Jay

I only see it on low-dpi displays. Not visible on mobile or Macs.

Regardless, it’ll be fixed in the next update.

You respond to what you infer rather than what you read. I can’t productively debate that mindset.

I’m going to take my own advice that I’ve often handed out to others here and not respond further.

TV’s Frink said:

Incidentally I went looking for my first post and there’s a weird thing happening where a bunch of my post history pages at the end are blank. Example:

https://originaltrilogy.com/user/TVs-Frink/id/6930/page/2999

There’s a bug in the pagination that determines page count based on your total number of posts (including those in private topics), even though posts in private topics aren’t displayed within your profile.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll live without it. I’ve been using this site for nine years without it. It’s fine.

With that said, it’s a feature on literally every other forum I’ve ever used, and I asked for it nine years ago. Which is to say I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request at all.

#continuetokeephopealive

I agree. It’s not unreasonable, and it’s planned for the next major update.

dahmage said:

if only there was a
https://originaltrilogy.com/posts page, that functioned exactly like https://originaltrilogy.com/subscriptions, but it simply removed the ‘subscriptions’ filter, and instead showed everything.

and if only there was a way to view all the threads i have created, and that others have created. it seems dumb that my profile page doesn’t give me a way to find threads i created.

If Only…
A poem

If only the posts page were as “simple” as removing the subscriptions filter, and not a matter of creating completely new controllers, models, and views, designing a caching strategy so the database isn’t completely overwhelmed, writing a security model to make sure your private topics and posts don’t end up in a public space, and then testing it all across a myriad of devices and browsers

If only someone had thought of all this before, and desperately wanted to do it, but, you know, priorities, and life, and other stuff happened

If only everything we use had everything we wanted all at once, because nothing that exists took any time or effort to create

If only everything we desired were waiting for us in the exact moment we needed and wanted it

If only life were Amazon

If only

Fin

I’m going to ponder this philosophy further instead of writing code today.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

I know you said you’re no longer hard left, but you sure sound hard right when you go on about the mainstream media like this.

I can be center-left in my beliefs (having single-payer healthcare, providing a social safety net, enacting sensible gun control, etc.) and also call out liars.

But the right wing in America is opposed to all three of those things.

Did I say I was right wing?

When what is reported in the media directly contradicts, or at the very least, actively omits, observable fact, I have to wonder what the hell is going on. I think the mainstream media has done us a terrible disservice with its 24-hour news cycle consisting of endless panels populated by “experts” and “analysts” who editorialize everything and provide little actual reporting. When the NYT tells me a person is one thing and actually listening to that person tells me they’re something else, I naturally question the rest of the NYT’s reporting and the filter through which it’s being run. I think we’ve passed the point where we can trust the big media companies to give us a fair representation of reality. Nobody wants to be a mere reporter anymore; they want to be an influencer, gain followers, and spread their message.

How is this unique to the left? Fox News, Breitbart, Infowars, the Rebel, and pretty much all of talk radio along with vast segments of YouTube are right-wing examples of exactly this.

Did I say it only applied to the left?

Read what’s there man. Please don’t infer something and then base your arguments upon it as if your inference is fact.

There’s tons of content out there that never makes it into the popular discourse because it’s not covered by the major media outlets. The danger is separating fact from fiction/conspiracy and not allowing yourself to fall into a very deep, dark place.

This is very vague. You’re generally right on this particular concept but I’m curious, what are you referring to?

I’ve mostly been focusing on trying to get the full story. If I see something in the news that interests me, I’ll dig beyond the 5-second video clip we’re shown and see if I can find the complete video or accounts from people who were there. Doesn’t sound like much, but when we’re being told Israeli soldiers are killing scores of “protestors”, it didn’t take much digging to find out most of the Palestinians at the border were actually Hamas — basically because Hamas admitted it, but I never saw that followup reported in the US. Or you’ll see a clip on the news of a Palestinian woman being dragged from her home in the middle of the night and arrested like it’s some police state type stuff, when a separate video from a day earlier clearly shows her slapping and kicking Israeli soldiers in an attempt to get a reaction out of them. (Please don’t turn this into an Israel vs. Palestine discussion, because I won’t claim any kind of expertise on that mess of problems and won’t engage in a debate. It’s just an example of a tiny part of a story vs. a more complete story.)

Maybe I’m still not necessarily getting the complete story, who knows. My point is that the garbage that passes for news today isn’t cutting it. We get a brief clip or a quote taken out of context, and then an hour of analysis from people who weren’t there talking about what it may or may not mean. Just absurd. If we’re going to reference anything in the news and defend it, we have an obligation to do our research first.

The reason I defend people like Peterson, aside from agreeing with some of his views (certainly not all), is that he was the same guy saying the same things before he got famous. If I felt he was modifying his message to suit a particular audience in order to gain followers and make more money, I’d lump him in with the rest of the opportunists and set him aside. And now that he is famous, people have a lot to say about him and his ideas. Some of it is justified, and some of it is patently dishonest.

I can’t speak to who he was before

He has lectures online from way before he achieved any notoriety. Not hard to watch and formulate an opinion.

As far as me moving more to the right, I’ve tried to be more honest with myself about the hypocrisy I see on the left. I told myself for a long time that the left was “better” than the right, but I no longer believe that. Both sides have their virtuous members and their loons. The Rs still probably have more loons, but the left’s loons are starting to catch up. I’d like to see a strong center that pushes outward and squeezes the loons on both sides.

The great irony here is that there was a centrist in the 2016 election, and her name was Hillary Clinton.

I know. I voted for her. Certainly not my first choice, but I chose from the options I was given.

Also, if you’re gay then the left certainly is better than the right. That’s just a fact for gay or lesbian people. They have their interests more in mind than the right does. If you’re a poor person with a sickly kid that you can’t afford to take care of, then the left is better than the right. It’s subjective, of course, but the whole notion that all sides are equally bad is not an idea that most people will or even should accept.

I used to see things similarly, but there are more conservative and libertarian gay and trans folks than you think. Despite all its problems, one of the good things about social media is interacting with people who have different views and recognizing that identifying people as voting blocks based on gender, race, age, sexual orientation, etc. is counterproductive. I believe it’s one of the primary reasons the Democrats will continue to lose.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t understand why people are so quick to assume that the reason people don’t like Peterson is because they’ve been tricked into not liking him rather than because his philosophies are unlikable.

If you parrot what the mainstream media says about him, I don’t see why I should come to any other conclusion. It sounds to me like you made your mind up about him based on listening to him speak, which is great, but then were happy to incorporate negative reporting that reinforced your conclusions, like the enforced monogamy topic, rather than investigating it further.

I posted that article because I didn’t want everyone to just take my word for what he said.

Why not stick to his own content if it proves what you say about him instead of referencing an article you knew to be dishonest?

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about

Sheesh.

I have no idea what that show is about.

It’s a warning about a future that will never happen, but gets people riled up anyway.

By that logic, 1984 is just fear-mongering rather than an incredibly intelligent allegorical depiction of how potentially dystopian the future can be.

I didn’t say The Handmaid’s Tale was fear-mongering. I said it was a fictional future dystopia and made fun of people for binge-watching it and getting riled up over its contents.

If someone read 1984 and then smashed their smart TV because it was “watching” them, I’d laugh at them, too.

I’ll need a citation of a similar reaction to The Handmaid’s Tale.

Christ dude, it was hyperbole to illustrate a point. The fact that some of you are getting so riled up over the reference to the show only proves me right.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it’s just a corporate way to throw a bone to people asking for real stories involving sexuality while simultaneously not actually doing that.

More like the screenwriters trying to be “subversive” and get some street cred, while the suits pat them on the head and let them get away with it as long as it doesn’t cost them money.

It’s actually their way of pretending to be subversive. We also don’t know if it’s even the screenwriters or not. For all we know it isn’t even in the film. I don’t know how it would cost any money, though.

Yeah, I wasn’t referring to the film’s content, just some recent interviews with Glover and Kasdan where they discuss it.

TV’s Frink said:

I know you said you’re no longer hard left, but you sure sound hard right when you go on about the mainstream media like this.

I can be center-left in my beliefs (having single-payer healthcare, providing a social safety net, enacting sensible gun control, etc.) and also call out liars.

When what is reported in the media directly contradicts, or at the very least, actively omits, observable fact, I have to wonder what the hell is going on. I think the mainstream media has done us a terrible disservice with its 24-hour news cycle consisting of endless panels populated by “experts” and “analysts” who editorialize everything and provide little actual reporting. When the NYT tells me a person is one thing and actually listening to that person tells me they’re something else, I naturally question the rest of the NYT’s reporting and the filter through which it’s being run. I think we’ve passed the point where we can trust the big media companies to give us a fair representation of reality. Nobody wants to be a mere reporter anymore; they want to be an influencer, gain followers, and spread their message.

There’s tons of content out there that never makes it into the popular discourse because it’s not covered by the major media outlets. The danger is separating fact from fiction/conspiracy and not allowing yourself to fall into a very deep, dark place.

The reason I defend people like Peterson, aside from agreeing with some of his views (certainly not all), is that he was the same guy saying the same things before he got famous. If I felt he was modifying his message to suit a particular audience in order to gain followers and make more money, I’d lump him in with the rest of the opportunists and set him aside. And now that he is famous, people have a lot to say about him and his ideas. Some of it is justified, and some of it is patently dishonest.

As far as me moving more to the right, I’ve tried to be more honest with myself about the hypocrisy I see on the left. I told myself for a long time that the left was “better” than the right, but I no longer believe that. Both sides have their virtuous members and their loons. The Rs still probably have more loons, but the left’s loons are starting to catch up. I’d like to see a strong center that pushes outward and squeezes the loons on both sides.

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it’s just a corporate way to throw a bone to people asking for real stories involving sexuality while simultaneously not actually doing that.

More like the screenwriters trying to be “subversive” and get some street cred, while the suits pat them on the head and let them get away with it as long as it doesn’t cost them money.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about

Sheesh.

I have no idea what that show is about.

It’s a warning about a future that will never happen, but gets people riled up anyway.

By that logic, 1984 is just fear-mongering rather than an incredibly intelligent allegorical depiction of how potentially dystopian the future can be.

I didn’t say The Handmaid’s Tale was fear-mongering. I said it was a fictional future dystopia and made fun of people for binge-watching it and getting riled up over its contents.

If someone read 1984 and then smashed their smart TV because it was “watching” them, I’d laugh at them, too.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t understand why people are so quick to assume that the reason people don’t like Peterson is because they’ve been tricked into not liking him rather than because his philosophies are unlikable.

If you parrot what the mainstream media says about him, I don’t see why I should come to any other conclusion. It sounds to me like you made your mind up about him based on listening to him speak, which is great, but then were happy to incorporate negative reporting that reinforced your conclusions, like the enforced monogamy topic, rather than investigating it further.

You were right when you said that we aren’t going to come to any sort of agreement on this, so I’m dropping it.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about

Sheesh.

I have no idea what that show is about.

It’s a warning about a future that will never happen, but gets people riled up anyway.

Wow, shame on people getting riled up about something. (meanwhile Jay gets all riled up about people putting words in Peterson’s mouth note i have no idea if that guys name was peterson, i never heard of him before and i hope i never hear of him again).

Yes, I get riled up when people intentionally misrepresent what others say, whether it’s a liberal or conservative, R or D, whatever. Disagreement is fine. Character assassination is not.

I don’t get riled up over fictional future dystopias, even if they run counter to my politics.

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about

Sheesh.

I have no idea what that show is about.

It’s a warning about a future that will never happen, but gets people riled up anyway.

Billy Dee Williams certainly didn’t play the character like he’d bang anything that moves. Doesn’t mean that’s not who the character is today, but making him pansexual seems a bit convenient given current discussions around gender and sexuality.

I don’t care either way because I think most of the new stuff isn’t worth watching regardless. There’s too much genuinely good sci-fi/fantasy out there now to focus my energies on a franchise that wrecked its main characters and replaced them with cardboard. I have to dig through Star Wars now to find the good parts, which just isn’t the relationship I want to have with my entertainment.

I’d like to see a debate between Billy Dee Williams and Donald Glover over whether Lando is pansexual or not. Have them both crack open an ice-cold Colt 45 and go back and forth a bit.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment

He never said that.

It’s the obvious implication. It’s easy to tell what he means.

(and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules)

He didn’t do this. He never at any point says harassment is justified, only that we shouldn’t be surprised that it happens given the lack of a clear rulebook.

I think we’re never going to see eye to eye on what his statements mean, but I don’t understand this idea that there isn’t a “clear rulebook.” Like I said, not sexually harassing someone is incredibly easy. Here’s how the rules work. If a person’s behavior makes someone uncomfortable, and they continue to do it even after being told that it makes a coworker uncomfortable, then it gets turned over to HR to deal with, and the HR department decides if any disciplinary action needs to take place. That’s a very simple rulebook that anyone at any level of the career ladder can easily understand. There’s no epidemic of people getting fired over completely asexual compliments, especially since businesses can easily get sued for wrongful termination.

I think you need to read some corporate policy manuals and some case law. “Here’s how the rules work…” followed by how you think the rules work doesn’t mean that’s how the rules work.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

Also, just a bit more about the enforced monogamy thing (trigger warning for the squeamish: JP video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=185&v=gNwIYOBpvLg

This doesn’t address the notion that violence from men is the result of a lack of enforced monogamy, which was a part of his original statement. He also is incredibly prudish, which goes against my ethics, and anti-casual sex, which is something I condone. It also ignores the fact that most people that are married are miserable and a huge percentage of marriages end in divorce. It’s that 1950s notion that marriage and family are inherently meaningful and are the cornerstone to a happy life.

My point is that left-leaning media intentionally misrepresented what he meant by “enforced monogamy”, a term that Peterson didn’t invent and was considered completely benign until some folks who binge-watched The Handmaid’s Tale and were looking for stuff to be angry about got their hands on it. Enforced monogamy has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of women being forced to provide sex or men being entitled to sex. And I don’t think he’s terribly off target by suggesting that guys who aren’t successful with women and aren’t getting laid are more likely to exhibit aberrant behavior, parochial solutions notwithstanding.

Disagree with him all you want; it sounds like you have plenty of valid reasons to do so. But don’t be intellectually dishonest by putting words in his mouth.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

I told a female coworker years ago that her hair looked great (she’d just had it cut and colored), and she was flattered.

Maybe she was flattered.

She was cool like that.

moviefreakedmind said:

Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment

He never said that.

(and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules)

He didn’t do this. He never at any point says harassment is justified, only that we shouldn’t be surprised that it happens given the lack of a clear rulebook.

that doesn’t make women hypocrites in the actual definition of the word. It would be hypocritical to say that makeup is wrong and then choose to wear makeup. It isn’t hypocritical to wear makeup and not want sexual harassment. So Peterson doesn’t even have the premise of hypocrisy right. So much for academia.

In his argument, the hypocrisy comes from — again, his argument, not mine — wearing makeup to enhance your attractiveness and then being upset at drawing unwanted attention over your attractiveness. What CatBus addresses is crucial: the rules on the street are different than the rules in the office, which adds to the confusion. What a coworker deems “unwanted” will vary from person to person. I told a female coworker years ago that her hair looked great (she’d just had it cut and colored), and she was flattered. Not a chance in hell I’d even mention it in a professional setting today. No way. Maybe that sort of thing isn’t necessary in the workplace, so no big deal, but I think it’s a loss all around when an innocent compliment can be twisted into something that wasn’t intended and saying nice things becomes risky. As CatBus also mentions, a third party who’s offended by someone’s behavior can also file a complaint, so even if you have a good working relationship with a coworker that allows for friendly — or even flirty — behavior, someone within earshot can still fuck up your life by filing a harassment claim.

Also, just a bit more about the enforced monogamy thing (trigger warning for the squeamish: JP video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=185&v=gNwIYOBpvLg

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

All that is actually not relevant, though, because what is misogynist isn’t being opposed to makeup, it’s believing that sexual harassment is in any way justified because of makeup.

Interviewer: “Do you feel like a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace, she is somewhat being hypocritical?”
Jordan Peterson: “Yeah. I do think that.”

That’s misogynist.

This.

Peterson never said sexual harassment was justified by makeup.

He implied it, but ok. And it’s a shitty thing to say regardless.

He implied it’s a cause, not a justification. And as darthrush posted, it’s not shitty to say that you can do what you want, but doing what you want might have unwanted effects, even if those effects are unwarranted.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

All that is actually not relevant, though, because what is misogynist isn’t being opposed to makeup, it’s believing that sexual harassment is in any way justified because of makeup.

Interviewer: “Do you feel like a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace, she is somewhat being hypocritical?”
Jordan Peterson: “Yeah. I do think that.”

That’s misogynist.

This.

Peterson never said sexual harassment was justified by makeup.

darthrush said:

I feel this issue is very simple once three basic facts are acknowledged:

1. Firstly, in no situation, is there ANY justification for sexual harassment. Someone could be walking around naked and it makes things no different. Sexual harassment/assault are never “more justified”, and if someone tries to suggest that because their clothing/makeup choices were part of the blame then that is a clear misogyny alarm.

2. Secondly, everyone is well aware that there are certain clothes and makeup choices someone can make, which might draw people’s attention somewhere. Those decisions might raise the attractiveness of the individual. Typically they do since it is the purpose of sexy dresses and certain makeup.

3. And lastly, both points 1 and 2 can both be true at the same time. We can acknowledge what makeup/clothing choices can do to the appearance of someone while still establishing the fact that any form of sexual harassment/assault is unacceptable REGARDLESS of what someone is wearing.

All in all, we all can’t delude ourselves to the effect of makeup/clothing choices. And we can agree to regard all sexual harassment crimes as equally terrible.

Oh shit, look at this guy with his common sense coming in and ruining everything.

dahmage said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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

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.

Hopefully he’ll be able to lose the popular vote by less than 2.8 million votes this time.

A win by Electoral College without the popular vote is still a win. I guess some people haven’t figured that out yet.

Maybe he’ll get impeached for his obstruction of justice before 2020 though.

Entirely possible, but banking on that happening could also be a waste of time.

Also, way to deliberately misread Frink’s post. It’s misogynist to think that serious women who wear makeup are hypocrites, not that makeup is unnecessary.

Why is it misogynist? What’s the purpose of makeup in a professional setting? Can you articulate a response?

I don’t think he’s right, but I don’t think he’s a misogynist for saying it either.

what exactly is the problem with people wearing makeup? i don’t understand the point you are trying to make.

I don’t have a problem with people wearing makeup at work or elsewhere.

This is all about Peterson’s opinion that professional women wearing makeup are hypocrites, and Frink’s/mfm’s labeling him a misogynist because of it. Just read the last page or two.

moviefreakedmind said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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

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.

Hopefully he’ll be able to lose the popular vote by less than 2.8 million votes this time.

A win by Electoral College without the popular vote is still a win. I guess some people haven’t figured that out yet.

Maybe he’ll get impeached for his obstruction of justice before 2020 though.

Entirely possible, but banking on that happening could also be a waste of time.

Also, way to deliberately misread Frink’s post. It’s misogynist to think that serious women who wear makeup are hypocrites, not that makeup is unnecessary.

Why is it misogynist? What’s the purpose of makeup in a professional setting? Can you articulate a response?

I don’t think he’s right, but I don’t think he’s a misogynist for saying it either.

Mrebo said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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

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.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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

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.

TV’s Frink said:

Jay said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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

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.