Dak
mentat
1. Where are you deriving the conclusion that I misinterpreted his words? Read my post if you want to actually pass as even remotely in this debate.
2. As far as monogamy goes, the most common usage, the primary definition according to all credible resources, the word's original meaning and the root words that the term is derived from all refer to marriage.
As a professional speaker (and supposedly a psychologist), Kermit the Frog would obviously be aware of these things. He made a decision not to clarify himself, probably with the intent of being mosunderstood so that he could raise an objection to it. Deny it if you want, but it's as plain as day that he went out of his way to use uncommon terminology without clarifying what he meant until afterwards.
The root of the word does relate to marriage. But enforcement of marriage isn't forced marriage, and doesn't have a root in the state as we conceive it, and currently usage has been separated from marriage to strictly sexual relations. Which, if you want, could be support for your claim he was using language which could easily be interpreted in a way in which he could claim he didn't mean it. But again, that merely shows your leaning rather than his in jumping to assume the worst about someone you haven't bothered to investigate in any real way otherwise. The correct response to something you weren't sure of as to the meaning, in an intellectually curious fashion is to go "That's an odd turn of phrase, I wonder what he meant by that" and get clarification. Not what you and the twitterverse et al just did.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/
Peterson blames Bowles for not being familiar with the relevant literature, but “enforced monogamy,” is not a well-known term of art, and it does sound menacing. Bowles probably should have asked for clarification before presenting it as absurd, but Peterson also has to know and anticipate that these kinds of attacks are going to be leveled at him by people who may be ill-informed in anthropology, but nonetheless well-intentioned.
Some of the confusion over just what Peterson means to propose is that most of his content is delivered verbally, either in lectures or interviews. Indeed, as in this case, once presented with someone’s confusion Peterson will often go to his blog to effectively explain the position.
But you aren't interested in reading what he has to say or listening for clarification, only complaining when the snippet that slips across your social media feed isn't in precisely in the verbage you would like, and that he bothers to clarify it is more proof that he was acting in bad faith to begin with.