This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I get what you’re saying. I guess what I meant was that Sanders was our “Socialist” candidate, according to his own label, and he was shut down for being too progressive. He’s probably comparable to your average centrist in most countries of western Europe.
The Person in Question
There are stupid people on both sides and don’t think focusing in on them is terribly helpful in general; if anything it just makes things worse.
Labeling them as “stupid people” makes it easy to dismiss them, until you realize they’ve achieved notoriety, power, and an ability to shift the discourse, and ultimately the direction of society.
The irony here is that this sentence could easily apply to Jordan Peterson, Milo, Paul Watson, Alex Jones, Steven Crowder, and hell even Donald Trump. But the difference is that they have huge followings and devoted followers. That feminist moron that went after the author of the craftsman book that you mentioned may have 40,000 Twitter followers, but that’s nothing compared to what the people I listed above have. I don’t doubt for a second that if that spokeswoman or whatever she is actually is doing vindictive things to people over the titles of their books, then she’s a total idiot that should be ostracized and not taken seriously at all, but to treat her as though she’s a genuine political threat in the United States is frankly absurd.
It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.
Woah, am I thinking of a different America or something?
There’s some hyperbole in there, but the general sentiment stands. Some of the stuff being labeled as alt-right is just regular old conservatism (and even classical liberalism) that isn’t far left enough for the hard left to consider within the bounds of reason.
I mentioned this earlier before I’d seen this post, but I don’t see much difference between the alt-right and the Republican Party at this point. There’s a lot of overlap with the figures of the right and the alt-right, with even the President of the US doing an interview with fraudulent conspiracy show host and alt-right mouthpiece Alex Jones. Who has the real power here? The feminist on Twitter? Did she ever conduct an interview with Obama where the president legitimized all of her vindictive theories about book titles? I’m not saying that language policing isn’t a problem, but it’s not the main danger right now.
The Person in Question
I recommend anyone reading articles about Peterson actually read or listen to Peterson instead. I don’t agree with everything he says (like a lot of the religious-based theory), but is that a reason to discount him completely? The biggest issue with discourse today is that we throw away entire people because we don’t agree with one or two things they say.
I’ve disagreed with everything he’s ever said.
He’s been portrayed as an anti-Semite (despite lecturing extensively about the dangers of fascism as it relates to the Holocaust and the lessons to be learned from it),
Can’t speak to this. I know nothing about it.
a misogynist (despite presenting some of his most touching points while talking about how much he treasures his wife and daughter),
He says women that don’t want to be harassed are hypocrites if they wear makeup. He believes they’re responsible for procreating. He laments the fact that he can’t get away with hitting “crazy women” when they compare him to Nazis. He thinks “enforced monogamy” will stop mass shootings. There’s many more, but women have every reason to think that Peterson is not someone that has their interests at heart.
I stopped reading here, because this paragraph is nonsense.
He never said women are hypocrites for wearing makeup that I’ve seen. Can you point me to the text or interview? He had a frank discussion in the Vibe interview about beautification rituals and whether they belong in the workplace or not (and if I remember correctly, he basically said he didn’t know because men and women haven’t shared the workplace long enough to figure some of these things out).
I don’t know what you mean by “responsible for procreating”.
I’ve never heard him express a desire to hit women. Ever. I’m guessing you’re referencing his discussion with Camille Paglia where he goes into conflict dynamics between men and women, and how the methods men use to resolve conflict can’t be applied to women. He does bring up physical conflict as the ultimate means of conflict resolution and the fact that men don’t have that option with women in civilized society.
And I had to laugh out loud at the “enforced monogamy” bit, which seems to be the media’s current obsession in regards to Peterson-bashing. Enforced monogamy isn’t some state-mandated sex law. It’s a reference to cultural norms that have pushed humans away from typical natural selection (alpha males having access to most females while betas mostly don’t have access) toward monogamous relationships, such as marriage:
This is what happens when you allow yourself to be swayed by angry people with agendas instead of learning about things for yourself.
And honestly man, you’re so overwhelmingly negative about everything put in front of you, it’s hard to take a lot of what you post seriously. Sometimes I think generalfrevious is back.
MTFBWY…A
Geez.
I seem to remember you saying it’s poor form to take shots at banned members who can’t defend themselves, and in fact you wouldn’t allow it.
I seem to remember you saying it’s poor form to take shots at banned members who can’t defend themselves, and in fact you wouldn’t allow it.
Apologies to generalfrevious. I didn’t intend it as a personal insult towards him. I could have made my point without invoking his name.
MTFBWY…A
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsz0DHwzAvc
Also, the only angry person with an agenda that determines what I believe is me! I don’t let pseudo-philosophers or journalists or anyone else decide what I believe. If I don’t like something, or something rubs me the wrong way, the whole world hears about it, as I’m sure my fellow off-topic posters can attest to.
The Person in Question
Seems like you’re also getting a little too personal regarding mfm, but granted I’m not one to talk.
And paying too much attention to Twitter / social media will skew your perception of reality.
Those platforms amplify immediate reaction, not deep discourse.
JEDIT: whoa a whole 'nother page…
I don’t do Twitter. Its limit on characters exists purely to dumb down discourse, so I boycott it.
The Person in Question
Also, Peterson is the perpetual victim here. He paints himself, and his followers do this too, as a persecuted prophet. Everyone’s out to get him. Everyone who can’t stand him is just brainwashed by crazy leftists. He’s whinier than any college campus person has ever been.
The Person in Question
I actually do want to respond to these because I think they’re important and I want to vent on them even though you don’t want to read my posts. Maybe others here will.
I’ve never heard him express a desire to hit women. Ever. I’m guessing you’re referencing his discussion with Camille Paglia where he goes into conflict dynamics between men and women, and how the methods men use to resolve conflict can’t be applied to women. He does bring up physical conflict as the ultimate means of conflict resolution and the fact that men don’t have that option with women in civilized society.
No one should be hitting anybody, but everyone already has the right to defend themselves. Physical force can be applied to women in self-defense. If a woman attacks you, a man, then you’re within your right to defend yourself with a reasonable amount of force. In a civilized world, no one, man or woman, should initiate a fight with anybody over a conversation. If you operate based on only using violence to defend yourself, then you don’t have to worry about any of it. If someone attacks you, then defend yourself. If no one attacks you, then don’t use physical force on anybody.
And I had to laugh out loud at the “enforced monogamy” bit, which seems to be the media’s current obsession in regards to Peterson-bashing. Enforced monogamy isn’t some state-mandated sex law. It’s a reference to cultural norms that have pushed humans away from typical natural selection (alpha males having access to most females while betas mostly don’t have access) toward monogamous relationships, such as marriage:
“Peterson-bashing”? Count me in. Enforced monogamy is creepy as hell. This alpha-male beta-male shit is another thing that the right is pushing all the time. Most so-called “alpha males” are assholes that no one likes and the women they often get are not exactly likable either. Believe it or not, not all women are running after the big tough masculine asshole guys these days. Most respectable people want relationships with people that they enjoy and are respectful and respectable. Healthy relationships are built on trust and mutual respect. (Granted: I have ruined every personal relationship I’ve ever had, but I do think my analysis is correct in civilized society.) I also find it funny because these right-wingers are not exactly alpha males, are they? Peterson, as I said, is far from your typical alpha. And the idea that mass shooters wouldn’t be murderers if they just had someone to have sex with is insane. Also, why does the sex have to be monogamous? I’m all for committed relationships and the like, but the 1950s Leave It to Beaver households were never as happy as we were meant to believe. It also implies that women are primarily good for sex. Would marriage really help these creeps if the marriage ended up being terrible? Is it just about the sex? Shouldn’t we try to move beyond those attitudes? I don’t get Peterson’s desire here with the enforced monogamy.
The Person in Question
mfm, sounds like you need a nu start.
What?
The Person in Question
Sorry, I’m watching the Arrested Development S4 remix.
Ah, I’m not familiar.
The Person in Question
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
Also, the only angry person with an agenda that determines what I believe is me! I don’t let pseudo-philosophers or journalists or anyone else decide what I believe. If I don’t like something, or something rubs me the wrong way, the whole world hears about it, as I’m sure my fellow off-topic posters can attest to.
And yet you continue to deliberately misunderstand terms like “enforced monogamy” based on what you read in some article rather than what it actually means. Like this here:
“Peterson-bashing”? Count me in. Enforced monogamy is creepy as hell. This alpha-male beta-male shit is another thing that the right is pushing all the time. Most so-called “alpha males” are assholes that no one likes and the women they often get are not exactly likable either. Believe it or not, not all women are running after the big tough masculine asshole guys these days. Most respectable people want relationships with people that they enjoy and are respectful and respectable. Healthy relationships are built on trust and mutual respect. (Granted: I have ruined every personal relationship I’ve ever had, but I do think my analysis is correct in civilized society.) I also find it funny because these right-wingers are not exactly alpha males, are they? Peterson, as I said, is far from your typical alpha. And the idea that mass shooters wouldn’t be murderers if they just had someone to have sex with is insane. Also, why does the sex have to be monogamous? I’m all for committed relationships and the like, but the 1950s Leave It to Beaver households were never as happy as we were meant to believe. It also implies that women are primarily good for sex. Would marriage really help these creeps if the marriage ended up being terrible? Is it just about the sex? Shouldn’t we try to move beyond those attitudes? I don’t get Peterson’s desire here with the enforced monogamy.
You do understand that alpha/beta males are a real thing in real nature with real animals, right? That what Peterson’s talking about (and what I’m talking about) in regards to traditional alpha/beta behavior is biological science? As I explained, the concept of enforced monogamy isn’t some state-mandated sex redistribution, but the natural result of our own cultural advancement. Part of those cultural changes are a redefinition of what it means to be an “alpha” provider — not what you read in some pickup artist handbook.
It’s amazing to me how people can misread anything they like and ignore even well-established science and biology simply because they don’t like what they’re reading.
MTFBWY…A
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
MTFBWY…A
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
I appreciate that he’s openly despicable. Personally, Jordan Peterson looks sexy in that tie. Clearly he wants me to go make sexual advances towards him. Otherwise he’s a hypocrite. Why else would he wear such attractive clothes? Not convincing, is it?
Also, the only angry person with an agenda that determines what I believe is me! I don’t let pseudo-philosophers or journalists or anyone else decide what I believe. If I don’t like something, or something rubs me the wrong way, the whole world hears about it, as I’m sure my fellow off-topic posters can attest to.
And yet you continue to deliberately misunderstand terms like “enforced monogamy” based on what you read in some article rather than what it actually means. Like this here:
I don’t know when you became a mind-reader, but I didn’t read “some article” on enforced monogamy.
“Peterson-bashing”? Count me in. Enforced monogamy is creepy as hell. This alpha-male beta-male shit is another thing that the right is pushing all the time. Most so-called “alpha males” are assholes that no one likes and the women they often get are not exactly likable either. Believe it or not, not all women are running after the big tough masculine asshole guys these days. Most respectable people want relationships with people that they enjoy and are respectful and respectable. Healthy relationships are built on trust and mutual respect. (Granted: I have ruined every personal relationship I’ve ever had, but I do think my analysis is correct in civilized society.) I also find it funny because these right-wingers are not exactly alpha males, are they? Peterson, as I said, is far from your typical alpha. And the idea that mass shooters wouldn’t be murderers if they just had someone to have sex with is insane. Also, why does the sex have to be monogamous? I’m all for committed relationships and the like, but the 1950s Leave It to Beaver households were never as happy as we were meant to believe. It also implies that women are primarily good for sex. Would marriage really help these creeps if the marriage ended up being terrible? Is it just about the sex? Shouldn’t we try to move beyond those attitudes? I don’t get Peterson’s desire here with the enforced monogamy.
You do understand that alpha/beta males are a real thing in real nature with real animals, right? That what Peterson’s talking about (and what I’m talking about) in regards to traditional alpha/beta behavior is biological science? As I explained, the concept of enforced monogamy isn’t some state-mandated sex redistribution, but the natural result of our own cultural advancement. Part of those cultural changes are a redefinition of what it means to be an “alpha” provider — not what you read in some pickup artist handbook.
I do, in fact, have an education and I don’t need you to educate me on biology. I think we’re better than our biology at this point, or at least capable of being better. I think we’re better than Peterson’s solution too, which I think is regressive. We already had the whole marry an available partner and be miserable solution. It didn’t work. Books like the Feminine Mystique and the Man in the Gray Flannel Suit commented on that way of life’s shortcomings decades ago. We need another sexual liberation, which Peterson is opposed to.
It’s amazing to me how people can misread anything they like and ignore even well-established science and biology simply because they don’t like what they’re reading.
I didn’t do that. This is also coming from someone who chose to ignore my subsequent comments on Peterson because he didn’t like what he was reading.
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
So you admit that this offensively terrible opinion is “extremely conservative” but then complain that people think of American conservatism as regressive or “alt-right”?
The Person in Question
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
If conservative = misogynist, sure.
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
mfm and I (and Frink) went round on that quote too. Likewise I disagreed with Peterson and noted there is a perfectly fine rebuttal. I guess it’s easier to label people insane or evil but I think that’s a losing way to go about things.
Relevant to all this, there was a debate recently with Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on one side and Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on the other. The debate was supposed to be about political correctness but failed to really find a focus. Sadly the latter two engaged in superficial and personal attacks on Peterson. Fry was noticeably frustrated at the end by the inability of the opposition to engage on the topic. It’s a 2 hour long youtube video but you all might enjoy Fry’s opening statement at about 30:20.
The blue elephant in the room.
I am anti-political correctness to the core. I’ve made that extremely clear for years.
The Person in Question
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
If conservative = misogynist, sure.
Thinking that makeup isn’t necessary in the workplace is misogynist. Ha, yeah, okay.
This is why words don’t mean anything anymore, the supposed “blue wave” coming this November is going to fall flat on its face, and Trump stands a good chance of being reelected in 2020.
MTFBWY…A
It was an insult towards me actually. All my posts on Peterson have been eloquent and reasonable. I don’t care anymore because you admitted yourself that you’re unwilling to read them, but here’s the part of the VICE interview on makeup. It’s at about the five and a half minute mark.
When asked if he thinks women who want to be taken seriously in the workplace and who wear makeup are being hypocritical, Peterson says yes. I don’t agree with him, but at least he answered directly and didn’t waffle or equivocate, which is what he’s often accused of doing.
But that’s an insane stance. Being direct about is irrelevant IMO.
It’s definitely an extremely conservative viewpoint.
mfm and I (and Frink) went round on that quote too. Likewise I disagreed with Peterson and noted there is a perfectly fine rebuttal. I guess it’s easier to label people insane or evil but I think that’s a losing way to go about things.
Relevant to all this, there was a debate recently with Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson on one side and Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on the other. The debate was supposed to be about political correctness but failed to really find a focus. Sadly the latter two engaged in superficial and personal attacks on Peterson. Fry was noticeably frustrated at the end by the inability of the opposition to engage on the topic. It’s a 2 hour long youtube video but you all might enjoy Fry’s opening statement at about 30:20.
I have this one in my queue. Looking forward to watching it.
MTFBWY…A