moviefreakedmind

Ah, I’m not familiar.

What?

I think it appeals to big fans of the books and the lore and the like. Probably more so than to filmgoers.

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.

Jay said:

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.

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.

I don’t do Twitter. Its limit on characters exists purely to dumb down discourse, so I boycott it.

I own the extended versions on blu-ray but was tempted to get the theatricals since they’re pretty cheap usually. I’d like to revisit them.

Oh yeah! That’s right. I totally forgot about that. I haven’t seen the theatrical cuts in probably ten years or so.

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.

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

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.

Jeebus said:

Jay said:

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.

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.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-to-meet-top-justice-intelligence-leaders-official/ar-AAxAPtn

I think the road to impeachment might be very real here. Trump actually doesn’t have the authority to control the FBI. If evidence is found that proves him guilty of collusion with Russia, it’ll come out.

Jay said:

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.

a fascist (despite his entire platform being free speech and vehemently anti-fascist)

He constantly advocates violence over mere words. His response to the Times article was to say that he wanted to slap the author. He also has advocated violence towards socialists. Also, “enforced monogamy” sounds incredibly fascist to me. He’s very authoritarian at heart. His self-help book is basically just a list of edicts for others to follow.

The Vibe interview, which was heavily edited for broadcast, made Peterson look crazy. At least watch the unedited version (available on YouTube) before coming to any conclusions. I don’t agree that he was saying women are hypocrites for wearing makeup; he simply acknowledged what makeup is at its core (something that enhances attractiveness by simulating good health through clear skin and replicating aspects of sexual response, like rosy cheeks) and why that might confuse some men.

Even if I were to concede that the only reason women wore makeup was to appear attractive, that’s no excuse for “confused” men. If I see someone with makeup on that I find attractive, I never assume that they are trying to appear attractive to me specifically. They could want to appear attractive to their own partner, or someone else at work, or maybe they just like the way they look with makeup on. Not committing sexual harassment is the simplest and easiest thing in the world.

There’s a huge gap between what Peterson says and what others say he says. Disagree with his ideas all you want, but don’t form your opinions about people based entirely on what other people say about them, especially with so much material freely available.

I certainly haven’t done that. His worldview is totally antithetical to my philosophy by which I live, and that’s based on what he’s said, not what others have said about what he’s said.

I used to be fairly hard left, but after seeing the massive discrepancies between mainstream reporting about some of these supposedly “alt-right” personalities and what the subjects of their articles actually say and do, I’ve started to wonder what other things we’re being told that are complete horseshit, or at least are being run through a left-leaning political filter. It seems like anything to the right of socialism is being cast as alt-right in an attempt to lump it all together.

This is not true. Socialism, as we saw in the election, was quashed by the supposedly fringe-left mainstream media in favor of the centrist corporate candidate Hillary Clinton. There was no leftist candidate available in the 2016 election other than Jill Stein who was not going to win. As for your alt-right comment, I actually don’t see much difference between the alt-right and the normal right. It’s a lot more openly racist and regressive, but it’s basically just modern-day Republicanism amped up to a frightening extreme. And the right hasn’t distanced itself from it at all.

I’m not a Trump supporter by any means, but holy hell have liberals lost their minds since he was elected.

“liberals lost their minds”? Every single one of them? I mean, if they did it’d be kind of fair given that Trump is the most illiberal president in about a century, but how have they lost their minds? What are they calling for now that is so much crazier than what liberals were calling for five years ago?

suspiciouscoffee said:

Let me guess. Is there

female nudity

in the film?

What does this even mean?

Wow. I can never remember my dreams.

snooker said:

Dosen’t the theatrical cut of ROTK cut out a certain major characters death?

Who? I don’t remember the theatrical cut.

ChainsawAsh said:

Yeah, the EE of both Fellowship and Two Towers are superior. Not so for ROTK, though - I prefer the theatrical for that one for a few reasons.

I love the Mouth of Sauron stuff.

Get Out was so FUCKING good!

Not to mention that it might still have been extremely dangerous when the characters of those stories did it.

I was going to read that one. I really wanted to see the film but didn’t catch it in theaters either.

Hold on a minute. I really hope you just punked me, or something, because the insanity of that latter tenant just hit me. What kind of moron would advocate touching strange animals? That’s the kind of thing that kindergarten teachers tell five year-olds not to do. You don’t just pet a random animal. That’s not safe. For Christ’s sake!

Thankfully none of his followers have kids. 😉

SilverWook said:

Hot damn! We should start our own cult or something. We can worship a giant velvet painting of Ric Olie…

And I totally misread that as creating a Giant Bender.

Since that picture, he’s doubled his number of monthly donors and likely makes 100,000 dollars a year. And before anyone accuses me of jealousy, I’ll just admit it. (That’s my trademark honesty.) I wish that I could make a million bucks a year from lying to stupid people on the internet. I would love to have it that easy. So yeah, I’m jealous!

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Jordan Peterson doesn’t really have ideas. He’s intentionally vague, slippery, and convoluted in order for his followers to basically interpret his drivel in ways that are personal to them. It also helps so that when people call him out for being full of shit, he can pretend that they’re “misunderstanding” his points when in reality there are no real points at all.

First, citation needed?

Second, you say this as though the media in general doesn’t do this. Drumming up drama that likely didn’t previously exist so that they can make themselves sound justified when they complain about it.

So even if Peterson does this, which I’m not convinced he does, he certainly would not be the first, last, or only person to do this on either side of the fence. There’s an entire culture and market where people and corporations make money off of manufactured drama.

I can’t give a citation because my impression is based on literally everything I’ve ever heard him say or seen him write. I have yet to be impressed by a single sentence that this charlatan has uttered. Expose yourself to some of his work and you’ll see what I mean. His speeches are just ramblings filled with big words.

My problem really is that it would be easier to paint him as stupid if the people who report on him as being stupid weren’t themselves equal or greater in stupidity. Reporting on a report on an opinion about some of what he said is one example. Another is his interview with Cathy “So-What-You’re-Saying-Is…” Newman.

I don’t know what this means, but Peterson is one of the dumbest voices in the political discourse these days. Now he’s moved on to basically being a self-help guru, but writing about a piece about Peterson is not as stupid as Jordan Peterson’s “ideas.”

TV’s Frink said:

darthrush said:

I don’t like Peterson’s views on women or the fact that he thinks there can not be art without religion.

He used to seem like a pretty reasonable guy who was a well mannered debater but slowly his ideas have been getting crazier and crazier.

Crazy pays the bills?