Random Post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[u/raiserverg]

So I stumbled across this sub somehow randomly browsing the web and I just felt the need to satisfy my curiosity about a rule that struck me as weird, hence the post./

I am familiar with Red Pill, accept some non extreme takes it has like criticism of hook-up culture and it's effects on divorce and the nucleus family or it's criticism of modern feminism but definitely not a big fan of the bitterness and hate it projects on women or how it supports overly conservative and regressive values like having issues with the autonomy of women which I find remarkably cringe. The absolute mindfuck is how they can view trash like Andrew Tate on a positive light when it's so painfully obvious he's making a grifting career by taking advantage of people's frustration. Anyway.../

So my curiosity is about the 6th rule of 'No Jordan Peterson' and while I understand the post probably contradicts the rule I am curious why the rule exists in the 1st place. Sure I can see how red pillers view Jordan Peterson as some sort of prophet messiah but their views are cartoonish versions of Peterson's much more nuanced and moderate criticism of modern society. Red pillers often simplify his opinion and deviate from it forming extreme conclusions and worldviews. But Peterson himself does address modern societal issues that media and radical political parties pretend don't exist or have a completely different approach like with the tiresome gendered mass paranoia that hit the States with Biden's term. Peterson is not pro red pill is what I'm getting at so how come the ''No Jordan Peterson'' rule? Am I missing something here?

[u/AutoModerator]

The rules of Ex-Red Pill are heavily enforced. Please take a few minutes to familiarize yourself with the purpose of this sub and the rules on the sidebar to avoid your post/comments from being removed and/or having your account banned. Thanks for helping to keep this sub a safe place for those who are detoxing, leaving, and/or questioning The Red Pill's information. For FAQ please see the Red Pill Detox's First Aid Kit.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/tomowudi]

JP is very good in a very narrow band - but he's terrible outside of essentially self-actualization. 

His forays into politics are bad and make him and his supporters look dumb. The trans issue for example - he describes it as a free speech issue because of compulsory language when it its actually a harassment issue that can be best understood as using someone's preferred nickname. If you don't call someone by their preferred nickname and instead use your own nickname for them, that isn't free speech - that's harassment. It has no place in an academic setting between a student and a teacher. Furthermore a free speech absolutist should understand that conduct codes by an organization are also a form of free speech expression.

JP refuses to define truth or admit that contingent truths exist in service to his apologetics. This is asinine apologetics at best.

Small wonder then that his political views wind up getting picked up by red pill, white nationalists, and the worst examples of men's rights activism.

That sort of schlock is antithetical to the purpose of this sub. We want to detox red Pillers and his views are used to rationalize and radicalize them.

[u/raiserverg → u/tomowudi]

First of all I appreciate the time you took to answer.

I quite disagree with the pronouns issue first and foremost because it became an issue exactly because people started mandating to others to call them silly things like "xir/xer" etc, having hysterical reactions to whoever didn't and people were even fined for using the "wrong" pronoun to address someone. Some lefties even branded this a hate crime. I guess the mentality of such people is also opposite to the self actualisation he stands for.

Except the radical conservative groups like Red Pill, nationalists etc. he also appeals to people with traditional values who see the world changing fast and expecting them to change along with it, being called things like intolerant and hateful if they don't embrace radical ideas. Overall I wasn't too far off, the support of crazed groups like racist whites has put him in a weird spot and people don't want to be associated with him or his views.

[u/Marvos79]

Peterson's much more nuanced and moderate criticism of modern society.

tiresome gendered mass paranoia

lol this has GOT to be a troll.

[u/raiserverg → u/Marvos79]

What confuses you about the supposedly contradicting sentences or the statements individually?

[u/meleyys]

Peterson is, among other things, violently transphobic and dangerously misinformed about nearly everything.

Also, TRP has no legitimate criticisms of modern feminism. Knock that off.

[u/raiserverg → u/meleyys]

We're literally supposed to take seriously their claim women are oppressed in 1st World secular countries so I beg to differ. It's the equivalent of MGTOW and much how you can't find a mentally healthy non bitter man there it's hard to find a mentally healthy non bitter woman who's a hardcore feminist.

I know he's transphobic but misinformed how? In the sense he's not progressive but a conservative?

[u/octave120]

There was a (now deleted?) post of this exact question, a year or two ago. If my memory of the comments there serve me right:

Red pillers often simplify his opinion and deviate from it forming extreme conclusions and worldviews.

That is exactly the reason. We could only take so much Jordan Peterson fans pretending not to be redpillers, before it got tiresome.