Discussion in 'EtcetEra' started by Purple Chocolate Bar, Mar 19, 2018.
At this point, his celebrity seems to have taken on a life of its own anyway. Selling self-help books to right wingers... I would have never imagined it.
I didn't say Peterson is expressing sincere concern, I said he is thinking about possible ways of solving the problem. The possibilities of coming up with a solution during an interview against a SJW are below zero, but that kind of thought process, if practiced with a few other intellectuals of different viewpoints, could help make advancements in the right direction.
Also, women don't make dress codes, but if enough people works together, they can be changed anyway we want.
I don't think he believes in women staying at home. But he does believe in women being happier and having a fuller life when they have children.
Also, Peterson is the one alluding that makeup and high heels contributes to sexual harassment. He made the claim and he should back it up.
and I don't want shit explanation or something, I want actual proof.
We do know that attire has no impact on sexual assault.
This is such a basic tenet of human interaction it blows my mind people are trying to spin it to give Peterson credit for such a stupid statement.
Are you serious?
Way to blow the air of credibility you had btw.
Consider especially you and Peterson are trying to argue that heels and makeup is enough to constitute potentially provocative dress.
50% of Canadian women are harassed in the workplace, it ain't the heels and makeup bro.
But then agian you bloody well called the Vice Interviewer an SJW soooo pardon if your defense of Peterson no longer seems all that credible.
O no guys! Not es jay double you interviewers!
So I will say David Ricardo makes a compelling case for my argument that blaming "SJWs" for the popularity of right wing rock stars is meaningless because they're gonna identify everyone including a Vice Interviewer as an SJW
Ya'll need to learn how to do the Peterson shuffle so you avoid outing yourselves
Pushing back against these goons is vital because if you can make enough noise then the mainstream press will identify him as a charlatan eventually. Hopefully this would lead to interviewers not lobbing him softballs or deplatforming him altogether one day.
When I worked at salons, we'd sometimes have men call in and sexually harass female receptionists. Harassment often goes beyond whether you find someone "hot". It's often boils down to power. I have an acquaintance who was a bouncer at a bar. He often got sexually harassed by female patrons, and he said there was an entitlement to it. They knew they had power over him in a unique way. They got amusement out of this. It didn't mean they thought he was the hottest thing they've seen all day.
What's interesting is that for all this talk of biology and sexuality, nobody has suggested that women should avoid work when ovulating. Men tend to find ovulating women more attractive for a variety of reasons, but it would be insane to say women are hypocrites if they go to work while ovulating if they don't want to be sexually harassed.
If your response to this is, "Women who ovulate don't have a choice", well, not all women have a choice about makeup and heels. And while women being more attractive while ovulating is based in biology and reproduction, makeup isn't. I'm an artist and generally creative person. I like to express this through my makeup and clothes. It isn't about expanding my sex appeal. If you reduce makeup to "heightening sexuality", then you have to extend that to anything we do to improve our appearance. When you do that, you realize how reductive it is to focus on women and makeup, and how silly it is to even bring it up in regards to the sexual harassment women face.
I did not say that there is a baseline of normal sexuality either, I defined what I mean by hypersexualised culture today and gave you proof. It's not a comparison. Although I also compared it to 50 years ago in terms of volume of sexual imagery processed by our brains which you totally ignored. Take that as baseline of you need one.
I also did not say I know why women wear makeup to work, where do you get this stuff?? Women obviously wear makeup for a large number of reasons. Having a reason for something doesn't mean that's it automatically removes underlying message of the object. It's the same concept as having a gun. You can own it for different reasons, defense, hunting, fun at practice range, but it doesn't remove the underlying message of danger, of capability to maim or kill which you may or may not want to project. Makeup to negligee is a bit like pepper spray to gun.
But compare that interview with the one with VICE or anyone else who simply asks a followup question and JP turns out to be his own worst enemy. This is why the the lobsters were so enraged with the VICE interview, because even as they claim Peterson came out on top (as he always does), he didn't give the impression of looking good like he did with the Newman interview.
Also, too. I've been following the last 10 pages of this thread, and I still have zero clue what the fuck either Peterson or his supporters in this thread are arguing about the make up thing.
Again, the hallmark of a genius mind.
When you call something hyper sexual, you’re implying that there is a point in which sexualization is normal like hyperthermia. It means you’re too hot. Hypothermia means you’re not hot enough. We know the baseline for that, we know what the normal range for the body temperature is.
If you say that society is hyper sexual, what would a normal sexual society look like? What would a hyposexual society look like?
Earlier you said that hyper sexualization is the use of sex and sexual attributes so much that sex seems like the perceived norm. So what is the actual norm?
The fuck does Lobsters mean?
Is it a reference to that weird as fuck movie Colin Farrell made? I still don't know what the fuck that garbage was about .
i would say peterson is the embodiment of the dunning-kruger effect but i'm unsure as to how much he actually believes what he says, since he's pretty obviously a barely competent grifter who's simply hit on a large set of very willing marks
anyway this is the best post i've seen on peterson, basically it's just a list of things he's said that are obviously ridiculous or bigoted: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/860ehc/the_jordan_peterson_megaarchive_post/
And idk how you think guns and pepper spray are like makeup. I can't even understand what you're trying to convey with your comparison.
thus it's become something of a jokey term for his marks
The problem I get with Peterson is that he seems to twist the conversation to go nowhere, he also deflects and partially agrees along the way without actually agreeing, and basically that is what I would call arguing in bad faith. Rather than defending his counter points, he obfuscate his points such that they become a nebulous mass that evades all criticism.
At least that is the impression I got from his talk with Sam Harris. He took a convoluted path to basically avoid Sam's points without giving valid counters but merely deflecting and sometimes pseudo agreeing while still saying he disagrees. Quite a spectacle.
To me you either agree, disagree or are undecided about a topic. If you defend your position clearly and put your reasons for having it, reasons you actually believe are valid, it is arguing in good faith in my book. When you don't believe in the validity of the reasons or basis but still use that as part of the debate that is bad faith.
Outside of negotiations where no intent to compromise makes them moot and thus lack of intent to compromise is bad faith, in every day actual debate, strongly defending a counter point is good faith(assuming no underhanded tactics). Say freedom versus slavery, if you defend freedom, you can't expect to compromise with slavery during debate, you either wholly embrace freedom or switch sides and support slavery.
A debate may go nowhere, especially in this day and age where the tendency to deeply entrench has become ubiquitous. But still you get to see point and counter point as well as debunkings upon debunkings if the debate is let to go on. Some in the audience may well switch sides, one would expect most who are still undecided would switch to the most correct position. If debate is stifled then when those undecided, and even those who're on one side get exposed to the counter point, even bogus point may hold weight as they've not seen the debunking and would have to research it.
But with Peterson, again at least from what I saw with Sam Harris, he doesn't clearly state his counter points, which basically doesn't allow for a clear target to be debated upon. Sam tried to get him to clarify his position so the debate could actually start, but spent more than an hour with Peterson being an obscurantist about his position even on the first topic of the podcast, and basically never actually clarifying.
PS On an unrelated note. As for Godel would have to look deeper into it, but wikipedia says that it seems to use a diagonal argument, which IIRC was the thing that lead to the ridiculous infinity of ever larger infinities, infinities upon infinities larger than infinities, which some will defend but it is nonsense backed by that argument, if there's a flaw in the argument they are baseless and as nonsensical as they appear at first glance. In my book the diagonal argument is actually flawed, and I believe that in time it will be found as such by the community.
rightfully restricted. Their argument is that restricting misgendering does not impede "freedom of expression" because it's hate speech, and hate speech is not a valid form of free expression. Specifically:
already claim he's doing that) - thus placing all trans pronouns into a type of compelled speech since it's so closely linked with identity.
The Bar paper also doesn't address the Ontario Human Rights Commission or it's Tribunals at all, which was Peterson's actual focus. Here are the statements by this Canadian authority (http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/questions-and-answers-about-gender-identity-and-pronouns#_edn3)
This thread has been quite a ride and I am deeply grateful for so many here in your dedication towards explaining clearly the fundamental issues with a man I have very little experience with.
People like Peterson repulse me on so many levels
This is exactly what the law was intended to do, stop discrimination on the basis of gender in federal work places.
a post on the Chapo sub about why Peterson doesn't understand biology:
On Anthropology: the critic uses a few outlier religions to dismiss Peterson's framework, but this isn't understanding why Peterson linked evolutionary psychology to the bigger religions in the first place. He claims these stories were formulated because of the evolutionary psychology humans went through, not that each religion will have the same details of myth - which is why Peterson broadens the specifics of the stories into those three themes of known-unknown-exploration. This critic essentially says "if you're going to make broad claims about how religious themes and myth generally work in relation to evolutionary psychology themes, then the exact same themes need to be represented in the exact same ways in all religions to be true" but this demand is silly for a broad framework. For example in China is there really no theme that matches his archetype of "divine son" - i.e. the mediator between unexplored and explored - representing the duality of his two other archetypes (mother/father) and the balance between them? I'll make a guess and say the duality of Yin Yang likely fits into this framework. I mean yea, there's probably not a Chinese Jesus. But that was never the claim.
On Morality: he claims that since there were people who defined morality outside of specific religions that Peterson is wrong. Peterson isn't saying religion is the source of human ethics, he says it's reflective of the ethics we developed during evolution - a way to explain ethics through story. Mythology and religion is a mode of expression, and one that has value based upon the success of those who adhered to their religion. To determine that value you need to extrapolate various stories into overall themes that relate between successful religions or myths. The better a broad theme fits into a variety of categories of religion or myth, the more likely it's true in representing a fundamentally successful/true aspect of the ethical evolution of humanity.
On Philosophy: He claims that Peterson believes myth to be "the best guide to moral significance" (despite the provided quotes of Peterson not claiming this) - and later characterizes this as Christian mythology despite previously admitting that it's based upon Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism (among others he doesn't mention). The critic then says there are other better guides than Peterson's. OK, that's his opinion? On the quote from 480: I agree Peterson's use of "all" is sloppy/misleading, but I believe his overall point is that on a practical level much of our perception of law and fairness is based largely on the cultural integration of religious texts and myths (which, by the way, aren't necessarily religious i.e. dragons). While other philosophers may have formulated ways to justify good behavior without religion or myth there's very little reason to think they had nearly the influence that religious books and myths have had in formulating Western public opinion on what constitutes good behavior - and regardless, the actual ethical character of all these systems remains very similar, even if the means of getting there is different. On 472: I agree with the criticism of Peterson's use of "truth" being synonymous with "it works." They aren't the same things.
On Politics: He mischaracterizes words Peterson uses. I.E. the critic simply states that Peterson believes totalitarianism is a "spiritual sickness" and ends Peterson's quote on those words, implying some woo-level of belief despite the sentence continue to clinically define what that means: "a deep rooted spiritual sickness, endemic to mankind, the consequences of unbearable self-consciousness, apprehension of destiny in suffering and limitation, and pathological refusal to face the consequences thereof." Peterson is defining "spiritual sickness" in clinical terms of material reality (and typically does with all religious "sounding" words) so thinking this is actually representing a person's metaphysical spirit that goes to heaven or hell is simply not accurate. The critic than says Peterson solution is "Christianity" - despite, again, this being a blatant mischaracterization of the scope of Peterson's broader framework. And in fact this critics "non religious" solutions (i.e. secular non-discrimination laws) are exactly what Peterson is getting at when he says all individuals are "sacred." I can see why this critic is getting his signals crossed - Peterson uses spiritual language in an attempt to impart greater meaning to what are, at the foundation, non-spiritual concepts.
He then goes on to bitch about Peterson's interpretation of Bill C-16. But I'm sure that has literally nothing to do with why he posted a blog critique in 2018 of a book Peterson wrote in 1999.
TLDR: I've spent 2 hours typing up this response that I would've rather spent doing something else. To be clear, I'm not going to do this again with any other random link of a critique of the book unless people start depositing money into my paypal account per my hourly rate. Being able to slap down a blog link in two seconds and then demand I spend 2 hours formulating a response or else assume I would be unable to is a damn ridiculous standard.
itself counts as discrimination, not misgendering someone in order to then enact some further type of discrimination (like denying medical treatment).
There's nothing to suggest that this bill restricts speech. What you gave me was the bill being used to protect a trans individual from discrimination, the discrimination itself wasn't the police misgendering, it was them denying her medical treatment because she was trans. Like if a homophobic Baker refuses service to a gay couple and called them "fa*gots". Their use of homophobic slurs will be used against them in court to prove the refusal of service was on the basis of their sexual orientation. The homophobic slur by itself isn't enough to get anyone in trouble as stated by the Supreme Court.
Give me a case where this bill has gotten someone in trouble for misgendering someone
I really like this piece:
It sums up the entire situation quite well. It touches on why the left can't truly change the world right now:
From the article's source
Turns out JP who has claimed to be a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw tribe
In short everything Pankaj Mishra (the man who caused Peterson to meltdown on Twitter) was right and accurate to doubt Peterson's claims.
In the best of irony Peterson has used his claim of being a member to defend himself from claims of racism.
And I like these two comments as a response to that defense (especially in light of the whole thing being not true)
In short this is the definition of an abuse of identity politics.
Because left authoritarian is a good category to be in?
More from that article about why his lie matters
Also Petterson ran from being interviewedon the issue... much like he runs from debating actual Marxists
If you want to mean communist or trotskist, use this instead.
I only stopped at the 1st one, there's so many parts to make fun of.