Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

I'm tired of Jordan Peterson being associated with incels

  • Thread starter Incel Philosopher
  • Start date
I

Incel Philosopher

Veteran
★★
Joined
May 13, 2020
Posts
1,112
JP is a tradcuck, who managed to marry is oneitis at a young age. He has no experience with modern dating.

I don't give a shit that he "owned" a few feminists. His narrative isn't much better than theirs. He still tends to be quite politically correct, either out of fear or because the current system is actually serving him.

Apparently, he gets suicidal and homicidal people coming up to him at events and thanking him for saving their lives. I have been suicidal and homicidal for long periods, I don't see what he has to offer me.

His advice to incels essentially boils down to "make yourself a better potential betabuxx".
 
He didn’t even marry his oneitus at a young age. She was fucking dudes in Montreal while he was studying hard. She openly admitted when she heard Jordan got a PH. D from Harvard she jumped on that bandwagon cause he’s going places. Meanwhile he said she was the love of his life when he was a child.

So essentially, he thinks he got lucky for being with his childhood love while she was having sex with many men before that and settled for him due to him being a stable beta buck cuck.
 
I hate the rallying around one specific individual to embody/represent a movement. People are flawed; people like JP have a ton of dissenters who (will) tear him apart and use his worst qualities to tarnish whatever he stands for.
 
She was fucking dudes in Montreal while he was studying hard. She openly admitted when she heard Jordan got a PH. D from Harvard she jumped on that bandwagon cause he’s going places. Meanwhile he said she was the love of his life when he was a child.
Didn't know that, that's fucking brutal.
 
Its convenient for foid to associate JP with incelism because we are more powerful and dangerous (in GTA rp)
 
He didn’t even marry his oneitus at a young age. She was fucking dudes in Montreal while he was studying hard. She openly admitted when she heard Jordan got a PH. D from Harvard she jumped on that bandwagon cause he’s going places. Meanwhile he said she was the love of his life when he was a child.

So essentially, he thinks he got lucky for being with his childhood love while she was having sex with many men before that and settled for him due to him being a stable beta buck cuck.
I don't think he went to Harvard. I know he taught there.
 
yep JP is redpil, normie stuff nowadays redpill = bluepill because every young man is sprouting repill self improoove bullshit
 
He didn’t even marry his oneitus at a young age. She was fucking dudes in Montreal while he was studying hard. She openly admitted when she heard Jordan got a PH. D from Harvard she jumped on that bandwagon cause he’s going places. Meanwhile he said she was the love of his life when he was a child.

So essentially, he thinks he got lucky for being with his childhood love while she was having sex with many men before that and settled for him due to him being a stable beta buck cuck.
Thats sad
 
JP has changed his opinion on incels over time. He recognizes the struggle we face and has called out hypergamy. On his last interview that I remember he cried when asked about incels.

He may be flawed and redpilled, but he's one of the better people out there and has spoken in defense of incels. Most people don't recognize our victim status and think we are terrorists and rapists. Even redpillers speak major ill things about us.
 
On his last interview that I remember he cried when asked about incels.
He cried, but at the same time he framed it as incels needing to "make themselves attractive to women" and that women are justified to have the standards they have.

Women don't like you because you haven't careermaxxed and gymaxxed enough, bro. That's they only difference between you and Chad.
 
He cried, but at the same time he framed it as incels needing to "make themselves attractive to women" and that women are justified to have the standards they have.
He discreetly called women out on hypergamy and mentioned the damage it does. He also says incels don't know how to make themselves attractive to women, which is true and ties in with hypergamy.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1612L2FMHo
 
Benzodiapine addict will always grift between the north and south pole, while making that Kosher money.
To Him my dear friend <=> You´re simply an Ebil Rat.
 
He discreetly called women out on hypergamy and mentioned the damage it does. He also says incels don't know how to make themselves attractive to women, which is true and ties in with hypergamy.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1612L2FMHo

Yes, I've seen that interview but he doesn't mention hypergamy at all. Instead he says at one point "Women be picky, demand higher standards from your man". So he's very much in the camp of thinking men are incels because they aren't doing enough.

The only times he has talked about hypergamy he has misrepresented it. He has explained hypergamy as women dating up the "competence hierarchy". That's not even a redpill take, that's a bluepill take.

Women do not sleep with the most competent men. They sleep with the most good-looking and/or most popular men.
 
Yes, I've seen that interview but he doesn't mention hypergamy at all. Instead he says at one point "Women be picky, demand higher standards from your man". So he's very much in the camp of thinking men are incels because they aren't doing enough.
Yes, but he says it like it's a bad thing, which it is. He can't just drop unfiltered black pills or even red pills without getting cancelled or even losing people that initially agree with him, so his language very controlled and filtered. He has to think a lot about what he says.
 
He's somewhat right of centre so he must be an incel icon.

Don't like him personally myself.
 
That cuck faggot jew boomer does not represent incels at all. He calls himself the King of the Incels. Yet all he does is try to make tons of money off talking about incels and selling his books. He's just another jew grifter trying to make a buck at the expense of other people.
 
JP is a tradcuck, who managed to marry is oneitis at a young age. He has no experience with modern dating.

I don't give a shit that he "owned" a few feminists. His narrative isn't much better than theirs. He still tends to be quite politically correct, either out of fear or because the current system is actually serving him.

Apparently, he gets suicidal and homicidal people coming up to him at events and thanking him for saving their lives. I have been suicidal and homicidal for long periods, I don't see what he has to offer me.

His advice to incels essentially boils down to "make yourself a better potential betabuxx".
I like his defense of religion. He really makes a good case in his debate against Sam Harris, while Harris doesn't acknowledge that and doesn't really have anything to say
 
He's so vague everything he says can be liked by every non feminist and that's why he has successfully gained the sympathy of the manosphere. He's careful to never dismiss incels' struggles but without fully justifying them or he'd lose the tradcucks. By spreading his water is wet ideology a little here and there he doesn't upset anyone.
 
I like his defense of religion. He really makes a good case in his debate against Sam Harris, while Harris doesn't acknowledge that and doesn't really have anything to say
On the other hand, he got destroyed in the communist debate with Slavoj Zizek. Zizek isn't a usual leftist, he says a lot things offensive to the left but knows how to toe the line, a bit like Peterson.

In that debate, Peterson brought a lot of tradcuck talking points and made of strawman of Zizek. Then Zizek replied and demolished him.
 
Last edited:
JP is a tradcuck, who managed to marry is oneitis at a young age. He has no experience with modern dating.

I don't give a shit that he "owned" a few feminists. His narrative isn't much better than theirs. He still tends to be quite politically correct, either out of fear or because the current system is actually serving him.

Apparently, he gets suicidal and homicidal people coming up to him at events and thanking him for saving their lives. I have been suicidal and homicidal for long periods, I don't see what he has to offer me.

His advice to incels essentially boils down to "make yourself a better potential betabuxx".
I bought his book when I was retarded bluepilled idiot in university JFL
 
I don't even know how he came to be associated. My best guess is that he was saying things which go against the interests of hypergamous holeniggers and so he became bad boogeyman to clump in with all other bad boogeymen.
 
On the other hand, he got destroyed in the communist debate with Slavoj Zizek. Zizek isn't a usual leftist, he says a lot things offensive to the left but knows how to toe the line, a bit like Peterson.

In that debate, Peterson brought a lot of tradcuck talking points and made of strawman of Zizek. Then Zizek replied and demolished him.
I don't really see it that way. It was more of a dialogue, and it was essentially about Zizek's life work. Zizek is going to be more at home with communism and hegelianism than Peterson. Peterson gave his perspective as a psychometrist and psychologists and I think his take was good in defense of capitalism. As a viewer, Zizek didn't completely convince me either with e.g. praising China's regime and saying that sometimes for a period there needs to be a dictatorship, but afterwards it turns to democracy. But at the same time, I'm not really at home in this topic.

Zizek is right in his defense of the "heart" of marxism, but peterson is also right in pointing out that there is a marxist influence in academia which goes hand in hand with feminism and places things in the perspective of opressor vs opressed
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, he got destroyed in the communist debate with Slavoj Zizek. Zizek isn't a usual leftist, he says a lot things offensive to the left but knows how to toe the line, a bit like Peterson.

In that debate, Peterson brought a lot of tradcuck talking points and made of strawman of Zizek. Then Zizek replied and demolished him.
Btw in the last part of the debate about happiness I think Peterson understands the problem much better than Zizek
 
praising China's regime and saying that sometimes for a period there needs to be a dictatorship, but afterwards it turns to democracy. But at the same time, I'm not really at home in this topic.
Yeah, I'm sceptical of China's current regime having any benefit. However in general, history has shown that democracy requires a high level of development to work.

Democracy was new in many european countries in the 1920s and 1930s and there was a high percentage of extremist parties being voted in. You had the far-right and far-left in the same government, no majority coalition could be formed, and governments couldn't pass any legislation. When dictators arose in these countries, they were welcomed by people. And it wasn't just Germany and Italy. Literally half of europe fell under dictatorships or pseudo-dictatorships at this time.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top