• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What Jordan Peterson and James Demore got wrong

He sort of was.

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing", yeah definitely sounds like a cult leader. If that really were the case then why was he condemned to death and why did his most famous disciple disagree with him on so many points? Are you aware that his Academy lasted for almost a thousand years and was based on the principle of skepticism? Do you also know that his philosophical institution cultivated tremendous philosophical diversity (Democritus, Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides, etc...)?

You're just contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.

And I hold up your posts in this thread as Exhibit A. ;)

Oh, so I'm a cultist for merely pointing out your factual inaccuracies? Alrighty then... by that measure every academic must be a hardcore cultist at heart. There's quite a bit of stuff that I disagree with, but why should I give you the pleasure, when it's quite evident that you're woefully unable to overcome your own prejudices and when I'm too busy pointing out your baseless assumptions? You've made up your mind, so don't expect me to help you along.
 

Dunki

Member
But again, how you can claim something is largely due to the biological differences between men and women when there is such a variation from country to country.
Because it all has the same pattern.

Equal country less women interested in STEM
Unequal country more women intersted in STEM.

And again you can see this pattern in every country. These choices have nothing to do with culture. When something is not equal you have much more the urge to fight against this kind of establishment when you feel equal you rather want to do what you want.

And marketing for lets say toys have no mission to establish cultural gender roles. They do psychology to sell more. So they want to enhance you natural desires not condition you into liking something you do not like
 
Last edited:

Moff

Member
I listened to several hours of Peterson interviews and debates after his infamous BBC interview, where the interviewer obviously did a terrible job. But it got me interested in what makes him tick.
I have reached the point now where I think I heard most of what he publicly says, it's often the same points and analogies repeated, because obviously he often gets asked similar questions.
I have to say that he strikes me as dishonest most of the time, and that he is a very intelligent man trapped in the body of a deeply traditional christian believer. Some of the things he said about belief and atheism showed me the limits of his understanding, and when he said that he thinks female feminists secretly desire to be raped by muslim men that seemed like one of the very few instances where he was truly honest and how biased his views really are.
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Banned
I listened to several hours of Peterson interviews and debates after his infamous BBC interview, where the interviewer obviously did a terrible job. But it got me interested in what makes him tick.
I have reached the point now where I think I heard most of what he publicly says, it's often the same points and analogies repeated, because obviously he often gets asked similar questions.
I have to say that he strikes me as dishonest most of the time, and that he is a very intelligent man trapped in the body of a deeply traditional christian believer. Some of the things he said about belief and atheism showed me the limits of his understanding, and when he said that he thinks female feminists secretly desire to be raped by muslim men that seemed like one of the very few instances where he was truly honest and how biased his views really are.

I think this dubious assertion was already covered in the other Jordan Peterson thread, and thoroughly debunked: -

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/chan...ap-campus-protests-and-postmodernism.1460648/

On that basis alone I think it's probably fair to say that the only one being dishonest about anything here is you.
 

Moff

Member
I think this dubious assertion was already covered in the other Jordan Peterson thread, and thoroughly debunked: -

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/chan...ap-campus-protests-and-postmodernism.1460648/

On that basis alone I think it's probably fair to say that the only one being dishonest about anything here is you.
What do you mean I am dishonest? It was a video of him saying what I quoted.
I did not read the other thread, would you mind explaining how the video was debunked and how it was a dubious assertion?

edit: ok I skimmed through the thread and found the part where you "thoroughly debunked it", which is not what you did at all. You tried to excuse it by saying he was not really serious, but he actually doubles down on it and says he is really serious after the other guy in the conversation laughs about it.
I have to correct myself too, though, he didn't say feminist want to be raped he said they wish to be brutally dominated by muslims.

But since you tried to play that statement down, I assume you are probably aware of how stupid, wrong and horrible it is, so that is start at least, I guess.
 
Last edited:
...and when he said that he thinks female feminists secretly desire to be raped by muslim men that seemed like one of the very few instances where he was truly honest and how biased his views really are.

Oh certainly, if you have listened to so many hours of Peterson talking, then why don't you link to the video where he talks about that? I'm sure it has nothing to do with your intention of misrepresenting what he said by simply omitting the much needed context that would essentially contradict your hyperbolic statement.



God I'm going to say this, even though I shouldn't. I don't believe this but I'm trying to figure it out. You know I thought it was absolutely comical when 50 shade of grey came out... That at the same time there this massive political demand for radical equality, say with regards to sexual behavior, and the fastest selling novel the world had ever seen was s&m domination. And it's like "Well we know where the unconscious is going with that one don't we...

And one of the things I've really tried to puzzle out, and it's not like I believe this, I'm just telling you where the edges of my thinking have been going, is that you have this crazy alliance between the feminists and radical Islamists that I just do not get. It's like why they aren't protesting nonstop about Saudi Arabia is completely beyond me.

I wonder too, this is the Freud in me - is there an attraction that's emerging among the female radicals for that totalitarian male dominance that they've chased out of the west. And that's a hell of a thing to think, but I am, after all, psychoanalytically minded and I do think things like that. Because I just can see no other rational reason for it… besides the west needs to fall and so … the enemy of my enemy is my friend… and I’m not going to shake my suspicion that about this unconscious balancing because as the demand for egalitarianism and the eradication of masculinity accelerates, there’s going to be a longing in the unconscious for the precise opposite of that. The more your scream for equality the more your unconscious is going to admire dominance. And that’s how you think if you’re psychoanalytically minded.

First, he talks about domination, not 'rape'. Second, it is no mystery that domination fantasies are quite popular among women (here, here and here). Third, nowhere does he state that as a fact, merely speculation. Fourth, I too would like to know why so many radical feminists have trouble denouncing the patriarchal and oppressive underpinnings of Islam. Instead they rally behind people like Linda Sarsour (here and here) while loudly denouncing other female human rights activists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Agree or disagree with what Peterson said, I don't care, but don't misrepresent it.
 
Last edited:

Moff

Member
Agree or disagree with what Peterson said, I don't care, but don't misrepresent it.
I don't think I did, I said he "thinks", not that he presented it as a fact.
And I already corrected myself with the rape and domination.

So before I answer your questions and other points, you disagree with Kadayi that Peterson was not really serious when he said that feminists have a wish to be brutally dominated by muslims?
 
Last edited:
So before I answer your questions and other points, you disagree with Kadayi that Peterson was not really serious when he said that feminists have a wish to be brutally dominated by muslims?

Read the transcript I provided (and even emboldened and underlined for your convenience) and the answer should be pretty frikkin' obvious.

And you come back with, "im gonna ad hom you because you are in the 'JP cult'" heheheh

To be honest, I'd even engage in some sort of reasoned criticism, but that would require at least some rudimentary understanding of what Peterson is trying to convey. If only they could get over themselves for one second instead of willfully misrepresenting and slandering him. Hell if not even Socrates is safe, then I'm not getting my hopes up really.
 
Last edited:

Moff

Member
Read the transcript I provided (and even emboldened and underlined for your convenience) and the answer should be pretty frikkin' obvious.
I did read it and no, I do not think it's obvious at all. Peterson does what he always does when he is confronted with opinions where he realized himself they were alienating for many people even among his own targeted audience. Instead of arguing with empirical facts and numbers (which he usually does when he is at his best) he is being vague and backtracking just to double down on it later with more vague implications, as he did in the last sentences of your quote. He did something similar on the h3 podcast when Ethan asked him about atheism because he did not want to alienate him, he also did something very similar in the vice interview when talking about women in the workplace. Which is one of the reasons why he left a dishonest impression on me.

But back to your quote, I assume what you wanted me to read was when he said he "didn't really believe that" so, like Kadaysi, I assume you think he was not really being serious, although he immediately doubled down after that quote in the video and clarified that he actually was serious and it was not supposed to make the other guy in the discussion laugh?

So I ask you the same question, you do believe that the statement that feminists want to be brutally dominated by men is stupid, wrong and horrible?
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Banned
What do you mean I am dishonest? It was a video of him saying what I quoted.

Of course, you're dishonest. You didn't even have the decency to post this footage you eluded to. You just hoped that people would take your driveby shitpost as some inalterable fact. Guess again. This in NEWGAF. Post BS, get called on it.

But back to your quote, I assume what you wanted me to read was when he said he "didn't really believe that" so, like Kadaysi, I assume you think he was not really being serious, although he immediately doubled down after that quote in the video and clarified that he actually was serious and it was not supposed to make the other guy in the discussion laugh?

Again why aren't you posting this? Forget he said/she said. Let's see the full footage.

There's a reason you're not doing it because, within the context of what's actually said, your little driveby just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It didn't work for Snitch in the other thread, and it's not going to pass muster here either. I know it, you know and anyone else familiar with it knows it, so whom are you hoping to convince exactly?
 
Last edited:
I did read it and no, I do not think it's obvious at all.

When it comes down to your second-hand opinion or what the person at hand actually said, I'd rather choose the latter.

He did something similar on the h3 podcast when Ethan asked him about atheism because he did not want to alienate him, he also did something very similar in the vice interview when talking about women in the workplace. Which is one of the reasons why he left a dishonest impression on me.

Well, that's just like your opinion man. I'm an atheist myself and I can easily see where he is coming from because it's quite evident that he doesn't look at religion in a traditional sense. I'm sure many other people think the same, so why should he be afraid of 'alienating' people? Considering what Peterson had to endure just so he could speak his mind, doesn't strike me as somebody who's afraid of 'alienating' people.

Also, I'd say it's quite understandable that Peterson tries to use his words carefully, because he knows full well that half the world will jump on him for the slightest slippage of word (as evidenced by what you're trying to do here).



As far as I'm aware, Ethan and Jordan are coming along pretty well, so I don't even see what you're trying to insinuate here.

...although he immediately doubled down after that quote in the video and clarified that he actually was serious and it was not supposed to make the other guy in the discussion laugh?

Which only proves that you haven't even bothered to click on the video I posted and actually watched it, because nothing like that is even happening!

So I ask you the same question, you do believe that the statement that feminists want to be brutally dominated by men is stupid, wrong and horrible?

What are you actually trying to prove with your loaded question?
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
I did read it and no, I do not think it's obvious at all. Peterson does what he always does when he is confronted with opinions where he realized himself they were alienating for many people even among his own targeted audience. Instead of arguing with empirical facts and numbers (which he usually does when he is at his best) he is being vague and backtracking just to double down on it later with more vague implications, as he did in the last sentences of your quote. He did something similar on the h3 podcast when Ethan asked him about atheism because he did not want to alienate him, he also did something very similar in the vice interview when talking about women in the workplace. Which is one of the reasons why he left a dishonest impression on me.

Being polite in a conversation about a sensitive subject like faith as a guest on someone's else's podcast sounds like normal and expected social behavior. Not moderating your language, tone, and statements at all or getting manipulative in the other direction are indicators of either a personality disorder or the conversation taking place on the internet, lul, but I'm not seeing that here.
 

Moff

Member
Of course, you're dishonest. You didn't even have the decency to post to this footage you eluded to. You just hoped that people would take your driveby shitpost as some inalterable fact. Guess again.
First of all: not posting evidence does not equal dishonesty.
I did not think it was necessary because it's a pretty well known video, you knew what I was talking about so I don't see how you would see that as dishonest.
Second: I love debating people with different points of view and it is very important to me that I understand the points of my opponent and they understand mine.
I do not feel I misrepresented Petersons remark in that video. If anything I think you are misrepresenting it when you say he was not serious about what he said, because he actually doubled down on it.

When it comes down to your second-hand opinion or what the person at hand actually said, I'd rather choose the latter.
I think you are contradicting yourself a bit here, because of that video below where he talks about choosing his words very carefully. That is actually another reason why I think he is dishonest and I was waiting for an opportunity to bring that up myself.
So no, it's not always as easy as taking "what a person actually said" as granted, especially if they are backtracking on something and doubling down on it later like he did in your quote. Keep in mind, I am only talking about things he actually said. I did not make up anything. But I think he is tiptoeing around sensitive subjects often. Which makes it even more intereseting to hear him when he "drops the act", so to speak, and says he thinks female feminists want to be brutally dominated by muslims.

Well, that's just like your opinion man. I'm an atheist myself and I can easily see where he is coming from because it's quite evident that he doesn't look at religion in a traditional sense. I'm sure many other people think the same, so why should he be afraid of 'alienating' people? Considering what Peterson had to endure just so he could speak his mind, doesn't strike me as somebody who's afraid of 'alienating' people.

Also, I'd say it's quite understandable that Peterson tries to use his words carefully, because he knows full well that half the world will jump on him for the slightest slippage of word (as evidenced by what you're trying to do here).


As far as I'm aware, Ethan and Jordan are coming along pretty well, so I don't even see what you're trying to insinuate here.

Yes I agree, they are. Which is why he did not want to alienate him. He is not in "debate" mode he is in "finding allies" mode in that conversation. He is obviously in a completely different mood than when he was on the bbc or on vice.

Which only proves that you haven't even bothered to click on the video I posted and actually watched it, because nothing like that is even happening!
I am talking about the video with the quote about the brutal muslim domination, not about the one you linked.

What are you actually trying to prove with your loaded question?
As I already told Kadayi, I love debating people with different ideas and I always try to find some kind of common ground first. So I would like to know if you think that female feminists have a wish to be brutally dominated by muslims.

Being polite in a conversation about a sensitive subject like faith as a guest on someone's else's podcast sounds like normal and expected social behavior. Not moderating your language, tone, and statements at all or getting manipulative in the other direction are indicators of either a personality disorder or the conversation taking place on the internet, lul, but I'm not seeing that here.
That is a good point, and I agree he was being nice in that podcast, as I pointed out above. But I guess I would have liked to hear a more nuanced discussion about it. I actually watche both of his debates with Sam Harris, hoping to get some more out of that, but they never actually went in that direction if I remember correctly.
 

Kadayi

Banned
First of all: not posting evidence does not equal dishonesty.

You made a pretty dubious statement and failed to provide supporting evidence to back it up.

I did not think it was necessary because it's a pretty well known video, you knew what I was talking about so I don't see how you would see that as dishonest.

That's not an excuse. You were asked to post the video. Not everyone here may have seen it.

I do not feel I misrepresented Petersons remark in that video. If anything I think you are misrepresenting it when you say he was not serious about what he said, because he actually doubled down on it.

Then post the video and let people judge. If you're truly confident that you're in the right and I'm in the wrong then it should be abundantly clear to all and sundry from the clip no?

In fact, I'll save you the effort: -



And quoting myself from the other thread: -

I don't take it as him being serious so much as bemused by the feminist movement being comfortable with Islam, which is a culture entirely at odds with western liberalism.
 
Last edited:
MODERATION INTERLUDE.

Apologies for intruding:

Topic creator opens thread regarding an important matter.
Topic creator gets presented well constructed and sustained arguments about the matter.
Arguments don't confirm the Topic creator beliefs.
Topic creator refutes with hollow points.
Topic creator keeps disputing making the matter at hand a battle of attrition.


i will apologize in place of N Nintendo Switch to strange headache strange headache and Kadayi Kadayi (excuses if omitting anyone else), i don't know your behavior in other threads but in this case you 2 deserved a lot better than what you are getting here. Hopefully this doesn't discourage you from engaging at such high level in other topics.

N Nintendo Switch , we'll be monitoring your conduct in this thread from now on and want to see what you have to say. As an advice, approach a debate to learn something from it and not to be "right". Or to confirm your beliefs. i think you are wasting the efforts of people that approcahed with honest intentions and that seem to have a wider knowledge of the topic at hand.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
M Moderator 10 , there's been some moving of goalposts and some low effort criticism at points from a few folks, but we're well within constructive territory overall and the OP isn't misbehaving that I've seen. It's all good in the hood.
 

Shouta

Member
What do you mean I am dishonest? It was a video of him saying what I quoted.

You're using "brutally" when Peterson does not say that in the video at all. If you're concerned about what he said, then you should be exact rather than saying something made up. It's a bit dishonest to put words in his mouth especially if you're quoting him.

Peterson makes two points in the video that have a bit of interplay but can easily be jumbled. The first is that the popularity of something like 50 Shades of Grey, an S&M focused story, seems to go against the idea of equality, in sexual behavior specifically in this case, that many are fighting for. The other point is the inconsistency in stance regarding Islamic culture in respect to women's rights, misogyny, etc. His training and mindset lead him to the idea that women have an unconscious leaning towards "dominance" that would explain both. I'm almost certain Peterson doesn't refer to dominance in the literal sense. He's a psychologist and there's a good chance he's referring to the idea of an individual having structure, rules, etc placed upon them. If I were to extrapolate a little more, he might be saying that this stuff leads him to the idea that women are actually somewhat OK with the idea of traditional gender roles despite fighting against them. That's a guess though.

In any case, I disagree with him on the former and have mixed feelings on the latter. Someone being into S&M might not be in it for the dominance but perhaps the trust needed to do something like it. Perhaps they enjoy pain itself? Who knows, really? On the inconsistency in stance, I do find it interesting that there isn't wide-spread condemnation for those practices. However, I do understand being hesitant to condemn it all. There's a divide between the culture of societies where it's a major religion and the religion itself, especially as Islam continues to change. Conflating the two has been a problem in recent years and it's a real issue that needs precision, It's complex.
 

Dunki

Member
In any case, I disagree with him on the former and have mixed feelings on the latter. Someone being into S&M might not be in it for the dominance but perhaps the trust needed to do something like it. Perhaps they enjoy pain itself? Who knows, really? On the inconsistency in stance, I do find it interesting that there isn't wide-spread condemnation for those practices. However, I do understand being hesitant to condemn it all. There's a divide between the culture of societies where it's a major religion and the religion itself, especially as Islam continues to change. Conflating the two has been a problem in recent years and it's a real issue that needs precision, It's complex.
I hate to burst your own buble but Islam does not change and if it changes it is getting more radical. Moderate Muslims are a rare and even them are for forced marriage, against homosexuals etc.

And in the context of Islam I can understand where he is coming from. Example Burkas which doe not even have anything to do with actual Islam but just an invention of the radical Islam as symbol of oppression. And when Feminists try to defend something like such an ideology which finds it normal to hold sexslaves multiple women etc then you really should ask yourself if modern feminism is even for women or rather against white men. Islam stands for everything these people normally fighting for. We have the same problem here already in Germany that most mosques already teaching radical beliefs here.

But of course he is exaggerate but that is a way to make his position crystal clear.
 
Last edited:
I think you are contradicting yourself a bit here, because of that video below where he talks about choosing his words very carefully. That is actually another reason why I think he is dishonest and I was waiting for an opportunity to bring that up myself.

So only because he failed in choosing his words more carefully in this once instance, despite the hundreds of hours of talk you can find about him, this makes him a dishonest person? If you'd apply that ridiculously high standard to any thinker, you'd have to dismiss them all.

Keep in mind, I am only talking about things he actually said. I did not make up anything.

If you'd only stick to the words he actually said, would we really be having this conversation?

But I think he is tiptoeing around sensitive subjects often. Which makes it even more intereseting to hear him when he "drops the act", so to speak, and says he thinks female feminists want to be brutally dominated by muslims.

You seem really intent on construing some kind of 'gotcha' out of this. That's your prerogative, I guess. I'd be tiptoeing too, especially considering how politically charged these issues are and how hellbent people are on attacking anyone who doesn't toe the line.

Yes I agree, they are. Which is why he did not want to alienate him. He is not in "debate" mode he is in "finding allies" mode in that conversation. He is obviously in a completely different mood than when he was on the bbc or on vice.

It's quite evident that you tend to be more defensive when confronted with outlets that are rather hostile, compared to interviewers that are actually more open and genuinely interested in what somebody has to say, like Ethan, Rubin or Rogan. It's normal human behavior.

So I would like to know if you think that female feminists have a wish to be brutally dominated by muslims.

How should I know? How should anybody know? There is simply not enough evidence to make such a claim and judging by what Peterson said, I'm sure he's well aware of that. Is it stupid? Eh, that pretty much lies in the eye of the beholder. I usually like to think that 'there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers'. Is it horrible? No, merely pondering about something is never horrible. Does it automatically invalidate everything else Peterson has to say? Nope. I have yet to encounter a single intellectual that I fully agree with, that doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't worthwhile.

For example, I like listening to Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. I think they are both great in their own way even though they disagree on a great many things. Hence why I'm also quite perplexed about your question, because I don't think about these people in such a partisan way. That would be like forcing me to decide between Plato or Aristotle, both are right in certain aspects and both of them are horribly wrong in others. To either dismiss one or the other, would be a shame.

As another example, I may not fully agree with Shouta Shouta 's assessment, but it was well reasoned and nuanced and that alone deserves my regards. At the very least it sticks to the point, doesn't delve into hyperbole and it makes you ponder a lot further. Hence why I consider it a constructive comment.
 
Last edited:

Kadayi

Banned
There's a divide between the culture of societies where it's a major religion and the religion itself, especially as Islam continues to change. Conflating the two has been a problem in recent years and it's a real issue that needs precision, It's complex.

Honestly, it's a nice dream, but there simply isn't the incentive there for wide-scale change to happen. Islam has had centuries to undergo reform. You'd think in this day and age of interconnectedness and globalism there would be even more of a push towards that, but the reality is quite the opposite. If anything there's been more of a move to reaffirm cultural distinctiveness and embrace conservative values which taken to the extreme end up in horror shows like ISIL.

The inherent problem the western liberal faces is how much tolerance do you give to the intolerant? When as today in the middle of a bustling British city centre I saw a woman wearing a Niqaab dutifully walking behind her husband I didn't think 'there's a strong woman demonstrating her independence' I just saw a slave to an oppressive religion and insular culture that regards her as little more than subservient chattel.
 
Last edited:

Shouta

Member
I hate to burst your own buble but Islam does not change and if it changes it is getting more radical. Moderate Muslims are a rare and even them are for forced marriage, against homosexuals etc.

And in the context of Islam I can understand where he is coming from. Example Burkas which doe not even have anything to do with actual Islam but just an invention of the radical Islam as symbol of oppression. And when Feminists try to defend something like such an ideology which finds it normal to hold sexslaves multiple women etc then you really should ask yourself if modern feminism is even for women or rather against white men. Islam stands for everything these people normally fighting for. We have the same problem here already in Germany that most mosques already teaching radical beliefs here.

But of course he is exaggerate but that is a way to make his position crystal clear.

I should have been more clear but when I refer to Islam, I refer to the people that are practicing it and not the scripture, texts etc. A religion, IMO, is defined by the people and their interpretation of what is written can change. They can choose which aspects to follow and which to leave. It's happened to other religions and I see no reason why it wouldn't happen here.

Honestly, it's a nice dream, but there simply isn't the incentive there for wide-scale change to happen. Islam has had centuries to undergo reform. You'd think in this day and age of interconnectedness and globalism there would be even more of a push towards that, but the reality is quite the opposite. If anything there's been more of a move to reaffirm cultural distinctiveness and embrace conservative values which taken to the extreme end up in horror shows like ISIL.

The inherent problem the western liberal faces is how much tolerance do you give to the intolerant? When as today in the middle of a bustling British city centre I saw a woman wearing a Niqaab dutifully walking behind her husband I didn't think 'there's a strong woman demonstrating her independence' I just saw a slave to an oppressive religion and insular culture that regards her as little more than subservient chattel.

I can see it being difficult for sure but as I mentioned, I see the religion as the people and things happen quickly when it comes to people. In the grand scale of human history, it was the blink of an eye that got us from where America was in the late 1800s to today. Who knows where the path leads for any culture 100 years from now. This age of inter-connectivity has accelerated change but we've only been with it for 20-30 years now. It could accelerate even further and what happened in centuries could happen in mere decades eventually.

At the very least, it's better to hope than to despair.
 

Darryl

Banned
I don't know if you were there for the early adoption of the home computer and the internet. Some people are too young for it nowadays. But at the time, it was definitely not some incredibly male activity. It wasn't female either. It was a new thing. It didn't feel gendered, the internet felt industrial or clinical and was colorless. It felt like using scalpels under fluorescent lighting, completely devoid of any inherent meaning. The gender role suggestion feels really absurd. My dad did not want me on the internet, he complained whenever we spent too much time on it and told us to go outside. My dad was a blue-collar physical laborer. He didn't know how to use a computer. I am not sure that my dad can even read. He only figured out YouTube last year, the only other website he has ever been on was Craigslist. My mom used the computer and taught us until we grew up old enough to teach her how to do things. So why does my sister barely know how to use a computer yet I started coding when I was 12? This is the same scenario for most male programmers that I've ever met. The gender discussion makes no sense at all given reality.

The closest gender role you can get that makes any sense is the notion that men are tasked to work constantly, so as a young male I might have seen my father working constantly in his own manner, and then processed that I was supposed to work on things so I re-interpreted the notion of work into my curiosity with the computer. However I know a lot of fatherless males who still code a lot, yet non-hobbyist biologically female coders are pretty rare. I've offered to mentor a few who said they were interested yet that never panned out whatsoever. The scenario's just don't seem to add up, and as a lifetime male coder the idea of female's coding has always kinda had it's appeal to me, y'know, so this idea that it's biological has had cognitive dissonance over it in my mind for most of my adult life which was why I've put myself out there to teach. Just doesn't work, doesn't add up. I've seen them fully capable and even at times schooling me on things, so it's not like i don't think they could do it if they wanted to, they just overall don't seem to have the same urge to do it, sorry op
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
At the very least, it's better to hope than to despair.

Truth.

I'll just add that Islam isn't nearly as culturally monolithic as it may appear on the surface. It's a diverse world out there across every ideological boundary.
 

Dunki

Member
Truth.

I'll just add that Islam isn't nearly as culturally monolithic as it may appear on the surface. It's a diverse world out there across every ideological boundary.
Of course not but we are talking about the general majority and its change since the 60s/70s. People might not see it in America but we can clearly see this in all of Europe. Islam has become the biggest danger in terms of world peace/equality IMO.

What we need to do is reject and abolish every string to this radical Islam and build a westernized Islam with our values for peace and equality. Everything else should not be allowed in Europe anymore. No financing from Islamic states, no teacher from Islamic states. Mosques financed by our gov. with trained teachers who were trained in Europe. Otherwise it will be real dangerous in 1 or 2 Generations
 
Last edited:

Cato

Banned
Peterson has the most grating, shrill, gravely sounding voice that I've ever heard. He sounds like what I'd imagine an elderly geodude to sound like.

I have no clue how this dude gets people to pay to listen to him.

Ok, so basically you dismiss him and his message mainly based on unfavorable physical attributes of his person.
That it not very nice or rational.
 
Last edited:

Tapioca

Banned


Maybe he should have included a chapter in his self-help book on "How to not sexually harass women who wear make up and high heels in the workplace"?

"How to be confident and not a creep in the workplace"?
"How to pretend her lips aren't red in the workplace"?
"How to pretend that she is wearing flat shoes in the workplace"?

Instead he peddles shit like "Stand up straight". :D

I would applaud him on his capitalistic endeavors, but I feel like preying on the weak minded is rather immoral.
 
Last edited:

Tapioca

Banned
He has a point 🤷🏽‍♂️

The only point that I can conclude from what he said is that men are socially underdeveloped because they think that make-up or high heels means that women are attempting to seduce them.

If men are truly that socially inept then they should all be on disability for developmental delay or some form of autism.

Oh maw gawd her lips r red must mean she want ta blow me!!!!!!!!!! Why else would she make um red!!!?!!?!!!!!!!??!!!!!!!!!

Of course, I do not believe that men are that retarded. But if you agree with him you are shitting on yourself, assuming you are male. This is what I mean when I say his followers have low self esteem.
 
Oh maw gawd her lips r red must mean she want ta blow me!!!!!!!!!!

You're still droning on about that? Nobody thinks like that and I gave you an explanation already. How about you engage with that, instead of simply ignoring it and being needlessly inflammatory.
 

Papa

Banned
The only point that I can conclude from what he said is that men are socially underdeveloped because they think that make-up or high heels means that women are attempting to seduce them.

If men are truly that socially inept then they should all be on disability for developmental delay or some form of autism.

Oh maw gawd her lips r red must mean she want ta blow me!!!!!!!!!! Why else would she make um red!!!?!!?!!!!!!!??!!!!!!!!!

Of course, I do not believe that men are that retarded. But if you agree with him you are shitting on yourself, assuming you are male. This is what I mean when I say his followers have low self esteem.

Haha, alrighty then. What purpose does makeup serve if not to enhance the wearer’s sexual attractiveness?
 
Haha, alrighty then. What purpose does makeup serve if not to enhance the wearer’s sexual attractiveness?

To alter ones appearance. One use is strategic: It can make you look younger, healthier, and boost earning potential. Women can use it for themselves, for others, to satisfy patriarchy demands, and more.
 

Dunki

Member
To alter ones appearance. One use is strategic: It can make you look younger, healthier, and boost earning potential. Women can use it for themselves, for others, to satisfy patriarchy demands, and more.
WAIT A MOMENT.

To boost earning potential? So basically to make yourself more admirable and attractive to bosses compared to other people at your workplace?
 
WAIT A MOMENT.

To boost earning potential? So basically to make yourself more admirable and attractive to bosses compared to other people at your workplace?

Improving perceptions, and being considered as attractive. Good grooming boosts for men and women, no matter how you look, whether you are naturally attractive or not. Makeup is a part of good grooming for women, but there's also hair style, clothing, and more.
 

Dunki

Member
Improving perceptions, and being considered as attractive. Good grooming boosts for men and women, no matter how you look, whether you are naturally attractive or not. Makeup is a part of good grooming for women, but there's also hair style, clothing, and more.
But this is what Papa Papa was saying? It is not really for you but more of a strategic thing to boost your attractiveness.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
Truth.

I'll just add that Islam isn't nearly as culturally monolithic as it may appear on the surface. It's a diverse world out there across every ideological boundary.
Yup. Painting any group with a broad brush is always going to create problems.
 

llien

Member
Most obvious is their explanation of gender differences. Yes there are differences between men and women’s personalities and interests for sure but both guys keep expounding the idea that these all have an overwhelmingly biological basis.

At the moment, when you are hiring people does it matter, whether men like "things" more than "beings" because of biology or "social constructs"?
But why? In the context of Damore's memo, regardless of where the differences come from, they are on the table, undeniably.

To support this they pick animals with a patriarchal organization to claim that these are intrinsic to our DNA.

If they instead looked at Penguins for example, or elephants or any of the numerous other species where both men and women take an active role in raising children, more akin to humans, these so called biological differences largely disappear.

I only heard JP's taking an example of lobsters (in that, now almost legendary, "are you saying" interview) and the point he was making, was that hierarchies cannot be a byproduct of patriarchy, since even ancient species older than trees, clearly have it.

That's a totally different argument than the one you are arguing against.

To alter ones appearance.
Care to bring an example of such "altering" that doesn't make the person more sexually attractive?
 
Last edited:
To alter ones appearance.
To make yourself look more attractive.

It can make you look younger
Yes, young people are more attractive.

healthier
Ditto.

boost earning potential.
Because people value attractiveness.

Women can use it for themselves
They feel more comfortable or confident when they're more attractive.

to satisfy patriarchy demands
Yes, you can also attract men by looking more attractive.

So to round things up, make-up is used to make yourself look attractive which can be taken advantage of in various ways, many of which have nothing to do with seducing men. But wearing make-up is, from the start, done to increase your attractiveness. I don't see how Peterson is wrong about that. Looking at it from the sexual harassment angle, if make-up increases your attractiveness, and it actually works in making people feel attracted to you, isn't it to be expected men are going to try to hit on you? It's like women want all the advantages to being attractive, and none of the (minor) disadvantages. That's just not going to happen. Now obviously I denounce sexual harassment, but getting hit on is not sexual harassment.
 

Future

Member


Maybe he should have included a chapter in his self-help book on "How to not sexually harass women who wear make up and high heels in the workplace"?

"How to be confident and not a creep in the workplace"?
"How to pretend her lips aren't red in the workplace"?
"How to pretend that she is wearing flat shoes in the workplace"?

Instead he peddles shit like "Stand up straight". :D

I would applaud him on his capitalistic endeavors, but I feel like preying on the weak minded is rather immoral.


This is the first video where I’ve heard him say something that definitely crosses a line. The purpose of make up and high heels is to look good yes, but so is anything you wear that looks to be fashion minded. Looking good and presentable is not a bad thing or anything that warrants any type of discussion in regards to harassment in the work place. Even mentioning it in this light starts to make me question the underlying narrative he is painting with anything he says

It’s almost impossible to hear that and not immediately connect it to other statements that typically put women at fault depending on what they are wearing.
 
But this is what Papa Papa was saying? It is not really for you but more of a strategic thing to boost your attractiveness.

Shh, don't tell him, because he's essentially making a case for Peterson without being aware of it. It's called ornamentation and is an evolutionary pattern present in both animals and humans. Ornamentation is oftentimes linked to female intrasexual competition:

Self-promotion tactics refers to the different strategies that women might use to make themselves look better compared to other competing women. For example, women are interested in luxury items that enhance their attractiveness. Luxury items can indicate attractiveness by emphasising a higher status, which is a factor that potential mates will take into consideration. When testing for female intrasexual competition, research has shown that women would purposely choose luxury items that boosts their level of attractiveness, and will disregard non-attractive items, even if they are luxury items. When consuming attractive luxury items, women are perceived to be more attractive, young, and flirty by other women. At the same time, such consumption portrays their willingness to engage in sexual activity.

Of course, males display the same behavioral patterns, but they compete differently when compared to females:

The American evolutionary psychologist David Buss found in the eighties that intra-sexual competition takes two primary forms: self-promotion and competitor derogation. Men demonstrate and promote their physical abilities and social status (masculine traits favored by women). Women tend to promote their youth and physical attractiveness (feminine traits favored by men). Men try to derogate their rivals by disparaging their economic and physical strength, while women criticize the age, appearance and character of their opponents.

Ever wondered why so many men like cars and why lots of women like cosmetics? That's why, cars have become symbolic for social status while cosmetics are used to enhance youthful appearance. Also, this has not a whole lot to do with social cultivation, because these behaviors are cultural universals. As another example, both males and females are interested in fitness-activities, but for different reasons. Males want to be 'stronger' than their competitors, and females want to enhance their physical attractiveness. Other reasons, such a health related aspects, favorably contribute to these behavioral patterns, it's called the halo-effect.

Of course, these behavioral markers not only pertain to sexual attractiveness, but also to socio-economical competition. For example, women married to men who devoted more effort to status striving reported significantly more emotional manipulation, resource display, appearance enhancement, verbal signals of possession, and possessive ornamentation than women married to men who were low on status striving. But, it should be said, that it's quite hard to even differentiate between sexual and economical competitiveness since both inherently influence each other.

From an evolutionary perspective, this also explains why girls bully differently than boys, hence why their bullying tactics go oftentimes unnoticed. They are also equally as likely to use misogynistic slurs such as 'slut' and 'whore' than boys. Coincidentally girls are more often the victims of bullying, but they are also more often the perpetrators. The common preconception that females are more 'peaceful' than men and that the majority of online harassment is done by males, is simply wrong:

From PCs to mobile phones, humans can now communicate in ways never before experienced during our history on Earth; moreover, sites like Facebook are providing a novel platform for engaging in female intrasexual competition. Through cyberbullying, selfies, and Facebook “stalking,” females are engaging in traditional strategies of intrasexual competition (i.e., self-promotion, rival derogation, mate manipulation, and competitor manipulation) in an evolutionarily novel social environment. This chapter examines what is new about social interactions that take place online and what is an artifact of our evolutionary heritage.

Such competition evolved to be adaptive in ancestral environments as the perceived competition consisted of real individuals. However, underlying psychological mechanisms for competition are excessively triggered and more continuously engaged in modern environments, because these psychological mechanisms for social comparison and competition, at a deep level, do not differentiate between real people and imagined intrasexual competition in the form of mass media images.

In other words, women compete with each other as much as males do, they just do it differently. But it goes to show that online harassment is not merely the result of 'toxic masculinity' as is so often falsely perpetuated by the media. I'd like to reiterate that I'm not trying to paint men as 'innocent victims', on the contrary. I'm merely pointing out the fact, that the common preconceptions of these issues are heavily skewed due to a unilateral narrative that is being spun by journalists, politicians and far-left ideologues alike.
 

Future

Member
Haha, alrighty then. What purpose does makeup serve if not to enhance the wearer’s sexual attractiveness?

People shouldn’t be trying to dance around the idea that it’s about sexual attractiveness. But that is irrelevant when discussing harassment, which is the context in which Peterson brought it up. If someone, man or woman, is making themselves sexually attractive in the workplace. This holds no bearing on whether or not the sexual harassment rules in the workplace are confusing or not
 

Dunki

Member
People shouldn’t be trying to dance around the idea that it’s about sexual attractiveness. But that is irrelevant when discussing harassment, which is the context in which Peterson brought it up. If someone, man or woman, is making themselves sexually attractive in the workplace. This holds no bearing on whether or not the sexual harassment rules in the workplace are confusing or not
Are we talking about harassment or flirting etc.? These are vastly different things. In terms of sexual attractiveness a lot also comes from the smell of a person. AKA perfum for example. To me harassment would be constantly getting asked, by the same person even after rejections.
 
This is the first video where I’ve heard him say something that definitely crosses a line. The purpose of make up and high heels is to look good yes, but so is anything you wear that looks to be fashion minded. Looking good and presentable is not a bad thing or anything that warrants any type of discussion in regards to harassment in the work place. Even mentioning it in this light starts to make me question the underlying narrative he is painting with anything he says.

If only people would be honest enough to post the whole interview, giving much needed context to the above linked word-snippet:



Nowhere does he say that make-up warrants sexual harassment, merely that these questions need to be explored when it comes to the workplace environment.



Vice did a terrible hatchet job on Peterson, editing the video in a manipulative way in order to make him look bad.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that side-by-side clip really shows what Vice set out to do.
I also thought Peterson had crossed a line until just now, but now I see his point.

Makeup is there to sexualize as are high heels. Is that appropriate for the workplace?
Seems like a relevent question.
 
.

Care to bring an example of such "altering" that doesn't make the person more sexually attractive?

Yeah, for style. The intent is to showcase your personality and be more expressive. You can also do the same thing to appeal to men/women who like that style more. People wear it to hide their faults/insecurities, to appear more poweful, seductive, etc.

Attractiveness and camouflage are the two big two factors. It can be as much about yourself as it is for others.
 

Dunki

Member
Yeah, for style. The intent is to showcase your personality and be more expressive. You can also do the same thing to appeal to men/women who like that style more. People wear it to hide their faults/insecurities, to appear more poweful, seductive, etc.

Attractiveness and camouflage are the two big two factors. It can be as much about yourself as it is for others.
It would be still for others since your think it is important to you how other people think about you. Make up is never for yourself but to attract others which in the end can make you feel good ut its goal is always to be more attractive seductive etc.
 

Shouta

Member
I was just about to question the video that was posted then strange headache strange headache posted the comparison video. Thanks.

I was pretty negative on the edited clip but I figured there was a lot missing in there. Boy, did they really do a job on it.
 

Dunki

Member
I was just about to question the video that was posted then strange headache strange headache posted the comparison video. Thanks.

I was pretty negative on the edited clip but I figured there was a lot missing in there. Boy, did they really do a job on it.
that is pretty much standard these days sadly. And people still questioning why journalism has such a bad reputation these days.
 
Top Bottom