Mrebo

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

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.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

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.

That said, I disagree with his formalistic view and with his particular point here about a woman being hypocritical for wearing make-up.

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

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.

moviefreakedmind said:

Conservative hero, fake philosopher, and skeezy self-help author Jordan Peterson condones sexual harassment:

https://youtu.be/blTglME9rvQ?t=7m14s

Whatever you want to make about his statement about hypocrisy, I don’t hear him say what you hear him say.

Dek Rollins said:

Handman said:

I hate my internet.

I hate your intern

Feels not worth trying when you take such a pessimistic view. I think we had that conversation recently too.

DominicCobb said:

You can point out more than one thing wrong at a time.

Like this.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Let’s go The Lobster.

That movie disappointed me.

Wish you all luck. I dated, once.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/russia-sanctions-oligarchs/index.html

The Trump administration is unleashing additional sanctions against seven Russian oligarchs with ties to President Vladimir Putin along with 12 companies they own or control.

The punitive actions are the latest escalating step by the US to punish Putin’s inner circle for interfering in the 2016 election and other ongoing aggressions across the globe in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria.

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

LOL! I never thought of Voyager as Gilligan’s Island before. Mind blown! Must ponder which Voyager characters have a castaway counterpart…

Harry is Gilligan
Janeway is the Skipper
The Doctor is the Professor
Tom and B’elanna are Mr. and Mrs. Howell
Seven is Ginger
Neelix is Mary Ann

I like this. I’d like a new GI series but I don’t think anyone would know how to do it right. Maybe I’ll watch more Voyager.

Far out. Are you part Japanese?

I don’t do reddit but I gather downvotes matter?

This parody feels appropriate for our times.

paja said:

I’m thinking of making a “The Originaltrilogy Fashion show Thread”

How would that work?

chyron8472 said:

Mrebo said:

chyron, I thought you were on the liberal side?

I liked Obama a lot and Obama is not a liberal.

I like that we rarely have liberal or conservative presidents 😉

Do you support laws that make it difficult for illegal aliens to work in the US?

I had to think about it after you asked this, but yes. The fact that they do work that other people don’t want to do, and for less money, is not an excuse. If we have a problem that they conveniently fill, the fact that they fill it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem. Generally, I would prefer the problem (of jobs no one wants to do for the meager money offered) was more obvious so we would be more inclined to fix it.

I had a feeling my question might inspire reflection.

I agree about enforcing the law. Make it fair for all immigrants. If we want to provide more pathways for immigration then do that, as you say. Even conservatives have felt the temptation to offer amnesty (as Reagan did), but then the rule of law never seems to kick in. Not only do illegal aliens suffer but when they commit crimes, those crimes may go unreported (and I don’t just mean tax filing). I’ve also disagreed with Trump’s immigration policies (though I think they are by-and-large legal) but I don’t know what the solution is when both parties seem complacent about the status quo.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

‘Former Trump aide approved ‘black ops’ to help Ukraine president’…

Paul Manafort authorised secret media operation that sought to discredit key opponent of then Ukrainian president

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-approved-black-ops-to-help-ukraine-president

I find it ridiculous to refer to a media campaign as “black ops.”

Psy-op then?

To the extent any political campaign is, sure. Getting stories run doesnt strike me as terrible.

Depending on how much is done to hide the sources and methods behind a psy-op, I’d say it could be classified as a black op. Black ops don’t all involve helicopters, IMO the term just marks an certain level of compartmentalized secrecy.

The trouble is that it is common for entities to leverage media sources. Things like briefing favorable media sources, rewriting Wiki entries, and using social media are practically unremarkable. Manafort’s failure to register under FARA is mind-bogglingly dumb. And of course there are the allegations about his money management.

People should be wary of the media, whether or not obviously partisan. Maybe this story was itself planted. Pretty soon you’ll be seeing black helicopters everywhere, or not at all.

I hope you continue avoiding temptation and keep healthy.

SilverWook said:

Really could have done without an earthquake today. If you need me, I’ll be curled up into a feral ball in the corner…

Why do you keep a feral ball in the corner? Is it a tribble?

SilverWook said:

Mrebo said:

oojason said:

‘Former Trump aide approved ‘black ops’ to help Ukraine president’…

Paul Manafort authorised secret media operation that sought to discredit key opponent of then Ukrainian president

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/05/ex-trump-aide-paul-manafort-approved-black-ops-to-help-ukraine-president

I find it ridiculous to refer to a media campaign as “black ops.”

Psy-op then?

To the extent any political campaign is, sure. Getting stories run doesnt strike me as terrible.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron, I thought you were liberal? Why do you believe in morals?

Not sure if serious.