Categories
doggoes jordan "slappy" peterson misogyny PUA twitter

Worst. Pickup. Line. Ever. (Courtesy of Jordan Peterson)

Ewww

By David Futrelle

Well, this little joke went over well on Twitter so I thought I’d post it here too.

Here’s one that didn’t go over quite as well. But it might just come to haunt your dreams.

Some good-ass tweets by people who aren’t me:

https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1028321380213907458

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

363 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Makroth - cowboy Jacobin from Hell
Makroth - cowboy Jacobin from Hell
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

Tell me, “traditionalist”: What is your opinion on “smart sperm”?

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
2 years ago

@calmdown

Yep, it was that. Have you read it? I just saw it and didn’t feel like even touching it. What advice does it purport to give? Is is all red pill Incel horse shit? Are people taking it seriously?
Seriously, is it worse that “The Myth of Male Power”? (I’ve got a copy if that, the one with the plastic cowboy cover, because I saw it at a second hand book sale and didn’t want it to fall into the wrong hands)

Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Scildfreja Unnyðnes
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim,

Pardon me while I wend loquacious.

Why not let them read it? If he is as wrong as you say then he will discredit himself.

Last I checked it was still legal to read Peterson’s work. You conflate mockery and censure.

No one here thinks that stupid, disagreeable books should be banned. We’re just upset that his brand of hateful wrongness is popular.

And yes, he’s wrong and hateful. He’s wrong – he relies on Jungian psychology for his theories, as one example, and Jung’s work has been discredited as deeply, deeply wrong for a very long time now. He’s hateful, because he knows he’s wrong and doesn’t care; he wants to prop up hate more than he wants truth. He’s a trained psychologist, he knows Jung is garbage – every undergraduate in his field knows that. He’s so in love with his superiority that he’s happy to bulldoze the lives of others to ensure it.

Just like you. I took a browse through your blog, your faff about the Byronic romanticism of the Dark Enlightenment is so stuffed full with smug surety that it leaves you blind to the combinatorial wrongness in your premises. You’re more in love with your pretty ideas than you are interested in whether they’re true.

I’ve read it before, though, the last time you were here. You haven’t added anything to it since then. Beat on the drum once and that was enough for you, I guess? Content to sit on the laurels of your eloquence? You’ve mashed them flat and wilted under your restful ass, and you do disgrace to the fair city you preen on about.

You’re wrong. Do better.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

He was here before? Must not have been too memorable. Hopefully he’ll get more interesting if he decides to comment again.

calmdown
calmdown
2 years ago

@Virgin Mary

No, I haven’t read it myself. I thought about hate-reading it for amusement but it’s still just too popular right now and would probably take months to get. I suppose I could grab it if I see it on the shelf but tbh it’s pretty long and I don’t know if I could stomach that much of Peterson’s tedious writing style(I also prefer audiobooks and he reads his own which means alternatively I’d have to listen to his horrible depressed kermit voice for hours) It appears to be “psychology” based self-help book mostly, with advice like “clean your room” and shit like that. I know Peterson is very tricky and careful not to come out and say things like “women are all sluts” or “I hate trans people,” but instead offers lots of vapid philosophical life advice, which these Incel/MRA guys just eat up. And, something about how lobsters have natural hierarchies?

Anyway here is the blurb:

“What does everyone in the modern world need to know? Renowned psychologist Jordan B. Peterson’s answer to this most difficult of questions uniquely combines the hard-won truths of ancient tradition with the stunning revelations of cutting-edge scientific research.

Humorous, surprising and informative, Dr. Peterson tells us why skateboarding boys and girls must be left alone, what terrible fate awaits those who criticize too easily, and why you should always pet a cat when you meet one on the street.
What does the nervous system of the lowly lobster have to tell us about standing up straight (with our shoulders back) and about success in life? Why did ancient Egyptians worship the capacity to pay careful attention as the highest of gods? What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful? Dr. Peterson journeys broadly, discussing discipline, freedom, adventure and responsibility, distilling the world’s wisdom into 12 practical and profound rules for life. 12 Rules for Life shatters the modern commonplaces of science, faith and human nature, while transforming and ennobling the mind and spirit of its readers.”

(Honestly, all I can think of when I read the description that is the Simpsons town motto: “a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man”)

Shadowplay
2 years ago

” … and why you should always pet a cat when you meet one on the street.”

I suppose not even he can be wrong about everything.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

@Shadowplay
Nah, that’s wrong, too. You should always offer pets to cats, but if they aren’t into it, you nod at them and continue on your way.

Shadowplay
2 years ago

@kupo

True. Just lucky around here – all the cats think it’s their right to brighten the day of passers by by demanding a token skritch or ten. 🙂

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

From @calmdown’s post (12 Rules blurb)

What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful?

Dreadful paths? Like recommending a meat-only diet as a cure for depression?
Or climate change denialism?
Being so thin-skinned that you can’t handle even the mildest criticism?
Demonstrating on a daily basis that you don’t understand history, or science, or even your own discipline of psychology?
Pretending that being asked to use preferred pronouns is akin to torture?
Blaming women for men’s murderous rage?

Help me, I can’t stop….

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Why not let them read it?

Holy shit, I can prevent people from reading a book simply by finding it a stupid hateful waste of time? How does this magic function? Do the books simply refuse to open when they sense that I disapprove of them? Are ebooks and audiobooks corrupted by my scorn? How far does my power extend? Do the books have to be a certain length before I can telepathically prevent them from being read? Can I also render pro-life pamphlets illegible, or do they not count as close enough to books to be affected?

Z&T
Z&T
2 years ago

@ calmdown,

“Honestly, all I can think of when I read the description that is the Simpsons town motto: “a noble spirit embiggens the smallest man” ”

That’s a perfectly cromulent assessment!

Oh a “traditionalist” popped up here? I don’t understand what’s stopping people from living that way. Well, the present economy is a hindrance to some, others just choose not to.

And I think all lifestyles should be seen as valid, rather than trying to force everyone to be “traditional”, that doesn’t work for a lot of people for various reasons.

As example: my friends and I were discussing real estate. I have this piece of vacant land I need to get rid of. Would it work for everyone? No. Lobsters would not want to live there since it’s out in the middle of the desert.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

I don’t see what’s keeping Peterson fans from wanting to live in the desert. 😉

Austin G Loomis
2 years ago

May God forgive me. May history judge me charitably. I found the Tumblr post of which the Alpha Lobster’s tweet reminded me:

afrovegan (Deactivated)

Ever see a couple that’s been together for a while and they look the same ? They could be different races but still have a strong resemblance like family ? Here’s why . During sex when a man ejaculates . His sperm or DNA is uploaded . And a female downloads it in the form of love . The more she opens up to him and her defenses fall the more data she’s able to download. So in reality fellas we are the ones giving BRAIN . How ? Sperm has cerebral spinal fluid . Or (Brain,Spine,Fluid) . It starts in the brain then is sent down the spine and turned into fluid . When women download the data it’s not just kids in the sperm . It’s your thoughts and feelings as well . That’s also how women have this Connection to the men they have been with for a while . She doesn’t have to be with you or around you, and could call you as another woman is thinking about approaching you Or can tell when something isn’t right . They call it an intuition . But It’s a mental connection . The woman basically becomes a mini version of the man by taking take on personality traits as well . That’s why it’s important for females to choose their partner carefully .

I wound up having to google “sperm download brain spine”, because I got much further down in my “dear god” “yes my {son;child}?” “i would like to file a bug report” tag chain than I thought it was. Or maybe I just had better sense than to reblog it in the first place.

Z&T
Z&T
2 years ago

@ Austin G,

Oh lords that’s bad. Bad ridiculous.

Download and upload? Eesh. My car has electrical issues, I am sending thought waves to get it to work. Why is it not fixed yet?

I love the outdoors, I have allergies. I have sneezed at all the plants for 40 some years now, why have I not become a plant yet?
Or at least lost the allergies?

Skylalalalalalala
Skylalalalalalala
2 years ago

What dreadful paths do people tread when they become resentful, arrogant and vengeful?

They become his followers.

I have this piece of vacant land I need to get rid of. Would it work for everyone? No. Lobsters would not want to live there since it’s out in the middle of the desert.

My mom has one of those as well – vacant desert land (in Paramph, Nevada) they bought before I was even born. No one wants to buy it, the town doesn’t even want it back. She thought about not paying her taxes so they’d have to take it back, since we aren’t even in the same country.

calmdown
calmdown
2 years ago

Lobsters would not want to live there since it’s out in the middle of the desert.

Wait, do scorpions count? They are basically desert lobsters…

Richard Ford
2 years ago

I am not sure why finding value in free speech makes me a ‘traditionalist. I wish free speech as the tradition throughout the world. In fact it is quite radical in many places.

Seriously, though. Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better? We have seen insults, threats and one woman who broke into his lecture hall with a garrotte, presumably with murder on her mind.

Just tell us where he is wrong.

DerangedDan
DerangedDan
2 years ago

@Yutolia

I’m a bit late to the party, but I wanted to mention that most birds have a very limited sense of smell. You generally don’t have to worry about any kind of scent-based deterrent scaring them off.

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

@Nequam

Really a shame about Shermer. I still think his essay on where Objectivism went wrong (“The Unlikeliest Cult in History”) is excellent.

I might actually like to read that. Watching right-libertarians try to differentiate themselves from Randists can be hilarious sometimes.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ Richard Ford

Just tell us where he is wrong

Lobsterman’s hypothesis:

Observation: There are men who hate women so much they want to, and in some cases do, kill them.

Solution: Women should be forced into sexual relationships with such men in the hope that might placate them.

Why not make a case against what he says and in favour of something better

Rebuttal: That puts the onus on the victims to capitulate to their attackers.

Better solution: Put the onus and societal pressure on the attackers so as to modify their behaviour instead. If behaviour does not change, then neutralise ability of attackers to do harm.

Richard Ford
2 years ago

@Alan Robershaw

Actually Top Lobster said no such thing. I think I know what you are referring to though. He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.

I will not be too hard on you as you may simply be repeating what you have been told but it is a prime example of what I was talking about. The Left cannot refute his arguments so they strawman him.

Really. Critics need to do better.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ Robert Ford

said no such thing

I’m afraid I would have to differ.

He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.

He went beyond mere observation though; he proposed a course of action.

“The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”

Enforced and Monogamy are words with pretty clear definitions.

Monogamy – the practice or state of having a sexual relationship with only one partner.

Enforce – Compel observance of or compliance with (a law, rule, or obligation)

So he is advocating compulsion; heck ‘force’ is hardly a word that’s in any way ambiguous.

Now he’s not very coherent or consistent. So he’s simultaneously arguing that women need to be compelled; but also that that’s what happens ‘naturally’ anyway.

Although that then begs the question as to, if his proposed solution is already in place, then why does the problem still exist?

So I’m not quite sure how it can be suggested I’m misinterpreting him. Those are his own words after all; and one might expect a man of his learned credentials to know what words mean.

jblackfyre
jblackfyre
2 years ago

@Alan Why are you even attempting to argue? Just point them to the *many* posts and comments written here and elsewhere and say goodbye.

You’ll just get the usual “but context!!” and “you haven’t read all the books and seen all the youtube videos and…”

As soon as I see one of those commenters I immediately think: “oh boy, here we go again…”

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

Ok I have read all the comments but have still missed what the joke was?

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@Richard Ford

“He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.”

Rather disingenuous of you. He went beyond mere observation and encouraged a society form of action to “encourage” if you prefer women into relationships with men a propensity to violence.

So women are the sacrificial lambs instead of working to rid these men of their sense of violent entitlement.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
2 years ago

@ jblackfyre

Alan Why are you even attempting to argue?

Because I’m engaging in diversionary behaviour from doing actual work and I’ve run out of capybara videos.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

Just tell us where he is wrong

Witches live in swamps.

In all the fairy tales and movies I’ve seen, the overwhelming majority of witches live in forests. Maybe he was thinking of Minecraft?

That’s besides the fact that he insisted to the NYT that witches, and dragons, exist in the first place. “But he meant archetypes“, I can hear you saying. Okay, then why didn’t he follow his own Rule Ten, ‘Be precise in your speech’ and just say what he meant in the first place?

All of his pronouncements on gender relations are wrong as well: how women secretly love brutal men, how women aren’t ambitious, how men can’t work side by side with women for eight hours a day, how male anger would be reduced if only everybody had a partner, which completely flies in tue face of all the evidence about domestic violence. There is no evidence to support any of this. Only his gut feeling.

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy

He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.

There are plenty of reasons why society treats the pain of young white men as a public concern. A great many of us learned from an early age that bad things happen when white men have hurt feelings.

(Laurie Penny)*

You’re saying almost the same thing. The difference is that Penny (and others like myself) don’t think that it’s women’s responsibility to fix this anger, or pain. Leave us out of it, thanks.
*Apologies to Mammotheers, because I’ve referred to this article multiple times now 🙂

Richard Ford
Richard Ford
2 years ago

@buttercup Q

If the prof genuinely did claim that witches and dragons were real I would be greatly surprised and would have to change my view of him. Unfortunately this claim comes from a notorious Leftist paper with little credibility.

There is no doubt that SOME women crave brutal men or why would serial killers get so many marriage offers? One problem I have with the Left is that it thinks in groups and overlooks individuals. (ALL men are bastards ext ext ext). It is quite possible for a thing to be true of one person and false for another.

The remainder of his assertions are uncontroversial and supported by all available evidence.

Richard Ford
2 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw.

100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.

Monogamy was simply the way things were. So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all. We just need to get back to what works and most people will soon forget about being lesbian squirrels or transgender donkeys or whatever the latest gender fad is.

They will not miss it at all.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@RichardFord

Get back to the way things “were” how exactly? When women were forced into relationships with men they rather wouldn’t due to societal stigma and financial necessity?

What about what women want? If they aren’t selecting these men of their own free will why coerce them into doing so? What not get the men to change their behaviour instead of the women?

Incidentally we still have monogamy. Polyamory is still not the norm?

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

Anyway Richard Ford seems like he got lost on his way to RoK / Breitbart…

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.

Monogamy was simply the way things were. So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all.

Ah, yes, 100 years ago, when women couldn’t vote, when marital rape was legal, when women were barred from most professions.

No, no, nothing sinister or authoritarian at all.

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@Scildfeja

There is something I genuinely do not understand. Why are the feminists who post here so often angry about things? You are the establishment now and have been for 60 years. You have the media, acedema ext ext on your side. Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.

Why not simply enjoy your good fortune?

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@Steph

RoK banned me for using the word ‘love’. I am a romantic above all.

Men have far more social pressure to ‘man up and get married’ not least on this site. A MGTOW is assumed to hate women when more often they do not wish to support one.

On an evolutionary level this is justified but why not treat men and women the same?

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

2 anti-feminists for the price of one!

Anyway conservatives seem confused. I thought everybody hated and rejected feminists and now they’re the “establishment”?

Surely if they were the corridors of power would look rather different?

As for the “angry feminist” stereotype – please try and be a little more interesting. Next you’ll be talking about “fat feminists” and alluding to spinsters with cats.

All just so boring!

(And I still don’t get the first joke. Somebody please help!)

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@steph

Back to the days when men and women (especially women) reported being far happier than they do now.

Back to the days when men and women wrote love poems.

Red R. Lion
Red R. Lion
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

“Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.”

Wait. I thought we were all 14 years old girls taking useless women’s studies diplomas at ivy league universities. (But only after each of us personally took the spots of at least 1000 men each, preventing those men from studying STEM fields, which in turn prevented these men from going on to build buildings that would hunt the mammoths for us.)

🤔

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

Hey London, do you know what else there was back in the Good Old Days? No internet. No computers! No cell phones! If you reaaaaally want to go back there, you’d better get off your flashing devilbox pronto.

Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
Red R. Lion (formerly Dawn)
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

“Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.”

Wait. I thought we were all 14 years old girls taking useless women’s studies diplomas at ivy league universities. (But only after each of us personally took the spots of at least 1000 men each, preventing those men from studying STEM fields, which in turn prevented these men from going on to build buildings that would hunt the mammoths for us.)

🤔

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim.

Oh please! Men can be single forever and get the “bachelor” label which is seen as cool. An unmarried man is viewed as “lucky” and avoided a trap. Especially if he still finds lots of young women to date.

An unmarried woman is a “spinster”, an “unfortunate old maid”. Note there are no male equivalents of those terms.

MGTOW’s aren’t assumed to hate women. They actually do. It’s why they spend so much time spewing misogyny online instead of quietly going their own way.

Steph
Steph
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim.

Correlation does not equal causation. You need to determine “why” women report lower levels of happiness now before determining it’s because they miss the days of having no autonomy.

Besides how would MGTOW cope if we returned to a time when women were their financial dependents?!

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.

Most of the violent men he discusses are white and middle class. How are these men disenfranchised?
White men can vote and own property, they’ve always had the basic rights, they’re the wealthiest demographic, the most represented in government and corporate boards and in the media. When white men commit crimes, the conversation in the media tends to be about how troubled they were and anxiety over their lives being ruined.

100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.

Monogamy was simply the way things were. So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all. We just need to get back to what works and most people will soon forget about being lesbian squirrels or transgender donkeys or whatever the latest gender fad is.

They will not miss it at all.

Citation needed. You need to read your history.

Love and marriage were never one constant thing. They’ve constantly evolved with the culture. The good old days in which women stayed virgins until marriage, every man got a good woman and there was no divorce or polyamory simply never existed.

Also, LGBTQ people always existed. Again, read up on actual history, don’t just read what right wing “thinkers” say history was.

You are the establishment now and have been for 60 years. You have the media, acedema ext ext on your side. Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.

We are far from the establishment. In the US, there are literally hundreds of anti-choice bills passed every year. Powerful men who get caught sexually harassing women get rehabbed in the public mind almost immediately. Etc. Etc.

There’s a saying; “when you’re used to privilege, equality looks like oppression.” Your comments epitomize this saying. Men are not oppressed and women are not dominant. You and men like you are just upset that we’re inching closer to equality. Deal with it.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

We just need to get back to what works

…for white men.

FTFY.

Why is the solution always to take freedom and rights away from women, instead of asking men to meet the *ridiculously* low bar of not being violent murderers?

Why is it always about protecting men’s “right” to dominate other people, at the expense of personhood for everybody else?

You’re forgetting that male violence against women has always existed, even (especially even) back in those “good old monogamous days”. Women in general were not happier then. Even if they were fortunate enough to be married to kind, loving husbands and had a solid marriage, they weren’t allowed to live their lives to the fullest. They were confined to the home, restricted by laws, barred from most jobs, not allowed to buy property, start businesses, get a secondary education, or develop their minds. (If you’re wondering where all the great female inventors in history are, there’s your answer. They were suppressed at birth.) Female artists, poets, and authors were comparatively rare. Many had to hide behind male pen names.

At least nowadays, women have options for speaking up and escaping hellish relationships. They don’t have to depend entirely on a man for their existence. They don’t have to stay in an abusive relationship because the alternative is starvation and social exile. They can marry who they choose. Please explain why this is a bad thing.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Oh, and on the reporting lower levels of happiness thing, compared to when?

Widespread scientific surveying of the population was not a thing until fairly recently. There’s no way to make a claim that women were happier in the earlier 1800’s or whatever.

There’s also problems with how happiness is defined. It’s often assumed to be this pretty static thing. Either a person is happy or they aren’t. That’s not true. Tiny tweaks in experimental settings can have a big effect on people’s reported happiness levels.

And like Steph said, correlation is not causation. If you’re going to blame feminism, you need to make sure you rule out things like increasing income inequality, stagnant wages and higher cost of living. Considering that “socialist” countries like Denmark frequently top lists of happiest countries, the return to gilded era capitalism in many countries (US, UK) seems like it could be the main culprit here. This hypothesis is supported by the epidemics of melancholia and “hysteria” during the gilded age when we last had such unregulated capitalism and high income inequality.

Miss Cobalt
Miss Cobalt
2 years ago

Jordan Peterson knows very well what words mean.

He has chosen to be a professional bullshitter for personal gain.

Nothing sells better than the tired old saw of throwing women under the bus for men’s sake. Grumpy old farts with lots of money pay their mouthpieces well.

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

They can marry who they choose. Please explain why this is a bad thing.

Sure! if women can CHOOSE who they want to be with, then they might not CHOOSE to be with the men who want to go back to the good old days when women didn’t have a choice. And then those men won’t have wives and will be sad and will go around killing people and it will all be the fault of those selfish women! So you see, for the good of society, we must force women into relationships with men who are predisposed towards killing people./sarcasm

London Pilgrim
2 years ago

@buttercupQ.

Unfortunately you are mind reading. This is a common feminist problem.

It is probably impossible to tell is someone is happy or not with perfect certainty. All we can do is ask them which is why I said reported happiness. Women, in particular get less happy under feminism unless we are to assume they are all lying.

You also assume that if a woman chooses to be a mother and so on it is because she has been dragged into it. In fact the evidence points to this being a natural instinct. Look at the cats and dogs. Who is coercing them?

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

@London Pilgrim

Buttercup didn’t say a single damn thing about choosing to be a mother. Now who’s doing the mind reading?