I wouldn’t say it’s a shitty thing to say (it is mostly true after all), but it’s a silly reason to not watch a movie that has basically nothing to do with that.
Also it is a pretty massive generalization too I guess.
Football players, just like everyone other group of people, are mostly shitty, but some are cool.
This Jordan Peterson thing is just a clear example of someone with an unintelligent opinion that is obviously lacking in any kind of ethical or rational value. I don’t get why we have to go out of our way to find value in opinions that are obviously dumb. The same can be said about the violent video games. The violent video games causing violence myth has been debunked so many times that there’s no reason to address it in conversation. It should be ignored as the distraction that it is.
Even if Peterson is right that makeup brings more sexual harassment (and he justifies the harassment by claiming that men are too stupid to know the rules), 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.
I was going to do a parody of the Luke line from Jedi and say “I’d fuck you too!” but I thought the timing might be poor. Now I wish I did it.
I pronounce it Oh-lee
I pronounce it Oh-lee
I selectively edited nothing, that is literally what you wrote and it’s right above to see.
You cut out the part where I said I wouldn’t label someone retrograde over taxes, which debunks your claim that I just negatively mark everyone who differs in opinion than me. It’s only on the really shitty opinions that I mark people negatively for, not simple disagreements, but you ignored that. By the way, you mark people negatively for shitty opinions too. At least I hope you do. If someone was of the opinion that drunk driving should be legalized, you’d probably consider that person’s opinion to be terrible. There’s such a thing as a terrible opinion, you know.
We’ve all got shit going on, which is why I was trying to find common ground and be amicable to an extent. I’m not going to continue trying to do so when you label other people’s opinions “terrible” for not being your own and try to tear me down when I was just trying to be friendly in a pretty unfriendly thread.
I already debunked the “other people’s opinions are ‘terrible’ for not being” mine thing so I’ll skip that, but I don’t remember you being particularly friendly. You just defended the sexual harassment guy. I guess that isn’t necessarily unfriendly, but I certainly wouldn’t describe it as an attempt to be friendly to me specifically. I never tried tearing you down, either.
If you’re telling the truth one would think you’d put a bit of thought behind your words before mouthing off at everyone who disagrees with you. I don’t have an issue with you or your opinions as they don’t affect me, but after this I’m not going to keep talking to you because I don’t enjoy pointless hostility.
I don’t know what I’m supposed be “telling the truth” about, but I didn’t mouth off at anybody. I suppose I’m fine with this ending, though, since you consistently attempt to mark me negatively as aggressive and mean and all that. I thought those were leftist tactics. Oh well.
I didn’t mark them negatively because their opinions are different than mine.
I marked them negatively because their opinions are retrograde.
Imagine being that full of yourself.
I’m not full of myself. I’ve been cripplingly depressed for over 50% of my life. I just don’t have the what I consider to be irrational qualm over calling someone retrograde for blaming victims of workplace sexual harassment over their makeup choices. Also, you selectively edited my post in order to make me sound more obnoxious, so thanks for that.
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
When they try to ban them, let me know.
When government officials claim that we need to stop mass shootings and then point the finger at the media, it’s dangerous and can have a chilling effect.
The argument that troubled individuals engaging in simulated violence can lead to real life violence is plausible.
It’s still nonsense. The best-selling games in the world are violent, and we only see these mass-shootings in the US. It doesn’t happen in any other civilized country that has the exact same games we have. It’s just a way to redirect away from guns, which is the real issue.
There is something to be said for the effect of a poor mental diet on one’s choices.
It doesn’t matter, though, because we all have the right to a poor mental diet.
I was civil.
Clearly. I could have berated you earlier in the conversation but instead tried to find common ground and point out what I agreed with instead of letting it divulge into some stupid back and forth that changed neither of our minds.
Who did I berate? And I don’t believe there’s any reason to find common ground on some topics. There is no common ground on some topics, at least not in my opinion.
Your response? To go on some weird rant about half the country having terrible opinions and negatively marking people with dissenting opinions to your own.
It wasn’t a rant. I’m also sure that far more than half the country has terrible opinions. I didn’t mark them negatively because their opinions are different than mine. I marked them negatively because their opinions are retrograde. If someone disagrees with me on tax-exempt statuses, I’m not going to mark them negatively.
That’s why I told you to grow up.
I’m never going to “grow up”. I’m not impressed with the caliber of what passes for an adult in this country.
I find it amazing that Republicans still try to blame movies and video games for school shootings. Remind me again of how these people are the pro-freedom of speech side?
You obviously don’t because Jordan Peterson is one of those extremists on the right
Yes I remember where I said I was Jordan Peterson’s greatest fan, but clearly it’s all or nothing isn’t it? Either you’re madly in love with them and idolise them like a God or you think they’re Hitler’s second coming, of course.
Never said that.
Tearing someone down and shitting all over them because they have a terrible political opinion is completely rational.
Nope. The extreme right is more dangerous than the extreme left in this country.
I don’t care what anyone on either side calls me, I care about what each advocates and does. The mainstream right advocates and implements far more horrific policies than the mainstream left. I’m not talking about radicals.
Grow up.
What is unreasonable about what I said? Also, why would I grow up? Life is way more fun when you don’t grow up.
I don’t agree with a lot of your or anyone here’s viewpoints but I don’t feel the need to personally attack anyone for daring to not share my beliefs.
I didn’t personally attack anyone.
Either you’re extremely immature or insecure about your own viewpoints. Regardless you’re not worth discussing anything with when I was only trying to have a civil discussion on this fancy website called a forum
I may be immature and insecure, but I was civil. You ignored most of my points anyway, so who’s really the one that’s trying to have a discussion? I actually respond to people when I talk to them. I don’t just poke at them and assume they’re brainwashed by the media or assume that all sides are equally bad no matter what.
he’s trying to pander to an audience of men that feel oppressed and disadvantaged in modern society and somehow don’t see the hypocrisy of them being against SJWs when they themselves are also trying to play the victim at every turn.
I think the extremes of both sides can be as bad as each other.
Nope. The extreme right is more dangerous than the extreme left in this country.
Both men and women face issues and it’d be a lot better for everyone if we stopped playing oppression Olympics and realised that. I’m just as sick of radical leftists calling me homophobic, sexist, etc. as I am of radical far righters calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them a ‘cuck’ or ‘beta.’
I don’t care what anyone on either side calls me, I care about what each advocates and does. The mainstream right advocates and implements far more horrific policies than the mainstream left. I’m not talking about radicals.
I’m right leaning but I probably feel just as annoyed at the extremists on the right side as the average left leaning person does for the extremists on theirs.
You obviously don’t because Jordan Peterson is one of those extremists on the right, along with his cult following. The extremists on the right also control all three branches of government.
It’s fine to disagree with someone, I just don’t get tearing people down and shitting all over them just because they have a different political opinion.
Well I get it. Tearing someone down and shitting all over them because they have a terrible political opinion is completely rational.
Yeah I’m not sure what he hoped to accomplish by making men sound like socially inept buffoons. If I’m going to guess then I’d say he’s referring to it not being “the norm” for very long? But again at this point it has been the norm for quite a while, so yeah. No idea.
That’s not it, he’s trying to pander to an audience of men that feel oppressed and disadvantaged in modern society and somehow don’t see the hypocrisy of them being against SJWs when they themselves are also trying to play the victim at every turn. That’s Jordan Peterson’s shtick.
It isn’t activism, it’s having effective HR departments at work. Men get sexually harassed too, so even if we were all being totally selfish here, this would benefit us too. Having zero-tolerance for sexual harassment won’t effect you if you don’t repeatedly make horribly unwarranted advances toward people.
I agree.
The three hours, getting dolled up, wearing sexy dresses, and god knows what else are all your additions to this. Peterson was talking about makeup in general. Even if I conceded that such behavior makes you a hypocrite, which I don’t, it’s still not representative of all working women that wear makeup.
In the full interview he doesn’t speak about ‘regular old makeup’, he refers to high-heels and sexualised lipstick, among other things.
In response to that question, he was, and his hypothetical solution was to ban makeup. “How about no makeup?” He did walk it back because it’s stupid, but he kept saying that men don’t know what the rules are, whatever that means, but not sexually harassing someone is incredibly easy. The rules are clear. If someone tells you that your behavior makes them uncomfortable, then you stop. If you don’t stop, then they report you to HR. The rules are very simple and easy to follow.
It was also me trying to better understand what he was talking about given the context we have; the man’s annoyingly abrupt with most of his replies.
Usually he rambles on trying to squeeze in as many buzzwords as he can.
Detroit is a shithole that’s totally unsafe. We’re talking about professional work environments. That’s a false equivalence and you know it.
I don’t agree. Not all work environments are professional, safe, etc. I wish they were but they’re not. Just like I wish Detroit wasn’t a shithole, but it is. Different workplaces have different cultures, some of them pretty hostile.
I know, some workplaces are shitholes, and that needs to change. It’s easier to enforce proper conduct in individual workplaces than it is in the streets of Detroit.
I know the right-wing likes to pretend that any and all claims of misogyny are just made up and fake
Generalising is always a good way to have a dialogue I hear.
It’s more the issue of it being turned into a loaded buzzword on the internet.
The idea that women who wear makeup are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed is misogynist, and it’s pathetic, and it’s disgusting.
Yeah, it is. Nobody should be harassed, sexually or otherwise.
But we don’t live on fantasy island.
Should you walk around Detroit in the middle of the night in a fancy suit carrying a briefcase full of cash? No. Why? You’ll get mugged. Should you get mugged? No. Do you deserve it? No. But you will, and you know why? There are terrible people in the world and no amount of bitching about it and activist movements will stop people from being terrible. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that doing certain things are going to set off shitty people who want to do shitty things to you.
It isn’t activism, it’s having effective HR departments at work. Men get sexually harassed too, so even if we were all being totally selfish here, this would benefit us too. Having zero-tolerance for sexual harassment won’t effect you if you don’t repeatedly make horribly unwarranted advances toward people.
So yeah, if a woman spends three hours on makeup before work dolling herself up, wears a sexy dress and god knows what, she’s going to get attention. And she knows it.
Does she deserve negative attention? No, nobody does, but she’ll get it, and hopefully the assholes perpetrating it get reprimanded. But it won’t stop her getting it again in the future.
The three hours, getting dolled up, wearing sexy dresses, and god knows what else are all your additions to this. Peterson was talking about makeup in general. Even if I conceded that such behavior makes you a hypocrite, which I don’t, it’s still not representative of all working women that wear makeup.
Being an asshole is gender-less but you can typically avoid attracting assholes by not walking around Detroit with a briefcase of cash.
Detroit is a shithole that’s totally unsafe. We’re talking about professional work environments. That’s a false equivalence and you know it.
Calling people who wear makeup “hypocrites” is a stretch and I don’t think that’s the right word to use, but I get what he’s at least trying to say.
I get what he’s trying to say too and it’s incredibly unintelligent and backwards.
Which I didn’t do.
I also never said you did.
Then why say it at all if it isn’t relevant?
I know the right-wing likes to pretend that any and all claims of misogyny are just made up and fake
Generalising is always a good way to have a dialogue I hear.
It’s a fair generalization in this case.
It’s more the issue of it being turned into a loaded buzzword on the internet.
Which I didn’t do.
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.
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.
I’m well aware. I didn’t say otherwise. I just think it’s wonderful that Trump lost the popular vote. And I just find it funny because I guarantee you that almost none of Trump’s supporters would have accepted it if he won the popular vote by 3 million and lost the electoral college. He certainly wouldn’t have conceded as quickly as Hillary did.
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.
I’m not banking on anything, I just think it’d be wonderful to see that happen.
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?
Unfortunately, looking more attractive is still an important in factor in the work place, especially when promotions are up for grabs. Physical appearance is a big part of looking professional. Also, maybe they just want to. I, unlike Jordan Peterson, am all about people doing what they want to do regardless of what anyone thinks.
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. I know the right-wing likes to pretend that any and all claims of misogyny are just made up and fake, but this is a clear example of cut and dry misogyny. But beyond that, it’s a clear example of cut and dry stupidity. Something tells me that if some guy found Jordan Peterson’s sexy-ass suit attractive and went up and made unwarranted sexual advances on him, Peterson would not be too pleased. And he shouldn’t be, but by his logic, he’d just be a hypocrite for that.
The idea that women who wear makeup are hypocrites for not wanting to be sexually harassed is misogynist, and it’s pathetic, and it’s disgusting. That’s a fact that civilized men everywhere can agree on. Jordan Peterson is a disgusting and backwards individual for believing that a person’s appearance makes them a hypocrite for not wanting to be sexually harassed. That statement may trigger the fans, but that’s okay, because I don’t care who I trigger.
I’m not allowed at barbecues either. Apparently I’m too bigoted and unlikable.
Tough call. Seems like shooting fish in a barrel, but not everyone would agree I suppose.
I feel compelled to chronicle the folly of Jordan Peterson but I don’t want to keep bringing him up in the Politics 2 thread.
2001 A Space Odyssey sounds like a lot of work.
Can I make a thread where I list all of the unreasonable Jordan Peterson ideas? That way I won’t clutter the politics thread with stuff about him.
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.
Hopefully he’ll be able to lose the popular vote by less than 2.8 million votes this time. Maybe he’ll get impeached for his obstruction of justice before 2020 though. 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.
I am anti-political correctness to the core. I’ve made that extremely clear for years.
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”?