that's a construction of it, but i don't imagine for a moment that that's what JBP wants. he's said what he wants: "social convention favoring stable pair bonding". y'know, nice wholesome stuff like families sternly but lovingly teaching their scions to stay married
-
-
Replying to @chaosprime
because trads like to make it sound like you're getting something good, like support, and just ignore the fact that the reason that support is important that without it, if you're considered beyond the pale, you starve to death on the street
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chaosprime
the government enforcing monogamy would be bad because the government could be taken over and the enforcement could be changed. what's desired is grassroots enforcement, treatment of those who don't behave properly as scum
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
i've said what it means like six times now it means that the social conditions mean heterosexually pairbond or die
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
right, because we don't live in an enforced monogamy society (though it'll only be women that are forced to have partners of course)
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
if we lived in an enforced monogamy society in the way Peterson wants, it would be nonsensical for Peterson to suggest we could change to an enforced monogamy society to solve our problems
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
it doesn't, the impact that is interpreted by incels as relevant to their problems is the practical capacity of women to choose to go unpartnered
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.