Jordan Peterson Calls Out The "Pseudo-moralistic Stances" Of Activists | Q&A - YouTube - [On climate change etc] "Do you think that you're worse off than your grandparents?... fundamentally I'm a psychologist and my experience has been that people can do a tremendous amount of good for themselves and for the people who are immediately around them by looking to their own inadequacies and their own flaws and the things that they're not doing in their lives and starting to build themselves up as more powerful individuals. And if they're capable of doing that and then they're capable of expanding their career. And if they're capable of expanding their career and their competence then they're capable of taking their place in the community as effective leaders. And then they're capable of making wise decisions instead of unwise decisions when it comes to making collective political decisions. Not suggesting in the least and have never suggested that there's no domain for social action. I'm suggesting that people who don't have their own houses in order should be very careful before they go about reorganizing the world... I think generally people have things that are more within their personal purview that are more difficult to deal with and that they're avoiding and that generally the way they avoid them is by adopting pseudo-moralistic stances on large-scale social issues so that they look good to their friends and their neighbors"
The feminist case for Jordan Peterson - "unfortunately, for all that Peterson is guilty of erecting straw (wo)men, I must unhappily admit that a great many contemporary feminists are made of straw. My antipathy to Peterson when I first came across him was, I suspect, partly the result of embarrassment. I knew there were weaknesses within some feminist arguments and was reluctant to acknowledge the failures of my own in-group. Then there is the fact that Peterson’s analysis of human history does not sit easily with the simplistic understanding of sexism we often hear from progressives. It’s so much easier, and so much more appealing, to believe that if only men stopped behaving like arseholes for five minutes, then society would right itself, and we’d naturally settle at a point of harmonious equality between the sexes. This seems to be the view held by feminists who say, for instance, that sex inequality is just as harmful to men as it is to women, as if millennia of sexual and domestic violence were just a silly accident, easily rectified through education. There is even an increasingly influential bloc of trans-inclusive feminists who argue that biological sex is all a social construct and that “female” and “male” are not coherent categories at all. The mainstream progressive view is that any differences we see between the sexes are entirely socialised, entirely irrational, and therefore entirely curable through cultural reform. There is a fear of confronting a hard question that Peterson brings to the fore: what if it’s not that easy? What if hierarchy, and viciousness, and violence are baked in? What if the feminist task is much, much harder than we’ve previously acknowledged? There is a central issue which Peterson recognises, and which leading voices within mainstream feminism currently refuse to. Once we get past all the minor issues that dominate social media — from “man-spreading” to the Bechdel test — we get to a core problem that lies at the centre of the feminist project which no one is quite sure how to solve. Women are physically vulnerable to men, who are on average far bigger, stronger, and more aggressive than they are. They are made still more vulnerable by childbearing. This is true in every part of the world, and in every historical period we know of. Modern Western nations have come closer than any others to solving this problem through a combination of birth control and a sophisticated criminal justice system. But it is still the case that women and children are acutely vulnerable to what Second Wave feminists called “male violence” and Peterson just calls “violence”’ and the results are devastating”: 95 per cent of murders worldwide are committed by men; 99 per cent of sex offenders are male. No one knows how to properly restrain the (not insubstantial) minority of men who commit such acts, or even if we can... I now realise that, for all his bluster, and for all that I’m repulsed by some of his fans, Peterson’s work is valuable to feminists for the simple reason that he takes the origins of violence seriously. Which is more than can be said for self-described feminists who hand-wave the problem by insisting, as I heard one rape crisis colleague put it, that “people of all genders sexually assault people of all genders”. I am heartily sick of a feminist discourse that is totally lacking in seriousness. While Peterson may have many flaws, a lack of seriousness is not one of them... In 2018, Peterson appeared on an episode of Question Time on the BBC. The panel were asked a question about knife crime, to which the regular suite of politicians and journalists gave the usual responses. It’s about cuts to youth services, they argued, or family dysfunction, or a lack of role models. Peterson’s answer was novel. He pointed to research which suggests that when young men are unable to advance themselves by pro-social means, they will often turn to anti-social means instead. Committing violent crime can be a way of achieving notoriety, increasing a young man’s status and pushing him to the top of his particular social hierarchy (you see, it’s those lobsters again). You don’t have to agree with that analysis, but you do have to admit that it’s interesting. It’s also far more useful than any of the platitudes offered by the rest of the Question Time panel... It’s not as though there are many others being presented. Influential feminists continue to insist that we should just “teach men not to rape” through consent workshops and privilege-checking, but thus far that strategy has produced nothing except confusion and resentment. At least Peterson is thinking hard about this issue — harder, in fact, than the authors of most of the pink-covered books stacked in the “gender and sexuality” section. I once dismissed his work because it forced me to question the assumptions of my in-group. Now, frankly, I’d rather read Peterson."
Dr Jordan B Peterson on Twitter - "Mark my words: A very large proportion of the insistence on the distinction between gender and sex is undiagnosed (and self serving) narcissism. But by the time this is revealed clinically many medical careers and innocent lives will be destroyed."
When Jordan Peterson says "mark my words," you'd better listen up, bucko - "When you think of it this way, suddenly all those weird Tik Tok videos make sense"
Charges against Peterson should be 'thrown out like a dead mouse' - "The latest of a dismal sequence of outrages and oppressive acts officiously imposed upon the very distinguished and widely admired academic, clinical psychologist and public intellectual, Jordan Peterson, is an intervention by the College of Psychologists of Ontario purporting to require Peterson to undergo a lengthy course of “media training,” in order that he might conduct his online communications “more appropriately.” This is a stupefying insolence from a professional body intent on pettifogging and harassing an extraordinarily successful colleague. Jordan Peterson has had an impeccable professional reputation throughout his 20 years as a research psychologist at Harvard University and the University of Toronto. He has immense clinical experience and his pioneering work in bringing psychology to a vast worldwide internet audience, including 15-million people all over the world who follow him on three different social media platforms, has made serious psychology much more accessible. Peterson has very correctly rejected this request that he submit to re-education and will be required to appear at a disciplinary hearing where coercive measures will doubtless be invoked against him under threat of the revocation of his clinical licence in Ontario, with the resulting damage to his reputation, as well as a suspension of his right to practise as a psychologist within Ontario. The complaints against him were brought by people with whom he says he had zero clinical contact and have nothing to do with his function as a clinical psychologist. Instead, many of the complaints involve Peterson’s criticism of the Trudeau government, in each case a perfectly civilized expression of reasonable dissenting opinion, more learned certainly, but no more abrasive than the comments of opposition politicians and media critics of the government. In particular, Peterson is attacked for retweeting Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, for criticizing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former chief of staff, Gerald Butts, as well as the prime minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and an Ottawa city councillor, and objecting to the threat of the Ottawa police to take custody of the children of some of the Freedom Convoy protesters last winter. This is of a piece with parallel developments in the professional regulation of physicians and lawyers, curbing the expression of opinion and claiming authority over anything that a clinical psychologist or a member of other professions in Ontario may say or write to anybody on any subject. In a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, Peterson explicitly blames on Trudeau this movement to empower the regulatory bodies governing the medical, legal and psychological professions with the ability to terrify their members over their “own conduct and the increasingly compulsion-based and ideologically pure policies that you (Trudeau) have promoted and legislated. I simply cannot resign myself to the fact that in my lifetime I am required to resort to a public letter to the leader of my country to point out that political criticism has now become such a crime in Canada that if professionals dare engage in such activity, government-appointed commissars will threaten their livelihood and present them with the spectacle of denouncement and political disgrace. There is simply and utterly no excuse whatsoever for such a state of affairs in a free country.”... Jordan Peterson is probably rivalled only by Justin Trudeau as the most famous Canadian in the world and he would undoubtedly surpass Trudeau in the esteem of the world. It is a scandalous reflection on the authoritarian philistinism of our society that several years ago, a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University was severely reprimanded for playing a clip of Peterson speaking on television in class. A supervising faculty member chastised the student and said it was an act as offensive as playing a speech of Hitler’s. The university eventually backed down, but the ignorant and dictatorial mindset had been revealed. Jordan Peterson does not share one single iota of political or social belief with Adolf Hitler, and in any case, given Hitler’s immense prominence as a historical figure, it would be perfectly in order to play a speech of his as an educational matter, and not with any suggestion that such an act was motivated by a desire to promote Nazism... The self-declared purpose of the College of Psychologists of Ontario is that it “ensures you receive competent and ethical professional psychological services from qualified providers.” It is impossible to reconcile this mission statement with the current persecution of Jordan Peterson."
Famous thinkers demand Ontario psychologist regulator drop case against Peterson - "The letter was signed by 75 intellectuals. Some of the signatories include New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Harvard University psychology professor Steven Pinker, and Concordia University marketing professor Gad Saad... He has to take social media training, with reports documenting his progress. If he objects, he will face an in-person tribunal hearing and suspension of his right to practice as a licensed clinical psychologist. The CPO alleges some of Peterson’s comments about topics such as gender ideology, climate change, overpopulation, and nuclear power appear to undermine public trust in the profession and raise questions about his ability to work as a psychologist. The intellectuals said they do not, “and the allegation they do is symptomatic of precisely the dogmatic victimhood ideology that Dr. Peterson is famous for criticizing.” The letter said a person does not need to agree with all of his beliefs to realize the CPO’s concerns do not relate to his clinical practice. It said the CPO has presented no evidence he lacked professionalism, undermined public trust in the profession, or committed actions which would have raised questions about his ability to carry out his responsibilities as a psychologist. The letter went on to say Peterson has expressed opinions which he has every right to do without the threat of losing his licence. It added these opinions are shared by many psychotherapy patients, who would be ill-served by a profession demonizing their beliefs and purging a psychologist sharing them. The intellectuals concluded by saying the CPO is “abusing its mandate for ensuring professional integrity to engage in thought policing, ideological indoctrination, and compelled speech, which is unacceptable in a liberal democracy.” “We urge you to drop your inquisition and save what is left of the college’s moral and professional standing”"
College of Psychologists attacks Jordan Peterson in court - "he also was unfairly taken to task for a joke pointing out the hypocrisy of western progressive climate activists for ignoring harm to “poor children” and for describing a former client as “vindictive” because she had made false allegations against him — allegations for which he was exonerated by the college. It is difficult to see how the last two comments could offend anyone. There is no principle of law that professionals cannot point out that allegations against them are false, or criticize certain types of politics using jokes. The complaints about those comments appear to be bad faith misinterpretations of Dr. Peterson’s intent. But even the other comments, which could lead to offence, do not fall within the scope of the regulator. There is no right not to be offended, and the potential to offend does not mean any harm has been caused. None of the people Dr. Peterson was commenting on were the source of the complaints. The complaints were mostly made informally by strangers to Dr. Peterson, who had tagged the college on Twitter. In two cases, formal complaints were made by people falsely claiming to be current or former clients of Dr. Peterson’s. While professional regulators are entitled to regulate speech of their members to some degree, there must be a clear nexus between the speech and the profession. For example, a physician cannot prescribe and sell snake oil. A lawyer cannot lie to court. But there must be a connection to the profession, and the regulator must give weight to the right to freedom of expression. This issue was considered in a case called Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses Association where a nurse, identifying herself as such, posted on Facebook about what she considered inadequate care her grandfather had received while in a long term care facility. The nurses’ regulator disciplined Strom, but the discipline was overturned on appeal, where the court found that the regulator had given little to no weight to Strom’s right to freedom of expression. Like Strom, Dr. Peterson identifies himself as a professional. But this is not enough to put his comments within the scope of the regulator, as his comments did not relate to the practice of psychology. Although controversial, they are about social and political issues. Because these comments are not about the practice of psychology, they are just like everyone else’s speech: protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Professionals are entitled to private lives. A professional regulator, whether it be of psychologists, nurses, physicians, accountants or teachers, should not police its members’ political opinions. While Dr. Peterson can afford this fight, most professionals cannot. And we do not want to create a world where regulated professionals must soft pedal their public speech for fear of activists weaponizing their professional regulator... The regulator’s lawyers’ listing of Dr. Peterson’s comments in court, and emphasizing how caustic or rude they may be, is a classic tactic of any government trying to suppress speech. It is always government’s argument that the speech they seek to silence is of little value and not worthy of protection. But freedom of expression isn’t needed to protect popular speech. Speech that can offend is not at the periphery of protection. And when it engages political and social issues, it is at the core of freedom of expression even if it is caustic or rude. We cannot lose sight of that."
Ontario court rules against Jordan Peterson, upholds social media training order - "The Canadian Constitution Foundation, also granted intervener status in the case, said it thought the decision “could have a chilling effect on people in other regulated professions, like doctors, lawyers, teachers and accountants.”"
Eli 🔍 on Twitter - "Say what you want about Jordan Peterson, but the fact that he got protesters to leave him alone by holding his talks at 8:30 in the morning is hilarious."
Jordan Peterson - More Than 50% Of Women Are Childless At 30 - YouTube - "What what our society does to 19 year old women or 18 year old women... we just lie to them all the time. You know the first lie is there's nothing more important than your career... the second lie is there will be nothing more important to you in your life than your career... the third lie is there should be nothing more important in your life than their career... implicit in that is the idea that children are a burden and that the idea that women should have children is part of the oppressive patriarchy and should be resisted... what i've seen is that as women progress towards their late 30s, no late 20s, they, there's a psychological transformation and what happens is that they place less emphasis on their career and way more emphasis particularly on having a child. And that really reaches a crisis point around 29 or 30 for the vast majority of women and, and their attitude flips and I've seen it very dramatically with many women... I worked with high-end lawyers in toronto for about 10 years. I was part of an organization. We went to law firms, high-end law firms, and said: send us your most productive people and we'll help them iron out whatever wrinkles there might still be in their life. And the advantage to them is that things will go better for them and the advantage to you is they'll be even more productive... these were women who were generally very attractive, well put together physically, pretty stable psychologically, extremely conscientious, very very smart and high achieving from like junior high all the way through high school, university, law school onto uh the top firms, rocketing up through the ranks, full partnership by the time they were 29 or 30 and all the law firms, all the women bailed out. All of them, the law firms couldn't keep them... we don't want to lose their high performing women because they're performing at the highest level and they couldn't keep them. The women wanted to have nine to five jobs. They wanted to bind the job, so they could have a life and that was especially true once they got interested in having a child or had one... there's only a small minority of human beings that are willing to do this, to work flat out eight[y] hours a week... what about the rest of life? Well that's what the women asked. Why am I doing this? And that's a great question. Well for men there's a different answer than for women. It's a really different answer and it isn't like the men aren't exactly thinking this through. It's, it's more like this is an integral part of male motivation. The more successful you are as a man the more women like you... countries that are willing to educate women, that's the best predictor of their future economic success... women's educational status predicts their children's educational status but men's educational status doesn't... the comment section is unbelievably vitriolic because every single comment is vitriolic and it's all from women. It's like who is this old white bastard telling us what we should do with our bodies. You know when I wasn't being judgmental. I was just saying exactly what I said to you which is, well I've watched women over the entire course of my life with I would say an affectionate eye. You know, I love my sister, I love my wife, I have a daughter, I love my mother. I'm pretty happy about women all things considered... I don't even know how they should conduct their lives. I've watched what happens and I've also watched what happens to women who hit 29 or 30 and then can't conceive and that is not a fate i would wish on anyone, it's awful... it's very interesting to me to see how vitriolic those comments have been and how how uniform that is because usually on my youtube channel in particular ninety-five percent of the comments are positive"
Inside the Ontario court battle over Jordan Peterson’s tweets - "complaints to the Toronto-based college have multiplied, many from individuals with no clinical, professional or personal relationship with Peterson but who are offended by things they’ve read or heard him say online, in podcasts and in interviews... Peterson is now seeking a “judicial review” of the panel’s November 2022 decision, taking the case to Ontario’s Divisional Court. Jordan Peterson v. the College of Psychologists of Ontario is being watched by free speech advocates and regulators from other professions. The decision by the panel of three Superior Court judges could have a broad and possibly chilling effect on all regulated professionals, warned Jonah Arnold, a lawyer for the newly created Association of Aggrieved Regulated Professionals of Ontario, one of several groups granted intervener status at the June hearing. Arnold said he co-founded the organization in January after realizing many clients were “unjustly forced to leave their respective professions and had no voice”... A decision to uphold the college’s decision could deter people from joining regulated professions in Ontario, including teaching, medicine, or the law, if it emboldens regulators to police the expression of non-professional opinions and beliefs, Arnold argued... Other interveners included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association — its lawyers argued that regulatory oversight doesn’t extend to “expressive activity that is outside the scope of professional practice”... Lawyer John McIntyre, representing Egale Canada and JusticeTrans, argued a health professional’s right to freedom of expression is not unfettered. “It must be weighed against countervailing interests, including the Charter rights of vulnerable and marginalized stakeholders.” (Peterson’s lawyers note the college’s decision did not find his comments were transphobic or discriminatory.)... People who’ve taken offence to some of his statements or views have complained through the college’s formal complaints system or by posting their disdain on Twitter and “tagging” the regulator. Some purport to be colleagues. “Embarrassed to be in the same college as him,” one anonymous psychologist told a college staff member over the phone last year... Peterson responded to the criticism, noting he has “already implemented a solution to the problem of monitoring and modifying” his social media communication with guidance from a team of experts. “I have consciously and carefully surrounded myself with people who have helped me monitor what I am doing and who provide me with continual feedback as to the appropriateness of the tone and the content of what I am purveying,” Peterson wrote. The vetting team comprises a “very wide network of expert thinkers” and includes “a set of messengers and strategists on the liberal left (for the Democrats) who have tried assiduously to pull that party toward the moderate middle for more than five years, and have produced billions of dollars of advertising on that front, and our conversations have been strenuous and difficult and careful in the extreme, as we have attempted to negotiate our way forward in peace, mutual understanding and tranquillity.”"
Letters: School board's book-ban zealots lose the plot - "Readers have bought over 10 million copies of Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life at a cost of $16.96 (paperback) because, one would surmise, they all suspected they would feel better for reading it. Six people, none of whom knew Dr. Peterson personally or who had been treated by him, complained to the Ontario College of Psychologists, likely at the cost of sending an email and making a couple of phone calls, about a few of Peterson’s social media comments. Last time I checked, psychology was about making people healthier and happier. Do the needs of the few (six) outweigh the needs of the many (millions), or do the needs of the many (millions) outweigh the needs of the few (six)? The Ontario College of Psychologists needs to figure this out."
"Barbara Kay writes that in dismissing Jordan Peterson’s appeal of an Ontario College of Psychologists demand that he submit himself to social media retraining, the Ontario Divisional Court ruled that “demeaning, degrading and unprofessional” discourse constituted justification for limits on Peterson’s charter speech protection. I would suggest that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh should be sanctioned and face the same retraining after their “demeaning, degrading and unprofessional” profanities hurled at supporters and participants in last year’s Freedom Convoy. Not surprisingly, only those on the right face sanctions while those tilting left are above reproach."
Opinion: What the Jordan Peterson case reveals about regulatory colleges - "Jordan Peterson’s recent legal skirmish with his professional regulator, the College of Psychologists of Ontario, is more than just a headline-grabbing story; it reveals a deeper conflict between professionals and their regulatory bodies. The key question here is whether regulators truly prioritize public well-being or if their primary interest is self-preservation... The fulcrum of this case is not patient safety but the College’s concern about public perception. Notably, no active clients were part of this controversy; the College’s apprehension stemmed purely from comments Peterson made on a podcast and Twitter. The only entity truly at risk here is the College itself, not the public it claims to protect... Regulatory colleges face a classic dilemma often discussed by economists as the “principal-agent problem.” Conflicts of interest arise when the agent (the colleges in this case) starts to act in their own best interests instead of acting in the interests of their clients. They are in the uncomfortable position of serving two masters. If college employees want to keep their jobs and protect their organizations, they must maintain a public image of pure devotion to patient safety, even though they are beholden to governmental oversight. The Ontario court chose to ignore this fundamental conflict of interest, focusing solely on the College’s right to restrict Peterson’s speech outside of his professional responsibilities. (Presumably, the court is not immune to the principal-agent problem either.) This narrow perspective sidesteps an important institutional issue: regulatory colleges may say they serve the public, but they are clearly inclined to safeguard their own interests first... The Peterson case is a revealing snapshot of a larger problem within regulatory bodies. It’s time we ask whether these organizations are genuinely custodians of public welfare or if they are primarily self-serving institutions masked under the guise of public protection"
Clearly, Shawn Whatley, a past President of the Ontario Medical Association, knows nothing
Canada is at the forefront of the woke assault on our essential human liberties - "Every single opinion was a political or psychological statement; every one devoid of genuinely documentable “harm”– except perhaps to the tender sensibility of certain Canadian moralists in whose mouths butter wouldn’t melt, in a country of fatal niceness and complacency. For context, there are many “regulated professions” in Western countries, including Canada; professions whose conduct is held to be crucial to the public interest, and whose practitioners must therefore uphold certain standards to protect the public. That idea worked for years. In Canada, as elsewhere, these professional colleges, with authority delegated from the government, limited their actions to situations of obvious professional misconduct. In the last few years, however, such bodies – with their wide and untrammeled potential regulatory and punitive ability – have been weaponised by the same ideological radicals of the Left that have infiltrated and undermined higher education, media, judiciary, law, science and government. Any radical anywhere can submit the kind of complaint that can bring a professional’s life to a halt, and can increasingly rely on these captured colleges and other professional regulatory bodies to uphold and pursue their vexatious, vengeful, petty, spiteful and ideological motivated “complaints.” And this is regardless of how much good the target of their complaint has done – independent of the training, reputation or standing of the target, and accompanied by the deep pockets and infinite amount of time available for the accusers and adversaries, abetted by the resources of the government itself... I know perfectly well that many professionals in Canada are cowed to the point where they are forced to lie; they tell me so repeatedly in private. And when professionals have to lie, they can no longer do their job properly, and the public suffers. I know, too, that this is increasingly true across the West... Why does the situation appear particularly grim, here in Maple Leaf Country? We were, for most of my country’s history, miraculously and thankfully dull: our constitution, ensconced safely under British authority until 1982, enshrined “peace, order and good government” as the most basic principles of our dominion. This was not the clarion call ringing out to rally our good friends south of the border, who aimed at the much more dramatic and libertarian “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It was good enough, however, to produce a reliable, safe, secure and free state, conservative in the classic small-c sense, with institutions both predictable and honest, and an economy both productive and generous. That all started to change in the 1980s. Our dashing prime minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau – father of the current Prime Minister, our current clown prince – was searching desperately for a legacy and for a solution to the chronic problem posed by the Quebec separatists, who were genuinely threatening the integrity of the country... Trudeau senior, constitutionally displeased with the fundamental derivation of Canada from Britain, seized upon this opportunity to make his mark in history, and began to agitate to “bring the constitution home.” He did so, rewriting our primary legal agreement, and appending to it his much-vaunted Charter of Rights and Freedoms, paraded before Canadians as the ultimate guarantee of the freedoms we had enjoyed anyway under the much more reliable aegis of British Common Law. But Quebec put up its middle finger, refusing to become a signatory to the new agreement – even after Trudeau’s government abandoned both its spine and its principles to include a poison pill in the very Charter that hypothetically protected our citizens: the clause in Section 33 of that document, indicating that those very constitutional rights can be abridged more or less at will by any government in Canada, federal or provincial, if inclined to do so... Canada was a very early adopter of the idea of ‘group rights’. The Quebecois, again, began to obsess about the potential threat posed by English Canada (really, the English West, led by the culturally-dominant Americans) to the language and culture of their province... This bad situation is made worse by the naïve virtue-signalling of, ironically enough, Pierre Trudeau’s son: an unqualified part-time drama teacher who in a recent poll was found to be the country’s least-popular prime minister of the past 55 years. It was that same Justin Trudeau who famously proclaimed that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada’’ in 2015, insisting that the country has little uniting it except its embrace of cultural diversity and its putative values of openness and respect. But what is a country without a central identity? Aimless, and therefore both anxious and hopeless; worse, prone to domination by the fractionated ideas that will fight necessarily for central place in the absence of the centre that must by one means or another be established. That is the shadow-side of the naïve “multiculturalism” that has doomed the world to continuous fractionalism and all its accompanying horrors."
Dr Jordan B Peterson on X - "One of the things I’ve told men over and over is if you’re being rejected by all the women that you approach, it’s not the women, it’s you."
Clearly, he's a King of the Incels!
