What's your opinions on Jordan Peterson?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Vendor-Lazarus:
When everyone can make up a pronoun for themselves, it's not about facts and science anymore.

Psychology is a legit science.

All these people saying "people can just make up pronouns".
I've only ever seen people use the Special Snowflake pronouns on tumblr, but have yet to actually meet anyone using them out in meatspace. So first y'all need to actually prove that's a thing that happens in a meaningful capacity to actually be concerned about, because the only pronouns I see people wanting to be used is he/she/they, and if you can't be assed to use they/them/their then that sounds like a personal problem.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Which is what I said..
"Peterson would be fined for not using the person's preferred gender pronoun"..
Also, THAT person's preferred pronoun. When everyone can make up a pronoun for themselves, it's not about facts and science anymore. It's about being a narcissistic snowflake with special privileges playing an emotional victim card for power.
Which will come down to saying those peoples pronouns. Or refrain from saying the only two genders that exist.
Even trying to tow the line and not saying either the pronoun or he/she will probably result in being labeled as "hate speech" as they will be "denying their gender identity".

Or you COULD also take this as Peterson being a Special Snowflake who wants to tell someone else how they should live. Because that's what actually ended up happening. He is so precious, he needs to force his ideology onto others. I dont see how this ended up being any better.

My problem with this whole entire situation is that it's still either or. Either Peterson's forcing his ideology onto someone else, or its the other way round. We haven't figured a work around this yet. And we get so caught up in the rhetoric of our sides, that we cant see a solution

I feel that the social damage one would suffer from intentionally misgendering someone is enough. To expect there to be genuine legal repercussion for it is absurd.

If one can not be fined for calling someone an idiot then one should not be fined for misgendering someone. One is a genuine insult, the other could be one as well given context - it certainly isn't hate speech though, and should not be treated as such.

Is there a slur for transexuals? Trannies? Would that be the closest? I could understand a fine if he were to use a recognized slur. But to call someone a man/woman and have that be an offence that warrants a fine is absurd.

Gorfias:

Saelune:
You used them living longer as if it somehow justifies sexism against women. I was saying it doesn't.

It doesn't. You stating that there is a male pig President, as opposed to an abusive Feminist for President, means that everything is horrible for women. It isn't.

Vrex does a better job pointing out Jordan's sexism http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.1055183-Whats-your-opinions-on-Jordan-Peterson?page=7#24242193 I would quote them, but it is alot.

That is a ton. StatusNil does a pretty good responding too. (S)He's pointing out that Peterson is saying that serial monogamy and Polygamy are going to have negative social consequences. They do and have. Not sure what to do about it. Plenty on youtube stating women have gotten a raw deal in the sexual revolution and it is making them less happy. I do counter, they are not about to surrender other gains they have obtained through such a revolution.

...The fuck? That is just an absurd thing to even say. For one, no. It is not because of any law forcing him, and two...so? We would not need laws that 'force' us to respect each other on a human level if people just did that! If you think he thinks that will lead to death camps, then you think just as poorly of him as I do and should stop using him as a credible source.

Why? Why wouldn't one expect that excessive group "rights" indoctrination, such as was in Nazi Germany, USSR, Cambodia, Venezuela, pose a danger, a threat of a dire future? Not a definite thing but a danger?

If you really wanted to fix men's issues, you would focus on fixing women's issues and fixing ACTUAL issues men face. Like racial discrimination, or perhaps the discrimination gay and bisexual men face. What is more 'Men's rights' than men's right to love another man!? Or a man's right to wear whatever clothing they wish, even if it is considered the clothing of women?

If you really and truly care about this liek you say you do, then you need to realize you are coming at this at the complete wrong angle. You are coming at this as if fighting for women's rights means you have to hurt men to do it, cause you don't. If you fight to make women equal to men, then you are inherently fighting to make men equal to women.

Of course it has hurt men. When you are telling employers to discriminate against men and hire less qualified women, those men have been harmed. I don't care how rich Al Gore is: when you deny me a job opportunity due to my race and gender, you have discriminated against me as an individual. I object.

erttheking:

Your utterly fucked priorities.

I am not talking about women?s issues. I am talking about men?s issues. Real men?s issues. The ones you seem less than concerned with in favor of this garbage.

And PREDATOR!? Calm the fuck down with the hyperbole. She didn?t assault him or rape him.

This portion of the conversation has been about JP's statement about lipstick. Not suicide rates, Family court biases, men being a smaller voting demographic, being 10x as likely to be homeless. Lipstick. I write of having to police the very things I say in what is now a defacto hostile environment to point out men are changing their behavior to make room for women, even in small ways. And people act shocked that there are things women can do as well, such as what Peterson suggest: if you really want the work place to be sexually sterile (and I do not. Not sure about him) then no lipstick.

As for that woman that used her sexuality to use and exploit our first shirt, that was predatory. You don't have to assault or rape someone for it to be such. If a 60 year old hits on a 20 year old intern saying he can do things for her career, that isn't assault or rape either. But he's out of line. He's using his power to obtain sex. Not using sex to get power is a simple corollary. And it happens. And I think it part of what would make that 60 year old think such exchanges are appropriate. We need to be fair and tell both sexes to stop it.

Yeah I know he's more interested in bitching about inconsequential bullshit than actual problems, and I don't consider following in his footsteps to be a big deal. Women CAN wear lipstick? More like they're expected too, and I can tell you right now women didn't make that rule. Also you don't change your behavior because of women. You change it because you're at work and you're supposed to act like a god damn professional. Even if it's all male, act professional. This is simple shit. You are not a victim here, and your poster is not equivalent to lipstick, which isnt inherently sexual.

Predators prey on those who can't fight back. If your first shirt kept it in his pants what could the woman do? Nothing. Meanwhile the 60 can abuse his power over the 20 year old. The situations aren't the same

StatusNil:

undeadsuitor:

As a society, were already assumed to memorize people's names. THAT persons name. Which everyone can make up for themselves. Names that aren't on their birth certificate. That aren't tied to how they look.

If you can call someone by a name they asked you to call them by, you can call someone by the pronoun they asked you to call them by.

Will you be fined for committing a Human Rights Violation if you get someone's name wrong?

You will certainly face consequences by repeatedly misnaming someone with a malicious intent.

Also, the proliferation of custom pronouns seems to defeat the very purpose of pronouns, which after all are convenient words that can be used in place of nouns to make communication flow smoother. It would be easier to drop them altogether and just use the name, but that would be clunky as fuck and possibly confusing. "News: President Trump is discussing Trump's earlier statement about Trump's knowledge about Trump's campaign employee's actions with Trump's legal team."

Even with pronouns, that sentence is atrocious.

"News: President Trump is discussing HIS earlier statement about HIS knowledge about HIS campaign employee's actions with HIS legal team."

this is a fucking strawman of a sentence.

"News: President's legal team in discussion about earlier statements linked to campaign employees actions."

not a single pronoun

And for what? What is it that makes forcing the world to adopt a made-up word to refer to someone so necessary? Like, I read on Everyday Feminism that there are more genders than people in the world, since some have more than one. So what use is such a concept then?

idk, all clothing is functionally identical to similar articles of clothing. Why do you spend time and money finding clothes that are aesthetically pleasing to you?

Abomination:
I feel that the social damage one would suffer from intentionally misgendering someone is enough. To expect there to be genuine legal repercussion for it is absurd.

If one can not be fined for calling someone an idiot then one should not be fined for misgendering someone. One is a genuine insult, the other could be one as well given context - it certainly isn't hate speech though, and should not be treated as such.

Is there a slur for transexuals? Trannies? Would that be the closest? I could understand a fine if he were to use a recognized slur. But to call someone a man/woman and have that be an offence that warrants a fine is absurd.

I could agree with this. My problem has always been that Peterson is doing to others what he says the University is doing to him. The university should be able to run things how they want without his interference but I understand the religious discrimination side of things.

I dare say it wouldn't work anyway. Probably the only thing that would work is everyone calling Peterson a her constantly to give him an idea of the perspective of his students.

I have a question to any Jordan Peterson followers.

If Anita Sarkessian is a professional victim because she makes money talking about the harassment lobbied against her,

What does that make Peterson, a man who makes over 60k a month on Patreon in addition to his professor salary, giving lectures and writing books on how society is going against his ideals and he's being punished for it?

Jordan Peterson is never going to jail for not using requested pronouns, but he makes almost 100k a month telling people he is?

seems fishy to me

Gorfias:

altnameJag:
Count Dankula isn't Canadian, and Canada isn't a colony anymore, so I don't know how, exactly, British case law is supposed to effect a Canadian law that doesn't have anything to do with it.

No, it isn't exact. But it is a warning. Allegedly well meaning law meant to diminish hostility, hate speech law, that exists through out the West, is getting increasingly hostile to liberty.

I mean, maybe?

He also trained someone else's dog in bad behavior. Not sure how the "liberty" argument holds up there.

undeadsuitor:
I have a question to any Jordan Peterson followers.

If Anita Sarkessian is a professional victim because she makes money talking about the harassment lobbied against her,

What does that make Peterson, a man who makes over 60k a month on Patreon in addition to his professor salary, giving lectures and writing books on how society is going against his ideals and he's being punished for it?

Jordan Peterson is never going to jail for not using requested pronouns, but he makes almost 100k a month telling people he is?

seems fishy to me

While I do not agree with all of Peterson's views he does at least present founded philosophical arguments.

Anita just straight up lies in her content.

Also Peterson has genuinely had his livelihood threatened whereas Anita has not, and has in fact threatened the livelihoods of others.

trunkage:
Probably the only thing that would work is everyone calling Peterson a her constantly to give him an idea of the perspective of his students.

Fair game, but I do not think Peterson would be intentionally insulting towards someone who identifies as trans. Rather he would be dismissive of anyone demanding an alien pronoun such as "xe" or such.

While Peterson is being painted as a staunch anti-SJW I feel it is unearned, the narrative - like almost always - is blown out of proportion. His stance was always against being legally obligated to refer to someone by a preferred pronoun, not that he wants to bully or insult trans people.

Abomination:

While Peterson is being painted as a staunch anti-SJW I feel it is unearned, the narrative - like almost always - is blown out of proportion. His stance was always against being legally obligated to refer to someone by a preferred pronoun, not that he wants to bully or insult trans people.

He also refuses to use gender-neutral pronouns in the classroom, apparently (keeping in mind that gender-neutral pronouns such as 'they' and 'them' have been in common parlance for years unrelated to gender dysphoria).

I doubt that he actually wants to bully or insult people. I imagine, rather, that he's trying to make a statement, and is going about it in an utterly obnoxious way.

Abomination:

Also Peterson has genuinely had his livelihood threatened whereas Anita has not, and has in fact threatened the livelihoods of others.

Yeah, that's a big difference there. Peterson got a written warning from the University telling him to get in line or he might face disciplinary action (once again Peterson omits important facts to make something seem more grievous than it is). Sarkeesian faced a 2 year long campaign of harassment and threats against her life, several of which forced her out of her home and into hiding.

I am totally sure that Peterson got the short end here. Oh wait...

Gethsemani:
Sarkeesian faced a 2 year long campaign of harassment and threats against her life, several of which forced her out of her home and into hiding.

Were any of these substantiated though? I can't recall a single instance that even went beyond the level of badly worded rubbish. I do remember one that was apparently found out to be a Brazilian blogger looking to stir up controversy.

Gethsemani:

Yeah, that's a big difference there. Peterson got a written warning from the University telling him to get in line or he might face disciplinary action (once again Peterson omits important facts to make something seem more grievous than it is).

At least two such warnings in quick succession, until his growing fame brought more scrutiny into the actions of the University. Typically that kind of stuff is a prelude to dismissal. Establishing a paper trail of proper procedure.

Gethsemani:
Sarkeesian faced a 2 year long campaign of harassment and threats against her life, several of which forced her out of her home and into hiding.

Is that a fact? She may have faced "harassment" and even threats. But were they a "campaign", or acts of a few individuals acting independently? And where is it shown she was "forced out of her home and into hiding"?

The bottom line here is that Peterson was threatened by his acknowledged superiors in their official capacity, with highly probable consequences, while Sarkeesian was allegedly sent nasty messages by some unknown entities with no social standing whatsoever. That may indeed be frightening, assuming it was real. But in terms of adverse societal power, there is no comparison between the two.

Also, Peterson provides more and better content in exchange for those voluntary contributions.

Abomination:

undeadsuitor:
I have a question to any Jordan Peterson followers.

If Anita Sarkessian is a professional victim because she makes money talking about the harassment lobbied against her,

What does that make Peterson, a man who makes over 60k a month on Patreon in addition to his professor salary, giving lectures and writing books on how society is going against his ideals and he's being punished for it?

Jordan Peterson is never going to jail for not using requested pronouns, but he makes almost 100k a month telling people he is?

seems fishy to me

While I do not agree with all of Peterson's views he does at least present founded philosophical arguments.

Anita just straight up lies in her content.

Also Peterson has genuinely had his livelihood threatened whereas Anita has not, and has in fact threatened the livelihoods of others.

Peterson and sarkeesian both present basic psychology as facts

And why are threats against Anitas life treated as jokes but similar threats against Peterson treated seriously?

They the same. You just agree with one over the other

You can't even say she was harassed without putting it in quotations, even though you know she was. Be a man and confront your bias. Peterson would want you to.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Also, THAT person's preferred pronoun. When everyone can make up a pronoun for themselves, it's not about facts and science anymore.

Well, obviously not. But that's not saying much.

The science is the psychology (and biology) of whether someone feels they are a different gender from the one they were assigned. What we call them is patently not science, yet important nonetheless. In much the same way, that one person murders another is in the realm of science, but you'd hardly argue the sentence a judge gives the perpetrator isn't important because it isn't science.

StatusNil:
Also, the proliferation of custom pronouns seems to defeat the very purpose of pronouns...

There is assuredly a profusion. But that's partly because it's only been in the realm of personal preference. Once the issue transcends mere personal preference into practical use, it'll create standard(s). By analogy, consider technology: when a tech is new, everyone develops different ways of doing things (e.g. Betamax and VHS in old videotapes, or different keyboard layouts in early typewriters). In the end, however, we whittle it down to a limited range of one or few standards because it's not practical to have a multitude.

Seen this way, it's just a natural process of innovation, competition and eventual "winner". Just let whoever cares enough to take part get on with it and whittle it down.

Baffle2:

I think, for the sake of argument, we should assume it wasn't a bargain for exchange on her part. When you assume to know what others think you're in a poor position to draw conclusions.

Obviously, if you've already drawn conclusions and are working backwards from there it's quite convenient to make these assumptions!

In this case, don't date at work? But assuming it was predatory, she saw a man with power, used her sexuality to get cash and prizes, and once obtained, dumped the dude taking no account of how she may have crushed his feelings. But men aren't supposed to have feelings, right?

erttheking:
lipstick, which isnt inherently sexual.

I'm with JP. It is meant to simulate sexual arousal and desire. I can believe a woman may not make the connection but there it is.

Predators prey on those who can?t fight back. If your first shirt kept it in his pants what could the woman do? Nothing. Meanwhile the 60 can abuse his power over the 20 year old. The situations aren?t the same

In this Me Too moment, were I that 60 year old, I wouldn't try it. But a 20 year old can undermine a man's career with mere accusations.
Back then, I'm sure the airwoman saw the first shirt as easy plunder. And she got her way.
Wrong thread for this as we're supposed to be talking about JP but there are WOMEN who are stating they worry Me Too has gone too far. I wonder if it is because they know for women like the airwoman in this example, turning the workplace into a sterile place can cost such women power of their own.

undeadsuitor:
Peterson and sarkeesian both present basic psychology as facts

Sarkeesian outright lies or omits information to push a narrative in her presentations.

And why are threats against Anitas life treated as jokes but similar threats against Peterson treated seriously?

Because Peterson has conversations with dissenters to his opinion in open space and has had interactions with organisations with genuine power over him requesting him to change his stance on something. Anita has not.

They the same. You just agree with one over the other

No, they are not the same. The way they present and interact with dissenters and the way the media has approached them is completely different.

You can't even say she was harassed without putting it in quotations, even though you know she was. Be a man and confront your bias. Peterson would want you to.

When did I do that?

That being said, the type of harassment Anita has received has always been turned into ammunition for her cause. Whereas Peterson is outright confronted in public over his views. There is a difference.

The guy has compassion and is genuinely worried about the plight of men.

Good clip...

Gorfias:

But assuming it was predatory, she saw a man with power, used her sexuality to get cash and prizes, and once obtained, dumped the dude taking no account of how she may have crushed his feelings. But men aren't supposed to have feelings, right?

(a) No, don't assume it was predatory! That's what I'm saying! You're assuming the worst of her even though you don't know either way. It's equally easy to assume he used his power to try to leverage her into a relationship she didn't really want, but that's not an assumption you're making - why?

(b) He used his position to provide cash and prizes that she wasn't entitled to. Did you assume she broke up with him because that relationship - in which he abused his position to improve her gains over those of her co-workers - was putting her in a difficult position with her co-workers? Why not make that assumption?

(c) No, men are totally supposed to have feelings. You seem to have missed all the threads about toxic masculinity.

Jordan Peterson is basically just another of those right-wing personalities who make a quick buck talking smack on the authoritarian lefties. It's amazing to me that people are willing to fund these guys because they need someone to attack the left on a daily basis.

Gorfias:

Baffle2:

I think, for the sake of argument, we should assume it wasn't a bargain for exchange on her part. When you assume to know what others think you're in a poor position to draw conclusions.

Obviously, if you've already drawn conclusions and are working backwards from there it's quite convenient to make these assumptions!

In this case, don't date at work? But assuming it was predatory, she saw a man with power, used her sexuality to get cash and prizes, and once obtained, dumped the dude taking no account of how she may have crushed his feelings. But men aren't supposed to have feelings, right?

erttheking:
lipstick, which isnt inherently sexual.

I'm with JP. It is meant to simulate sexual arousal and desire. I can believe a woman may not make the connection but there it is.

Predators prey on those who can?t fight back. If your first shirt kept it in his pants what could the woman do? Nothing. Meanwhile the 60 can abuse his power over the 20 year old. The situations aren?t the same

In this Me Too moment, were I that 60 year old, I wouldn't try it. But a 20 year old can undermine a man's career with mere accusations.
Back then, I'm sure the airwoman saw the first shirt as easy plunder. And she got her way.
Wrong thread for this as we're supposed to be talking about JP but there are WOMEN who are stating they worry Me Too has gone too far. I wonder if it is because they know for women like the airwoman in this example, turning the workplace into a sterile place can cost such women power of their own.

Yeah, you don't get to declare that lipstick has one sole purpose. Women don't understand it? I'm sorry, are you saying that it serves one purpose and that the women who put it on don't realize that? Clearly not, because they put it on for reasons that don't fall into your incredibly narrow definition, therefore proving your definition false. Or are you saying that you understand a product designed for women better than the women who use it? Because that's fucking rich. Also, I have to say, of all the things I've heard guys talking about what they find attractive in women, lipstick rarely comes up.

Oh the "women can lie and ruin a man's life forever" horseshit again. Ignoring the fact that you can rape someone in this country and still probably get away. Some women think it's gone too far? Translation. Women aren't a hive mind. What the crap is that even supposed to mean. "Well you see, THESE women agree with me, and therefore I expect you to take their word more seriously than the words of women I don't agree with." It's the same shit you see when the right creams their pants because a black person said something bad about BLM or said something nice about Trump. And what about the rest of the women who are more concerned about all the sexual harassment they get. Do they not count? Of course they don't. They don't agree with you.

And your first shirt thought with his dick and didn't do his fucking job properly. He's not a victim, he's a fucking idiot.

Gorfias:
I'm with JP. It is meant to simulate sexual arousal and desire. I can believe a woman may not make the connection but there it is.

Bullshit.
Lipstick is a cosmetic, it is meant to temporarily change lip color, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes that little bit of color on the face brings an outfit together, sometimes it just stands out, or to give a more "natural" look, but a little glossier. Lipstick is not inherently sexual and it does not "simulate" arousal and/or desire.

Baffle2:
snip

We can look at the actions and sequence of events and make reasonable hypothesis.
She pursued him, got cash and prizes, dumped him. It isn't hard to understand what happened.

erttheking:

Yeah, you don't get to declare that lipstick has one sole purpose.

Yes I do. You can just declare I'm wrong though I don't see how I can be.

Women don't understand it? ... I have to say, of all the things I've heard guys talking about what they find attractive in women, lipstick rarely comes up.

Around 13 years of age, males start treating females differently. They know they are obtaining power from somewhere but I think most, at as early as 13, don't understand that power. Same with lipstick. I think most learn, but hopefully not too late.

Metoo gone too far, etc. snip

Are you writing that in sexual politics, women are powerless? Nonsense.

And your first shirt thought with his dick and didn't do his fucking job properly. He's not a victim, he's a fucking idiot.

You can break an idiot's heart too.

Gorfias:
Yes I do. You can just declare I'm wrong though I don't see how I can be.

Correction: You can say that lipstick has one sole purpose.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should, though.

However, you don't have any proof whatsoever that lipstick is inherently meant to be sexual in nature, and I'd bet money that's because there isn't any proof. Your claim then has the rather disgusting conclusion to it that - because lipstick is sexual - women wear lipstick for the purpose of causing men to be aroused. That's bullshit. Women don't need to do anything to arouse men. Speaking as one, we are perfectly capable of that on our own! But the way you've framed so many things - in this thread and in your Men's Rights thread - just about anything a woman does can be "arousing" to men. So are us men just beasts led forward by our penises? Do we all just lack self-control and restraint and only care about what makes our dicks hard??? Your characterization of this entire debate around women is not only insulting to women, but it's insulting to men as well.

Gorfias:
The guy has compassion and is genuinely worried about the plight of men.

Good clip...

Jordan Peterson:
"Most left-wing academics believe that western culture is a corrupt, patriarchal tyranny [...] you can live well here as an individual, and to consider that a corrupt patriarchal tyranny, and to lay that at the feet of young men, and then to tell them they have to be discriminated against because of the systemic [...] racism and misogyny of the past, it's just appalling"

Now, I don't doubt that Peterson is compassionate, and does care, but this is pure and lazy strawmanning. He's going to seem like he's fighting the good fight if he offers descriptions of his opponents in such a hyperbolic, over-the-top manner, but it's self-serving. He's creating the perfect enemies for the sake of his argument.

Gorfias:

We can look at the actions and sequence of events and make reasonable hypothesis.
She pursued him, got cash and prizes, dumped him. It isn't hard to understand what happened.

Actually, your sequence of events was:

a woman slept with our first shirt back in the USAF. He got her separate rations (off base housing and a food allowance). Almost immediate after getting her cash and prizes, she dumped him.

which, unless he didn't consent to the sex, fits my narrative exactly.

1) They slept together
2) He abused his position to get her stuff
3) She was uncomfortable with this abuse of the system and dumped him.

He's the bad guy in this scenario (and even the one you've cooked up)! He's the only one that abused his /actual/ power! Being sexy (no idea if she was) isn't power unless you're a weak-willed sap with no self-control.

Gorfias:

Baffle2:
snip

We can look at the actions and sequence of events and make reasonable hypothesis.
She pursued him, got cash and prizes, dumped him. It isn't hard to understand what happened.

erttheking:

Yeah, you don't get to declare that lipstick has one sole purpose.

Yes I do. You can just declare I'm wrong though I don't see how I can be.

Women don't understand it? ... I have to say, of all the things I've heard guys talking about what they find attractive in women, lipstick rarely comes up.

Around 13 years of age, males start treating females differently. They know they are obtaining power from somewhere but I think most, at as early as 13, don't understand that power. Same with lipstick. I think most learn, but hopefully not too late.

Metoo gone too far, etc. snip

Are you writing that in sexual politics, women are powerless? Nonsense.

And your first shirt thought with his dick and didn't do his fucking job properly. He's not a victim, he's a fucking idiot.

You can break an idiot's heart too.

1. Everything Dr. Thrax said. You are not an authority on lipstick and what you have to say on the matter is worthless.

2. Hey, newsflash buddy. Men are not all mindless brutes who are slaves to their cocks and I?m getting rather insulted by you constantly implying that men are slaves to their desires. Some of us can keep them in check. Also. Gay and ace men.

3. No I didn?t fucking say that, but if you think women dominate in that field, you have severe tunnel vision.

That idiot stuck his dick where it didn?t belong. He overstepped and abused his authority. Sleeping with your subordinate is something you do never. Fuck. Him.

Abomination:

undeadsuitor:
Peterson and sarkeesian both present basic psychology as facts

Sarkeesian outright lies or omits information to push a narrative in her presentations.

So does Peterson

Because Peterson has conversations with dissenters to his opinion in open space and has had interactions with organisations with genuine power over him requesting him to change his stance on something. Anita has not./ No, they are not the same. The way they present and interact with dissenters and the way the media has approached them is completely different.

But their ideas are the same. whether or not they 'debate' dissenters is irrelevant.

When did I do that?

True. That was my bad. I mistook a post by Statusnil replying to Geth replying to you as a post by you.

That being said, the type of harassment Anita has received has always been turned into ammunition for her cause. Whereas Peterson is outright confronted in public over his views. There is a difference.

Peterson has turned "being told to respect pronouns" into an international 100,000+ dollar a month business.

Dude makes over a million dollars a year being 'confronted' about his opinions. He's a professional victim.

I am confused by Peterson's politics. What does this guy believe in exactly? He seems to come across as a right winger, but I heard he expresses support for single payer healthcare and some form of welfare state, which in American politics would make you a communist. Can someone who is familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, tell me where you rank him in the American (or your countrie's) own political spectrum?

WolvDragon:
I am confused by Peterson's politics. What does this guy believe in exactly? He seems to come across as a right winger, but I heard he expresses support for single payer healthcare and some form of welfare state, which in American politics would make you a communist. Can someone who is familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, tell me where you rank him in the American (or your countrie's) own political spectrum?

The Left in America would be classed as Right in most other countries. Also, Canada had a Progressive Conservative movement which sounds contradictory but it sort of aligns with Libertarianism. As far as I've heard, even some conservatives defend single payer in Canada (through friends of a friend who are Canadian, so take that with a grain of salt.)

As to Jordan economic ideology. I have no idea. I don't like his identity politics, his policing of others' thought, or hypocrisy so looking at that doesn't interest me. Unless someone is willing to point something out here that's exceptional.

trunkage:

WolvDragon:
I am confused by Peterson's politics. What does this guy believe in exactly? He seems to come across as a right winger, but I heard he expresses support for single payer healthcare and some form of welfare state, which in American politics would make you a communist. Can someone who is familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, tell me where you rank him in the American (or your countrie's) own political spectrum?

The Left in America would be classed as Right in most other countries. Also, Canada had a Progressive Conservative movement which sounds contradictory but it sort of aligns with Libertarianism. As far as I've heard, even some conservatives defend single payer in Canada (through friends of a friend who are Canadian, so take that with a grain of salt.)

As to Jordan economic ideology. I have no idea. I don't like his identity politics, his policing of others' thought, or hypocrisy so looking at that doesn't interest me. Unless someone is willing to point something out here that's exceptional.

A bit off topic, but does Zontar support Canada's single payer?

Just a quick question for anyone attracted to women. Is lipstick a turn on for you?

Asking for a friend.

I'm a no. I tend to get to attracted to physical and psychological aspects of a person. They meld together to generate attraction. Lipstick to me is like a dress. Not part of the person, not their physical attribute,

Also, if a beautiful person comes up to you, or works under you, do you kowtow to their every whim?

Also asking for a friend.

I'm a no. Their request determines whether I do something, not their looks. My level of horniness doesn't affect the decision I make.

WolvDragon:

trunkage:

WolvDragon:
I am confused by Peterson's politics. What does this guy believe in exactly? He seems to come across as a right winger, but I heard he expresses support for single payer healthcare and some form of welfare state, which in American politics would make you a communist. Can someone who is familiar with Jordan Peterson's work, tell me where you rank him in the American (or your countrie's) own political spectrum?

The Left in America would be classed as Right in most other countries. Also, Canada had a Progressive Conservative movement which sounds contradictory but it sort of aligns with Libertarianism. As far as I've heard, even some conservatives defend single payer in Canada (through friends of a friend who are Canadian, so take that with a grain of salt.)

As to Jordan economic ideology. I have no idea. I don't like his identity politics, his policing of others' thought, or hypocrisy so looking at that doesn't interest me. Unless someone is willing to point something out here that's exceptional.

A bit off topic, but does Zontar support Canada's single payer?

I don't know if he was completely PC either. I can't remember the exact distinctions. I don't remember talking about single payer health care of if PCs advocated for it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked