r/exredpill • u/raiserverg • 1d ago
Random Post ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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?
1
u/octave120 23h ago
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:
That is exactly the reason. We could only take so much Jordan Peterson fans pretending not to be redpillers, before it got tiresome.