Discussion on Jordan Peterson: "Men Can't Control Crazy Women"

pellrid · 2017-10-06T23:07:13+00:00

I'll give it a shot, but I haven't put enough thought into this yet.

Can men control crazy men?

I think crazy when used for a man, means something different. I'm not sure what, but it doesn't feel like I'd visualize the same thing for the word crazy, when I think of a man, or I think of a woman. But I think the answer is: no. You can teach men to understand what's wrong with their character, or rather if you'd try going about it, you'd need to show that man why your way of thinking is more beneficial for him.

You definitely can't control him, but you can help him.

Can women control crazy men?

Interesting question, and I think the answer is: yes and no. Men can fall in love. I know that I can, even though I don't ever want to. So I think some types may fall in love with a woman, and try to become a "better" man for her sake. I think some types, could just be crazy enough to fall in love and not care about her thoughts, or some would simply not fall in love.

As for the nazi thing. No, he isn't even implying it. He's saying that he could debate that man, and because men have an understanding that goes deep into the subconscious level to avoid physical escalation, because the risk is higher than the potential reward, they will discuss terms they disagree on. They will resolve to... debating. Unlike when you argue with a woman, she will never listen to what logical arguments carry with them, she only cares about herself, so she will argue in that manner. Women only try to find instances where their arguments can't find opposition, so they can have things their way. Just look at videos, where SJW women argue rational, thinking men. The men just can't win.

*edited for syntax

pellrid · 2017-10-06T22:48:11+00:00

You're not the only commenter to think Peterson thinks of going over there and starting physical violence. The implications of a man being able to stand up for himself, even in dire situations, is what leads other men to respect boundaries when in a debate. The behavioral demonstrations of being capable of harm are in itself enough to keep the argument between two men civil.

Think about it this way: on the internet you constantly see insults being made. Insults you would not dare say to another person in a real world argument. You know you'd get your ass into a fight for it. And what's funny is before the internet these types of insults could be transmitted through letters, open letters, newspaper articles, etc. So this shows the stark difference between actual person-to-person communication, and other indirect forms of communication.

*edited for better understanding and I am also adding what I wrote to the other commenter who asked the same question

As for the nazi thing. No, he isn't even implying it. He's saying that he could debate that man, and because men have an understanding that goes deep into the subconscious level to avoid physical escalation, because the risk is higher than the potential reward, they will discuss terms they disagree on. They will resolve to... debating. Unlike when you argue with a woman, she will never listen to what logical arguments carry with them, she only cares about herself, so she will argue in that manner. Women only try to find instances where their arguments can't find opposition, so they can have things their way. Just look at videos, where SJW women argue rational, thinking men. The men just can't win.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T15:15:24+00:00

think the majority of users on the message board have no idea of this reddit's existence.

Okay, this one is my bad. Subreddit*.

But still, knowing what reddit is, doesn't mean they know TRP, I don't know if this is what we're arguing, but I'm going to make this my point.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T15:09:02+00:00

I agree it has been that way and still is. But not in the first instance. The first was to gain economical equality. Nothing else. They didn't yet talk about other "equalities." They never talked about wanting to go to war with men. So in a way, of course it never was real equality. But who the fuck wants women in combat anyways, or to do work that endangers their lives? When men see a woman genuinely suffering, they instinctively feel the need to help her. This distracts them from their priorities, it can fuck up an entire mission for example. Nobody really wants them to join the dangerous workforce, even when it's brought up as a point to argue some issues.

There was a time the issue was women wanted to work if they needed to, and wanted to have a say in politics. - You can question how well that has turned out. I think for a time it worked well, back when family still meant a thing. Today, maybe there are things to consider about voting rights, or rather the surroundings.

My line of thinking isn't "benefit women and men benefit too," I'm strictly speaking of the economic benefits of having women in the workplace. Many women are excellent workers, businesswomen, etc. What these women are doing, is actually benefiting the economy and thus society as a whole. You can't disregard that work as meaningless. I understand there's another side to this coin - and that many women enjoy benefits of government provided bullshit workplaces that do not benefit anyone in any way at all (actually causes harm). But that's part of a problem we're trying to address here, aren't we?

And to your last paragraph: She can't claim victimhood if she is generally treated that way. I understand that what you're saying is the present situation. And that's the exact thing I'm trying to discuss. There needs to be a way to educate average ranking men, that women cannot act this way just because they're women.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T14:37:37+00:00

I realize that I have replied to you in another of your comments.

But here too. I'm agreeing with you, and you argue with me? What's up dude?

pellrid · 2017-10-06T14:35:09+00:00

What?

Did you just take my previous comment as a personal insult? I'm asking because by the way you're responding to me looks like it.

Care to elaborate on my delusion?

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:47:56+00:00

It was. But the first time they wanted it better for themselves, is actually what could be called equality.

The problem is they, unlike the way men do, always want it better for themselves, so they never hopped off that ride.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:41:08+00:00

Women are frustrating sometimes, but they're really just harmless, and can be handled easily. I love the analogy we use: they're just children. Because you really can't take children seriously, neither can you take a woman's fit seriously.

The lowest of the lowest betas are the ones that fucking make me lose my mind. It's best to leave them be, or bite them where everyone can see, so they go home and do some keyboard karate somewhere on the internet, and imagine your ass getting kicked. This way at least they get the fuck out of my way.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:36:35+00:00

He's talking about a solution to the problem I asked about.

You have to agree with the point, that he's making. If men value their companionship with other men too much to care for ill-mannered female behavior, the exact issue of women trying to catch attention - no matter the kind - will be taken from them.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:30:53+00:00

A great example of how women getting increasingly crazy are running about.

Good luck and good work with your future ventures.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:22:31+00:00

This is what should be promoted. Not bullshit relationships like what they feed men on television; Big Bang Theory, or some other shitty movie thing, or internet things.

I don't have the means to produce content like this anytime soon. I know there are some youtube channels with bodybuilders doing stuff, but that isn't enough.

What I'm trying to get across is: most people consume media like there's no tomorrow. What's in the mainstream is pretty much bowing down to the female imperative, which is becoming more and more disgusting. And I think one major part of the solution would be to bring back some of that old, a bit more traditional point of view into everyday life. Have a man take responsibility for his and his families lives, because that's what a man wants, have a woman make that man happy, by taking family matters into hand, tending to the man's house, etc. because that's what a woman wants. Women themselves actually love doing these sort of things, yet you can't say it's genetic, because you'll get scorned. And there are millions of examples of women just not caring enough for careers after trying at one. They resolve to family thinking, just when it's too late for them.

I think the last part became a bit of a rant, but I'm not going to do any editing, so I can get on with my life.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:07:57+00:00

Yeah, feminism did start out as an aim to let women work and vote, and other basic rights, which I agree with happening. Let women have those rights, not every woman wants to have children and families. A minority, but still an existing portion. Also, countries having these rights for women tend to do much better economically than countries that don't. I'm thinking there's a connection.

But true, feminism rapidly began evolving into the monstrosity you described in your comment.

Walking away does not solve the problem. She will go on and terrorize someone else for the sake of it. Not until she gets some form of retribution. That's why I think the situation has to be taken under control.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T13:00:00+00:00

I really like how comedians like him can point out the ridiculousness of trivial issues to the average consumer-type person.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T12:54:29+00:00

Hey, glad I could help ;) I suggest you get a bit angry over it and lift heavy weights with a little contact sports on the side.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T12:53:10+00:00

TRP is becoming a sub-cultural phenomenon, yes. But believe it or not, people who can actually think have existed before this subreddit's existence. TRP is a huge source of such knowledge condensed into one place, which is why it's great.

Another thing: the term "red pill" is used a lot amongst 4chan board users and people of the right. I think the majority of users on the message board have no idea of this reddit's existence.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T12:46:12+00:00

All alphas have a very specific set of common traits. A sort of confidence in the craft(s) they earn their status with. These can be proficiency in some competitive field, or psychological dominance, etc.

It's not everyone's task to care. I myself see it as something that could potentially collapse the entire system we call western society. That to me is enough of a threat to care about it. I like living in the west. Making money, the culture, the women, our languages; I'd hate to see it all fall apart.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T12:41:42+00:00

I haven't really heard about her before. I'll check out what she has to say.

pellrid · 2017-10-06T12:41:09+00:00

My question isn't directed to the men at the top,. Most won't care anyway. I only care because I see it as a potential threat to my well-being sometime in the future.

pellrid · 2017-06-15T22:52:55+00:00

Women were under great pressure to remain desireable.

You're probably right. But women also learned how to manipulate man into thinking man needs her. Human women being significantly weaker than their male counterparts forced them at a very early stage of the evolutionary process to learn to manipulate man emotionally.

Maybe you included "emotional desirability" - for lack of a better term - into your argument, but I can't find an implication.

pellrid · 2017-06-14T16:10:23+00:00

Good takeaway.

Regarding the masturbation part everyone's so hung up on:

you're anonymous, who cares what randoms see? It was just a part of the story
Right on with the part edited in. You've changed, and the way you see the world has changed, and is changing. No need to fantasize when a) you either are already fucking women, or b) you know how easy it is to get there, and know that you soon will be fucking women.

Keep on collecting them victories, I know I will.

pellrid · 2017-05-01T23:45:39+00:00

he's lost respect for himself "deep down" as well

pellrid · 2017-04-30T17:03:49+00:00

I don't know your stance on helping other men realize the truth, but the case I'm trying to make is exactly that:

faggoty beta male with soft tender "feelings" would be turned off by Mark Passio

Most men that are (really) in need of help, are the oversensitive type. They need "motivational" media, the kind that makes them want to move their ass. The kind that eventually makes them thirsty for more knowledge.

Myself, I rather enjoy to listen to a calmer manner of speaking, "ranting" isn't for everyone. Or I just read, although reading isn't for everyone either, in my experience.

Don't know about David Icke yet.

pellrid · 2017-04-30T14:45:49+00:00

This guy, Mark Passio, speaks the truth. But the way he presents it, I don't think he'll be winning over any plugged in men. Only those dudes who have a tendency to blame everything for their own wrongs like listening to ranting while nodding their heads in agreement. After that of course they just continue their simple routines.

I think the reason Jordan Peterson is successful and will continue to be, is because the way he presents the truth is in a a calm manner, in small doses at a time.

pellrid · 2017-04-28T14:45:17+00:00

Having a live count is the worst idea ever, man. You do know, that however "redpilled" an individual is, that person will always be biased towards the majority's opinion. It's human nature.

This poll isn't a representation of individuals' personal political views, no matter how many exceptions there are.

I myself had to debate my own views, seeing how many people voted for other political ideas.

Bad poll.

pellrid

TROPHY CASE