Talk:Jordan Peterson/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 16 November 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Marriage and divorce

I think the quote about Jordan Peterson implying that divorce should be made very difficult or even illegal for people with children is important to highlight in this section:

{{quotebox|(in the context of discussing divorce law)

Jordan Peterson: It's not obvious to me that we're better off for the additional plethora of choices. So we'll see.

Interviewer: Isn't that an individual choice and not something the law should decide?

Jordan Peterson: Well that depends on whether the law should advocate for children. I mean children can't really speak for themselves, can they? They need some authority to speak for them. And so we do know the data for example on child welfare indicates it's crystal clear that children from intact two-parent families do better on virtually every measure you can possibly imagine. So what are we supposed to make of that? It's irrelevant?? Maybe the rule should be if you don't have children then, no problem, divorce is no problem. And plus it's not like divorce solves the problem in regards to your relationship to your ex. It often produces a whole boatload of problems you didn't expect.Jordan Peterson about Divorce Laws

Notably, Jordan Peterson's daughter announced she is getting divorced despite having a child with her husband. Quick “Life Update” Mikhaila Peterson manages his brand and opens for his 2022 tour. She has said that she probably shouldn't have gotten married so quickly and that she did, in part, due to pressure from her family.Mikhaila Peterson On Overcoming ANXIETY, How She Runs Her Dad’s Business, and BALANCING Motherhood Rules for thee but not for me is the Peterson mantra. ^{— Unsigned, by: Darthvlad / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

He likes NFTs too

Someone needs to monitor whether he indeed goes to the Bitcoin conference to promote NFTs and crypto currencies. If he does then I suggest adding a section under social conservativism heading mentioning his latest grift. NFTs are one of the easiest ways to convince an apolitical normal person that someone is a completely unprincipled sellout.[1] 47.145.115.178 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Backpedaled on Gay rights

Can't add this since the page is locked now, but he had to backpedal his opposition to gay anti-discrimination laws because those same laws affect other minorities. clip here Ssorbom (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with GC

If someone adds the categories we can just remove them again. That's the point of a wiki. GeeJayK (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to argue about "redundant" categories, please have a lot at the categories first. For instance Category:Antifeminism and Category:Anti-LGBT bigots all have heavily overlapping subcategories. This isn't just limited to Peterson. If you're going to like talk about redundancy, maybe those categories should be reworked first, eh? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Category A being a subset of category B does not mean pages in category A should be removed from category B. That's not how RW has handled categories in general. There's probably a case to be made to thin out the total number of cats (given how crank magnetism tends to make them pile up, in particular) but that's not a discussion to be thrashed out on one specific page. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 00:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Leaving extra categories that are better handled under umbrella categories is just sloppy and lazy. Further, it clutters up the page with excess categories. This isn't new, I was against this sort of clutter years ago when it was being used in place of actual article content, and I've been pruning excess categories as I find them and need to for years now with no complaint. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see what these categories were first, I'm too lazy to search through the edit history and I woke up literally 20 minutes ago. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Andrew5 Then why are you getting involved at all? Why not just stay out of the matter one way or the other? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 13:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

someone should take a torch to the categories. i agree with gc's removals and would probably take out much more if i was inclined to bash my head against a brick wall. (i see 'enabler' is category. ech)AMassiveGay (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

and much strife could probably be avoided if people actually took things to talk pages a hell of a lot earlier than they do when it looks like something is going to be contentious. if they ever do bother taking things to talk page at all in some cases. it makes the difference between 'i disagree but meh' and 'fuck you you cunting cunt hole, die in a fire over what is otherwise a minor disagreement.' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

These categories are not redundant and they shouldn't be controversial and I think LGM didn't do anything unreasonable. And just so you know AMassiveGay, I will never call you a cuntin cunt hole or hope you die in a fire :) ShabiDOO 14:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shabidoo Could you please explain how they are not redundant? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay Why would I wish death on someone over this? That's a confusing statement. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

the point is mindlessly reverting posts with no comment or explanation is exasperating and maddening to the extreme. if one is not prepared to explain their reverts, on the talkpage or at the very least in in the edit comment then maybe not revert. and not repeatedly revert. i mean edit wars are about as close as you can get to a face to face interaction on wiki. if you told someone right in front of you, 'just gonna put this here for reasons' and they respond with nothing but a 'nope' throwing whatever you intended back in your face with no explanation, would that not irritate more than just a little? how many times would that behaviour have to be repeated before you'd slap their stupid face and wish apocalyptic calamities on them, or at the very least a maiming? even ghandi would hope for a mild concussion and make insinuations about their mother's loose morals. a simple 'oh no, because this thing' would suffice and you could respond 'oh i see, well i disagree because...' or 'i see your point' and i dont look around for a glass to push into their face and give it a good twist.

i dont ever claim to be unassailibly correct in every argument or point i may make here on this wiki but i do try to justify any edit or revert i might make, even if poorly. i can usually tell when i think i am correct but on the losing side of some dispute that i will give way, however grudgingly. its just so much easier to do if whomever i may be disagreeing with, standing right in front of me in internet terms, hasnt just not only completely ignored what ever it is i am saying, but spits in my face to boot. continually reverting edits with no reason given or even acknowledgement of why an edit was made in the first place, is spitting in my face, and i will wish you die in a fire. i wont mean it, but i'll say it. if one makes an edit - justify it. if you revert explain. people talk about civility alot on here. assume good faith. we should be treating others with a basic level of respect. its not just bad words and insults. not bothering at all to engage with someone, giving them no more of your time or thought than a mouse click to revert is the height of disrespect. you call someone a cunt, at least you acknowledge their existance. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay I did give edit summaries, but fine, I don't want to dwell on this. Moving back to the main point, the article has excessive categories, several of which are covered under other existing categories. This is the very definition of "redundant". If someone wants to make the case for necessary redundancy, fine go ahead, but if they're just going to pretend that there is no redundancy I'm not sure how to constructively proceed. If @Plutocow would please at least weigh in, then at least there'd be some indication as to where everyone stands. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

i werent taking a swipe at you, and i thought better than target any one specifically, just ma explaining point and qvetching about something, as someone with poor impulse control, raises my heckles. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

honestly though, the categories are a dreadful mess all over. any resolution here that goes one way or another will make little difference. probably not worth losing too much sleep on this one article AMassiveGay (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@AMassiveGay The thing is I've been trying to clean up categories as I find them for over 3 years now. From where I'm sitting, people are just up and deciding to stop that for what appears to be no reason. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Experienced sysops should not revert one another before using talk pages. It is quite clearly insulting to the initial editor. Is this difficult to understand?UncleKrampus (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that the number of categories assigned to an article might be regarded as an index of interest. It may be enlightening to consider that there are 35 attached to this article. The Josef Stalin article has 28. Hitler 38. Alex Jones 53. Interest in crackpots seems diverting enough. Addition of categories does at times seem like a game of word association more than anything else.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

My response to this process: if you look at time stamps, I reverted, I left a comment there, and that's when GC reverted my edit, with him already reverting back and forth with Plutocow. THAT'S what prompted a revert and lock. There are already edit summaries from Plutocow, a lengthier comment by me on the talk page. This lengthy commenting about "reverting without a reason is excruciating" is misdirected. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 While there is likely an issue of excessive categories, my main concern has been excessive use of categories that excessively overlap. For example, an article about Hitler may have the categories "Nazis" and "Antisemites". In such a case the latter category can be safely discarded, as it is covered under the former, and indeed, is definitional to the former. Thus the category section may be pruned of excessive redundancy. I hope this clarifies matters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually leaning more to removing "Anti-LGBT bigots" compared to removing "transphobes" and "homophobes", as as well as probably looking into "machismo" since that's just a gussied up men's rights label. I am, however, more of a "more the merrier" type for categories. I also don't think we can easily just remove whatever has both a category and subcategory either (e.g. conspiracy theorists, 9/11 truthers), it has to be case by case --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario A), I repeatedly told Plutocow to take the issue to the talkpage. That being said, my initial demand was, admittedly, poorly phrased as it did not explicitly mention the talkpage. That's on me, my bad. B) I have been taking this sort of thing case-by-case, for over three years now. I have no fucking clue why this has suddenly become an issue. C) I dislike excessive categories, as it's been used in place of article content in the past and makes navigating articles via categories much more difficult. In addition, it is my view just sloppy and amateur, especially when a more appropriate umbrella category is available. See also my hypothetical regarding the article on Hitler. Now, all of that having been said for the upteenth time, I'm grudgingly ok with removing the umbrella category "Anti-LGBT bigots" on the grounds that Peterson has only spoken on a few parts of that community to my knowledge, though this still seems rather counter-intuitive from an indexing perspective. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. I understand the frustration. On a similar note, I did do like range blocks before with no resistance, only to come up with opposition on a subsequent range block. I can assume only because people are probably not always attentive or remember how long you've been personally invested. I also think categories being added that isn't supported by body text is a very minimal approach to content expansion; I recall categories of "lgbt" being added to an article about a person and I had to personally look online to verify. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Lump of labor fallacy and enforced monogamy

Didn't this page use to have a quote of him claiming that women entering the workforce reduced wages? It should still be here because it is both untrue and indicative of misogyny. Surely the enforced monogamy quote is still dubious even after he clarified himself. It also might be worth including him saying that art requires god to exist in a similar vein to his statements about quitting smoking and presuppositionalism. In 12 rules for life he also tries to use an example of an Indian man making menstrual pads for his wife to prove patriarchy never existed. ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.74.195.121 / talk} Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)

Marraige and Divorce Section Assumptions

In the Marriage and Divorce section there seems to be the implication that divorce rates have had little to outright positive effects on society. The evidence supporting this is the high education rate and low crime rate.

Considering we're getting some of the worst suicide and depression rates ever seen in history, it seems a little harsh to just dismiss Peterson's thoughts on marriage. Requesting thread archival (why?) Plutocow (talk)