- Time
- Post link
Yeah I didn’t believe you last time you tried that excuse either.
- Time
- Post link
Can you at least all agree with me that having a dating relationship with Jordan Peterson would be a waste?
The Person in Question
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 714
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:
Whatever you want to make about his statement about hypocrisy, I don’t hear him say what you hear him say.
That probably says as much about you as it does him.
Way to go making a discussion personal, Frink. Get a grip.
Oh so it’s only a problem when I do it and not when you do it. Talk about hypocrisy.
But yeah, if you don’t see it the way mfm laid it out, then yeah you might have a problem. It’s the “she asked for it” defense, one of the oldest and shittiest plays in the book, and you excused it. So yeah, that says something about you.
I don’t do it, Frink. Your imagination is running away with you.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
“Formalistic?” Wouldn’t use that word.
It’s telling of Mrebo’s position.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Formalistic is actually a pretty good description of Peterson’s schtick as a whole at least in terms of his religious outlook on everything, although I’d prefer to use the phrase “he has a massive stick up his ass,” but to describe his stance on this as “formalistic” is downplaying just how vile the guy is being.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:
Whatever you want to make about his statement about hypocrisy, I don’t hear him say what you hear him say.
He says that women who don’t want to be sexually harassed but wear make-up to work are hypocrites. I consider that to be, at least in part, condoning sexual harassment. Imagine if I said, “Well, that person got raped, but really they shouldn’t complain about it because they wore perfume and makeup.” I bet, and hope, you’d at least think of that as rape-apologetics.
Other than this clip, I’ve only seen that one famous interview with him but I recognize his view to be very formalistic. So he can say on the one hand a woman is hypocritical to wear makeup when she doesn’t want sexual harassment in the workplace, and on the other that sexual harassment is not condoned. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
They’re not mutually exclusive in the same sense that saying someone was asking for rape isn’t condoning rape in a totally literal sense of the word. But they’re close enough.
Whether we call it literal or logical, I appreciate that you can see the distinction, even while disagreeing with it.
That said, I disagree with his formalistic view and with his particular point here about a woman being hypocritical for wearing make-up. But they’re close enough.
You “disagree” with it? That’s not enough for me. I question anyone who doesn’t find that stance to be repugnant.
As you know, we’re all different in how we consider and react. If you recognize the literal distinction he is making and that he is not condoning sexual harassment (though you think it close), then you can see how a different person might be willing to look at it in that kind of more logical way.
Me saying, ‘I don’t see what you see in that video’ and ‘I disagree with it’ don’t merit criticisms of me. I’m someone willing to consider views, even repugnant ones, in a logical way. And I don’t do a lot of emotional reactions, offline either. There are so many reasons to not jump to conclusions about why I (or you) react certain ways.
Something tells me that if I went up and pinched Jordan Peterson’s ass because his suit and tie are just so sexy, he’d probably not appreciate being told that he’s a hypocrite for finding that behavior objectionable. Why else would he wear such sexy clothes if he didn’t want me to tell him that he’s “a sexy-ass motherfuckin’ sex-hound beast” and that I want to stick my hand down his underwear? Obviously he wants me to do that, or he wouldn’t be wearing that suit. He’s totally asking for it and if he isn’t, then he’s a hypocrite. Obviously!
See, this is a great point. This came to my mind, in less lurid detail. Better than a couple of comments engaged in moral preening about some guy that nobody here cares much about.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
Let’s try to keep it civil and not insult each other. Argue the point, not the person.
Thanks.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- Post link
Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:
Whatever you want to make about his statement about hypocrisy, I don’t hear him say what you hear him say.
He says that women who don’t want to be sexually harassed but wear make-up to work are hypocrites. I consider that to be, at least in part, condoning sexual harassment. Imagine if I said, “Well, that person got raped, but really they shouldn’t complain about it because they wore perfume and makeup.” I bet, and hope, you’d at least think of that as rape-apologetics.
Other than this clip, I’ve only seen that one famous interview with him but I recognize his view to be very formalistic. So he can say on the one hand a woman is hypocritical to wear makeup when she doesn’t want sexual harassment in the workplace, and on the other that sexual harassment is not condoned. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
They’re not mutually exclusive in the same sense that saying someone was asking for rape isn’t condoning rape in a totally literal sense of the word. But they’re close enough.
Whether we call it literal or logical, I appreciate that you can see the distinction, even while disagreeing with it.
That said, I disagree with his formalistic view and with his particular point here about a woman being hypocritical for wearing make-up. But they’re close enough.
You “disagree” with it? That’s not enough for me. I question anyone who doesn’t find that stance to be repugnant.
As you know, we’re all different in how we consider and react. If you recognize the literal distinction he is making and that he is not condoning sexual harassment (though you think it close), then you can see how a different person might be willing to look at it in that kind of more logical way.
No, I really can’t.
Me saying, ‘I don’t see what you see in that video’ and ‘I disagree with it’ don’t merit criticisms of me. I’m someone willing to consider views, even repugnant ones, in a logical way. And I don’t do a lot of emotional reactions, offline either. There are so many reasons to not jump to conclusions about why I (or you) react certain ways.
Fair enough, I guess, but your commentary on him was very hesitant to condemn something that is obviously antiquated
and completely against free expression.
Something tells me that if I went up and pinched Jordan Peterson’s ass because his suit and tie are just so sexy, he’d probably not appreciate being told that he’s a hypocrite for finding that behavior objectionable. Why else would he wear such sexy clothes if he didn’t want me to tell him that he’s “a sexy-ass motherfuckin’ sex-hound beast” and that I want to stick my hand down his underwear? Obviously he wants me to do that, or he wouldn’t be wearing that suit. He’s totally asking for it and if he isn’t, then he’s a hypocrite. Obviously!
See, this is a great point. This came to my mind, in less lurid detail. Better than a couple of comments engaged in moral preening about some guy that nobody here cares much about.
No one here may care about him, but he has one of the biggest cults of any commentator I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. He is borderline worshipped by people on the far-right.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Cults of personality are scary.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Fair enough, I guess, but your commentary on him was very hesitant to condemn something that is obviously antiquated
and completely against free expression.
I am reminded of the article written by Mayim Bialik last year that inspired harsh criticisms of her. She talked about her personal experiences in Hollywood. She was coming from a totally different place than Peterson, but people were also quick to put her in the condoning-sexual-harassment category for statements like:
I still make choices every day as a 41-year-old actress that I think of as self-protecting and wise. I have decided that my sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.
Bialik later apologized for her article. I thought her article and the apology both reasonable statements. I thought the harsh criticisms of her entirely unfair. Other women have written similar articles, about taking precautions to protect themselves (such as not going up to a producer’s hotel room for a meeting) and received similar blowback. As Bialik said in her apology, nothing excuses sexual harassment and assault. But many people are quick to engage in black-or-white thinking that makes any kind of dialogue extremely difficult.
Peterson, as noted, was talking about something different: women being hypocrites for wearing makeup. And that is dumb. Wearing makeup is a normal practice by women in our culture. I comb my hair, shave, and sometimes wear a tie in order to look presentable. Engaging - if one wishes to - Peterson on his own terms is the best way to argue, not falling into the “so what you’re saying is…” trap.
No one here may care about him, but he has one of the biggest cults of any commentator I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. He is borderline worshipped by people on the far-right.
Agree cults of personality are disturbing. I think it goes to show the lack of great minds we have today.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
I think the flat Earth movement is secretly brilliant. Reading through the stuff on Twitter, for example, reads like a debate on any political matter. I have to think that the leaders(?) of the movement are in on the joke and it’s intended to be a proxy/parody of other debates of controversial matters. The real-life results (as shown in the poll) flow from that.
The blue elephant in the room.
- Time
- Post link
Can you at least all agree with me that having a dating relationship with Jordan Peterson would be a waste?
This I can agree with, yes.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I think the flat Earth movement is secretly brilliant. Reading through the stuff on Twitter, for example, reads like a debate on any political matter. I have to think that the leaders(?) of the movement are in on the joke and it’s intended to be a proxy/parody of other debates of controversial matters. The real-life results (as shown in the poll) flow from that.
Given that one of those Flat Earther guys launched himself in a homemade rocket recently, I think risking life and limb is taking the joke a bit far.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/03/25/an-amateur-rocket-maker-finally-launched-himself-off-earth-now-to-prove-its-flat/
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
I think the flat Earth movement is secretly brilliant. Reading through the stuff on Twitter, for example, reads like a debate on any political matter. I have to think that the leaders(?) of the movement are in on the joke and it’s intended to be a proxy/parody of other debates of controversial matters. The real-life results (as shown in the poll) flow from that.
Given that one of those FE guys
How…dare you?
- Time
- Post link
Engaging - if one wishes to - Peterson on his own terms is the best way to argue, not falling into the “so what you’re saying is…” trap.
Engaging a piece of shit like that guy is giving him too much credit.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
I think the flat Earth movement is secretly brilliant. Reading through the stuff on Twitter, for example, reads like a debate on any political matter. I have to think that the leaders(?) of the movement are in on the joke and it’s intended to be a proxy/parody of other debates of controversial matters. The real-life results (as shown in the poll) flow from that.
Given that one of those FE guys
How…dare you?
LOL! Sorry! Jedited
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
Engaging - if one wishes to - Peterson on his own terms is the best way to argue, not falling into the “so what you’re saying is…” trap.
Engaging a piece of shit like that guy is giving him too much credit.
Even besides him being a piece of shit, there’s no reason to engage him because everything he says is pseudo-philosophical word salad that is impossible to address because it ultimately has no real meaning. It’s just babble with a bunch of buzzwords mixed in. It amazes me how the right will complain about how evil academics are because they’re usually liberal, but then the second they get some slippery academic to agree with them, they love him and tout him as the authority on all things.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
not sure if this was shared here already but what the heck
- Time
- Post link
not sure if this was shared here already but what the heck
If we discussed every time the Nuge demonstrated he was a loud racist idiot directly advocating murders and assassinations, there wouldn’t be room left to talk about anything else. I’m pretty sure the guy has figured out a way to eat loud racist violent idiotic waffles for breakfast. It’s the only schtick he has, but he keeps at it.
- Time
- Post link
not sure if this was shared here already but what the heck
If we discussed every time the Nuge demonstrated he was a loud racist idiot directly advocating murders and assassinations, there wouldn’t be room left to talk about anything else. I’m pretty sure the guy has figured out a way to eat loud racist violent idiotic waffles for breakfast. It’s the only schtick he has, but he keeps at it.
lol, indeed
Keep Circulating the Tapes.
END OF LINE
(It hasn’t happened yet)
- Time
- Post link
He sure missed his chance at Rock and Roll immortality.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
He sure missed his chance at Rock and Roll immortality.
He’s already got it, man. He’s already got it.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Trigger warning.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Mrebo post about seeing the nuance in his statements incoming.
- Time
- Post link
Mrebo post about seeing the nuance in his statements incoming.
My preemptive parody:
You can debate the merits of his condemnation of the mainstream left, but it isn’t fair to assume that Ted Nugent is inherently condoning violent actions in his call for people to murder people that disagree with them. I recall Madonna saying something vaguely violent about the White House once.
The Person in Question
- Time
- Post link
Lol.