honest, it wouldn't bother me, I don't hate women but the amount of money that would flow into women's hands would likely destroy an incel's chance to get a relationship because they have terrible personalities and now these women are guaranteed to out earn him,

Not to mention the issues of how do we determine who gets government handed out sex? Do I have a doctor confirm my virginity? Which is impossible. Do I just say I had sex and then be disregarded for the sexual welfare? My sex life is none of the government's business.

Like I said,adultery in a marriage was punishable but it punished both the man and the woman.It was not about the woman merely being a slut.It was about maintaining the sanctity of marriage because the state has a vested interest in the institution.Just as the state enforced adultery laws,it also enforced child support ,alimony laws etc.It did it all because it has a vested interest in it.
Slut shaming is NOT merely about cheating.It is about having casual sex and it is predominantly used against women because people know that the choice always belongs to female and it is way to tell a woman not to make poor choices.Sexual promiscuity outside of marriage was not punished,atleast after secularism succeeded.It was only frowned upon and promiscuous people risked being outcasted from their immediate community.

>scientific worldview
Society is not run on scientific worldviews.It is run on pragmatism with a dash of rationalism.

>So not only would my tax dollars be used to fund these women's payroll it would make these women pretty well off.
It's already happening with welfare for dumbass coalburning sluts.
As for the rest of the bullshit you said, get bent faggot. Women are whores and you're a pussy who wasted satanic trips.

Yea,,, welfare doesn't even come close to being "well off". You must of never been on welfare, have you? You get bent if you can't even refute anything I say, faggot.

damn you are a brainlet. Peterstein does not advocate for forceful redistribution of women. he says that monogamy as a culturally enforced concept is a good thing and produces a more stable society. maybe try to actually understand someones views before trying to come at them from a moral high ground faggot. before you fags reply, no i am not a Peterstein fanboy, just someone who realizes that everything about progressive society is not amazing

Pic related, just 4u

Attached: 1531462557281.png (1464x823, 929K)

Fine, I'll tear down your post sentence by sentence you fugly thot.

>This sexual welfare bullshit is absolutely stupid for any incel who argues "Women shouldn't have rights" or whatever is the meme for women hate.
It's not a meme, women shouldn't have rights. They abuse them for their amusement because they are children incapable of acting responsibly.
>In order for ANY woman, especially an attractive woman that every guy wants attention from to sleep with random men who can't get laid, they would have to get paid wicked good. So not only would my tax dollars be used to fund these women's payroll it would make these women pretty well off.
Waaah my taxation is theft! You sound like a fucking kike.
>To be honest, it wouldn't bother me, I don't hate women but the amount of money that would flow into women's hands would likely destroy an incel's chance to get a relationship because they have terrible personalities and now these women are guaranteed to out earn him,
Incels already have no chance at a relationship you fucking retard.
>Not to mention the issues of how do we determine who gets government handed out sex? Do I have a doctor confirm my virginity? Which is impossible.
Oh please, all of these fucking cameras and recording devices in all of this cheaply made chinese shit and you don't the government doesn't already know who the real incels are?

All in all you're just another fucking retard who doesn't know what they're talking about.
I hope you splatter all over your dashboard.

>while also claiming to be for some kind of sexual redistribution to incels?
He's not, he just thinks that people should discourage harems and slutty behavior and it got taken out of context because discouraging harems and slutty behavior is called forced monogamy among academics. The lady who took it out of context knew that and neglected to mention the academic meaning.

You are terrible at debate, all you are doing is greentexting and insulting me. First I was a thot, then I sound like a kike, then you go on some 8/tech/ level sperg out about the government knowing whose an incel and who isn't.

I know what I'm talking about, and it's clear who is the retard, I'll give you a hint, it ain't me. I hope you can find happiness, user.

You're literally a roastie. Why are you even here?

And you're a mental midget who brings down the IQ of any imageboard you post on. I know why you're here. You can't even talk to a poster without insults, how fucking retarded and emotionally driven are you? For all your shit talk about how women are children, you're a prime example of acting childish.

Roastie getting toastie.
This is my lullaby btw.

And you continue to prove my point, learn to debate then come back to me. Until then, have a good day, brainlet.

This reply requires text to meet some arbitrary standard of originality which I have managed to bypass with the slightest effort, manifesting itself in this sentence.

Attached: 1517935179835.jpg (576x586, 78K)

Source: My ass
Fuck off if you think women were more or as promiscuous during the 20th/19th century and prior than they are now.

he's never advocated for sex redistribution. he's never advocated for "forced monogamy". he's just a shitty debater.

he gets stumped, and then seems to forget that he's debating; and starts to brainstorm as if he's in a graduate school classroom; as if it's a safe place to throw bad ideas out stream-of-conscious style. He forgets that those half-baked ideas are going directly to a debating opponent, a judgmental audience, and a hostile media.

As for the forced monogamy gaff, he wasn't being prescriptive, he was being descriptive. He wasn't saying, "we should force monogamy reduce the number of incels". He was sayign, "in the past, and in other cultures, there were/are fewer incels because monogamy was coerced onto people".

Attached: 1510951742221.png (800x1155, 216K)