|
Josef bugman posted:Just as a quick thing but where does the title quote actually come from. People aren't actually loving watermelons are they? JRod refused to say if he hosed watermelons or not, then someone made a bot based on JRod's posts and the title quote was the result.
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Jrodefeld Twitter bot I'm pretty sure. As for the jrodefeld watermelon connection in GENERAL... Someone asked him if he hosed watermelons once and instead of saying 'no what the gently caress is wrong with you which would have been the end of it, he made the bad move of ignoring it, and all future times he received that question, (as a side note, he used to go through the thread replying to EVERY SINGLE POST one at a time... except the ones which had sufficiently good arguments so which he just skipped, which made ignoring the watermelon question particularly noteworthy) which turned it into this whole THING even when he FINALLY went 'no, I do not and have not ever hosed a watermelon.'
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 14:26
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Just as a quick thing but where does the title quote actually come from. People aren't actually loving watermelons are they? If you could only see the smile slowly widening across my face... Slightly more seriously, a running gag back when Jrod was still posting was to bring up his predilection for loving watermelons, as he got asked it once and ostentatiously refused to answer. At some point after he got banned for threatening to file false credit fraud allegations if he ever got banned again, WrenP-Complete's twitter bot based on Jrod's posts (Jrodbot) spit out "I gently caress watermelons for pleasure and to reassure myself in my own worth," which was too good to pass by and I got one of the D&D mods to change the title of the thread accordingly.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 14:50
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Jrodefeld Twitter bot I'm pretty sure. As for the jrodefeld watermelon connection in GENERAL... This isn't a side note, this is literally the motivation for the whole thing starting. I don't remember which poster it was, but someone eventually posted something like "Hey JRod, you have a tendency of ignoring my posts/substantive posts in general, so here's a soft ball for you to see if you're willing to respond: Do you gently caress watermelons?" He ignored it, so lots of people jumped on the "I refuse to post further untill JRod answers the watermelon question." He'd claim various questions or statements he'd made weren't ever responded to when they had been, usually in a fairly good, critical manner. His usual go to claim was that he didn't have time to read every single post in the thread, which is fair, but combined with his usual obnoxious posting habits just led to people quoting the watermelon question to make sure he didn't miss it. Which, itself, came from people quoting good responses multiple times to make sure he didn't miss them. He would also do things like make posts saying he didn't want to talk about race/racism, then spend either the rest of the post or the next whole post talking about race/racism. Basically, based on his posting, he seems to be at a point where he's incapable of modifying his basic, libertarian world view in light of new information and that led to a bunch of terrible habits, posting and otherwise. Unless he was trolling, in which case he's playing one hell of a long game. In any case, it did wind up giving many people in this thread, myself included, a chance to reminisce about how incredibly wrong and off-kilter someone was, so there's that at least.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Not only did he ignore any post that burned his argument down so badly there was no arguing against it he'd cherry pick really small poo poo out of other posts and then vomit walls of text about them. He wasn't actually arguing with anybody or having a discussion; he was looking for excuses to type 5,000 words about how his ideas were just so obviously right (and he's just so handsome and dreamy!  ) that nobody should even bother arguing. He was less discussing and more just evangelizing. Of course his arguments were incredibly loving stupid and he did such wonderful things as arguing that a literal slave state was one of the most economically free in the world.He repeatedly refused to answer whether or not he hosed watermelons so people just kept asking. It became a running gag in the thread and any rational person could have seen we hadn't been taking him seriously for months by that point. Mostly we were just pointing and laughing by then. Meanwhile he acted like if he just typed enough words at us we'd all completely agree with him and become extreme lolbertarians advocating for ideas that have been proven wrong. Then jrodbot said it hosed watermelons and it was just a perfect conclusion to the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
I want to quickly return to the topic of Jordan Peterson for a second. I came across this news item very recently: http://www.wweek.com/culture/2018/0...and-appearance/ ""We will not stand for bigots coming to our city to exacerbate the growing problem of hate nationwide," the group wrote in an open letter today to Portland's5 Centers for the Arts, Metro, the Metropolitan Exposition Recreation Commission and the City of Portland—the groups responsible for running the Keller Auditorium." .... "If Portland5 does not cancel the event, the group says it is prepared to organize protests and call-in campaigns, including disrupting the Metropolitan Exposition Recreation Committee's June 6 meeting at the Oregon Convention Center." It would take quite a feat of mental gymnastics to construe the actions of these protesters as simply an expression of THEIR free speech. Peterson is a New York Times bestselling author and one of the most influential public intellectuals in the world right now. One may honestly disagree with his views, but his ideas need to be heard and openly discussed. Regarding the principle of free speech, some clarification is necessary. Free speech could be construed as the lack of legal restriction on speech by the government, but that is not all there is to it. There is also a general cultural value of free speech that, I would argue, should be encouraged. Especially with regard to academic and intellectual matters, full and open discussion of even controversial viewpoints is essential. So while I agree that private property owners can invite or dis-invite anybody they wish, or can prohibit certain kinds of speech, that doesn't mean I think they are right to do so. There are things that are legally permissible, yet deserve harsh criticism. It has to be remembered that changes in popular sentiment predates laws that reflect popular sentiment. If the population decides that freedom of speech is not a worthwhile value, at least with regard to so-called "hate speech" (which is defined very broadly), then they are paving the way for government to restrict free speech in the future. College campuses should be home to a diversity of opinion. Students should encounter controversial topics that make them uncomfortable. One may disagree with Peterson on some of his views, but the reaction to his rise in popularity is almost a separate matter. One cannot help but concede that there is a coordinated attempt to take Peterson out of the public discourse by any means necessary. Exhibit A: "The Forward has published Ari Feldman’s big expose on clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose books and videos on religion, morality and psychology have made him an international sensation. Juxtaposing Peterson's picture with Adolf Hitler's, the headline on the article read: “Is Jordan Peterson Enabling Jew Hatred?” You can guess what followed after that: “Jordan Peterson is a public intellectual adored by neo-Nazis. … The neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer called Peterson ‘The Savior of Western Civilization’… Part of why people on the far right like Peterson is because he is not afraid to talk about the Jews. … Peterson’s followers range from avowed neo-Nazi communities like the Daily Stormer to frustrated young men looking for a scapegoat …” And so it went. By the end of the article, you had the impression a horde of jackboots march behind Herr Peterson’s goosesteps." https://www.weeklystandard.com/jonah-cohen/the-forward-publishes-a-hit-job-accusing-jordan-peterson-of-jew-hatred One of the most insightful quotes about this sordid situation comes from author Carol Horton, who considers herself to be on a leftist politically: "If you follow the news stream, it seems that virtually every right-thinking left-leaning (pun intended) journalist, blogger, and social media maven agrees: Peterson is an alt-right wolf in professorial sheep’s clothing, a self-serving charlatan who dresses up old-school misogyny, racism, and elitism in faux-intellectual, fascist mystical garb. I don’t buy it. I’ve read and listened to enough Peterson to make up my own mind and that’s not how I see him at all. Rather than being forthright about this, though, I’ve tended to cower silently in my alienated corner, fearful that revealing my rejection of the stock anti-Peterson narrative will cause my progressive friends to denounce me and the social media mobs to swarm… The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels… The Left’s attack on Peterson is so unrelenting, so superficial, and quite frequently so vicious, that many of us who work and/or live in left-leaning social environments feel scared to speak up against it… I realize that Peterson has at times said things that I disagree with and might even find offensive. But I’m much more concerned with—and disgusted by—the endless stream of tendentious and dishonest articles from leftists critics that grab onto such statements and blow them out of proportion, while aggressively erasing everything else the man has ever said or done from the record." https://hotair.com/archives/2018/05/25/jordan-peterson-left-wing-smear-machine/ Look, not everything has to be reduced to politics. People whose frame-of-reference is base partisanship can only identify someone like Peterson in the category of friend or foe. For the partisan Left, he's a foe who's not much different from Ann Coulter or even Richard Spencer. I don't see why it's so hard for you to concede that there is a worrying trend of excessive political correctness and opposition to free speech on the Left.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:At the end of the article you get the impression that the jackpot boots will go behind Herr Peterson's goosesteps. One of the deepest points of this difficult situation is the authors of Carol Horton. According to the news flow, almost all bloggers and social media have agreed upon: Peterson is the right wolf and teaching apparel. He was wearing a fake schoolgirl with discrimination, racism, discrimination and racism. Because this isn't true.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Protests and call-in campaigns, the horror. e: it's been ages since the last time I was surprised at the degrees to which RealTalk "intellectuals" will go to to equate left-wing actions to right-wing actions. One side does "protests and call-ins" and the other does beatings and lynchings, surely it's the same! Zanzibar Ham fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:His ideas are very heavily influenced by Carl Jung and the idea of universal archetypes that surface in the stories that are told in religious traditions over the centuries. He's also a fan of...Friedrich Nietzsche. This is a lie, by the way. He doesn't understand word one of Nietzsche, because if he did, then he'd actually be able to demonstrate an understanding of the "postmodernism" that he constantly rants about. All of postmodernism is just footnotes to Nietzsche.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:This is a lie, by the way. He doesn't understand word one of Nietzsche, because if he did, then he'd actually be able to demonstrate an understanding of the "postmodernism" that he constantly rants about. All of postmodernism is just footnotes to Nietzsche. Fans of Nietzsche often don't understand Nietzsche, but usually they're teenage boys.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I don't see why it's so hard for you to concede that there is a worrying trend of excessive political correctness and opposition to free speech on the Left. Noted free speech proponent, Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:34
|
|
RealTalk posted:Can you name a couple of ideas that Peterson espouses that you feel are extremely crazy or dangerous? And be specific. That culture is always personified or represented as masculine in ancient cultures, which is both easily dismissed as untrue (it's not even true for Ancient Greek culture), but also forms part of a broader web of beliefs that ultimately infer that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women. The reason he affirms what are ostensibly Jungian beliefs is so that he can use the imagery of ancient cultures to affirm traditional values, which is, by the way, an utterly anti-Nietzschean project. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 21:38 on May 27, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:34
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That culture is always personified or represented as masculine in ancient cultures, which is both easily dismissed as untrue (it's not even true for Ancient Greek culture), but also forms part of a broader web of beliefs that ultimately infer that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women. The reason he affirms what are ostensibly Jungian beliefs is so that he can use the imagery of ancient cultures to affirm traditional values, which is, by the way, an utterly anti-Nietzschean project. If anything he strikes me as a Straussist. "Yes, God is dead, but shhhhh, let's not talk about that too much."
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
I wanted to go back to the accusation that Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, or some other kind of hater. I'm going to lay out a handful of propositions, and I want to know which ones are necessarily racist or sexist. The current plight of black Americans has less to do with white racism than is commonly believed. The wage gap between men and women can be rationally explained, at least in part, by factors other than male oppression and the patriarchy. There are biological differences between men and women that explain in part disparate outcomes. Affirmative action laws are counter-productive and not a good response to historical oppression of minorities. Anti-discrimination laws violate the principle of freedom of association so they should be opposed. Not all cultural values are equal, or equally compatible with liberal values and human prosperity. Citing any scientific research, or even undertaking any scientific research, that indicates (or might indicate) any difference between races or groups of people. To my mind, none of the above propositions are necessarily bigoted. To be clear, I haven't heard Peterson articulate all of these views. I've heard people like MIchael Eric Dyson (who famously called Peterson "a mad, mean white man") say that denying racism is the new racism. To be more clearly stated, if you think the currently problem of white racism against blacks is less of a problem that other people claim, that makes you a racist. In a similar way, if you criticize contemporary feminism for it's excesses, you are a misogynist. I think this is all silly. The sacred value for people on the left is equality and any data that points out human differences that would account for disparate outcome is seen as a fundamental threat to this value. It doesn't at all matter how scientifically valid the empirical data is. I always wonder about the motivations behind labeling people as "racist", "misogynist", or some other form of hater. For the most part, the purpose seems to be to make a person toxic enough that they'll be de-platformed and ostracized from the public debate. It's a tactic to silence that person. I've never heard a progressive say "While I think this conservative or libertarian has a blind spot on the issue of race, their other ideas are interesting and worth discussing." I will concede that some of the statements I mentioned earlier could be used as subterfuge to conceal actual bigotry towards women or minorities. But by the same token, I know of individual people who have accepted one or more of those propositions while not being the slightest bit bigoted. When I mentioned Hillary Clinton earlier by way of comparison, it was only intended to contrast the reaction to warmongering by politicians to politically incorrect speech. I maintain that a politician could have participated in the most obscene war crimes and be forgiven faster by the public than a politician who uttered politically incorrect speech.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I've never heard a progressive say "While I think this conservative or libertarian has a blind spot on the issue of race, their other ideas are interesting and worth discussing." lol
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
A large number of those statements are bigoted, yes, though they're also onerously vague. Why don't you restrict yourself to things he's concretely said.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I want to quickly return to the topic of Jordan Peterson for a second. It's only a feat of mental gymnastics if you're mentally handicapped. Of course holding signs and making phone calls are expressions of freedom of speech. They're making their opinions known. People who really like Jordan Peterson are free to do exactly the same thing in response, which would also be an exercise of freedom of speech. quote:Regarding the principle of free speech, some clarification is necessary. It's the first one. The government isn't responsible to "encourage" full and open discussion of anything. While I personally believe in open and honest debate, I also believe that an auditorium with a single speaker isn't a debate (it's a lecture). Furthermore, everyone already knows what Jordan Peterson has to say. He's a relatively popular author, it's not like his positions are a secret. "A bloo bloo but I want to be paid to give lectures around the country" is not a good enough reason to tell people that they can't exercise their free speech rights (aka their right to protest Jordan Peterson lecturing at a local venue). Imagine that Barrack Obama was going to give a speech somewhere, and enough people decided that they didn't want him there and staged a protest + phone campaign opposing him. Would you claim that this is opposed to free speech? Because that loving happened dozens of times and the left didn't poo poo their pants over it demanding that the government intervene like you're doing here, because protest is a form of free speech even when it's vile and racist. quote:So while I agree that private property owners can invite or dis-invite anybody they wish, or can prohibit certain kinds of speech, that doesn't mean I think they are right to do so. There are things that are legally permissible, yet deserve harsh criticism. You are actually the one opposed to free speech here. If you valued free speech then you would take no issue with people making phone calls, holding signs, and vocally expressing their dislike of Jordan Peterson. Note how none of this actually silences Jordan Peterson (as there are a billion other platforms through which his message continues to be told), nor is any of this an attempt to get the government to silence him. quote:One may disagree with Peterson on some of his views, but the reaction to his rise in popularity is almost a separate matter. One cannot help but concede that there is a coordinated attempt to take Peterson out of the public discourse by any means necessary. You are entitled to your opinion, just as they are entitled to theirs. Have you bothered to ask your progressive friends about their opinions on Jordan Peterson, or do you typically just ignore their well-reasoned responses just as you've done in this thread? quote:The hyperbolic uniformity of the leftist attack on Peterson is emblematic of the growing tendency to reduce left-of-center thought to the status of a rigidly simplistic ideology. Increasingly, what passes for progressive political thought today offers little more than a scripted set of weaponized hashtags (you must be pro- #metoo and anti-patriarchy, no further thought required). This narrowing of our public discourse is disturbing, and worrisome on multiple, mutually reinforcing levels… I walk in some pretty progressive circles but honestly this is the only place where I ever even see any discussion of Jordan Peterson. I think you're making mountains out of mole hills. For every venue willing to cancel a Jordan Peterson engagement I guarantee there are a dozen more in more conservative parts of the country that would be willing to take him. You yourself claimed that he is becoming a popular alt-right figure, wow how is it that he's becoming popular if everyone is so effectively silencing him? quote:Look, not everything has to be reduced to politics. People whose frame-of-reference is base partisanship can only identify someone like Peterson in the category of friend or foe. For the partisan Left, he's a foe who's not much different from Ann Coulter or even Richard Spencer. And yet that is exactly what you're doing. You've identified Peterson as providing a necessary counterpoint to progressive thinking, and you're demanding that he be allowed to speak at any venue he wants even when the local population doesn't want him. quote:I don't see why it's so hard for you to concede that there is a worrying trend of excessive political correctness and opposition to free speech on the Left. No one here is going to concede that a protest is anti-free speech, because that's ridiculous and wrong. "Excessive political correctness" doesn't even enter into it, you're complaining that people who are exercising their right to free speech should not be allowed to exercise that right because it happens to be convincing venues to not host an alt-right speaker who you like. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:00 on May 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
I'm not bigoted, guys, I just have an intense and abiding interest in arguments that justify superiority of men over women, and white people over black people. I'm also into philosophical ideas that justify discrimination, and make it bad to call me a bigot. This is just random stuff I happen to be interested in, due to my intelligence and extremely unbiased freethinking nature.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I always wonder about the motivations behind labeling people as "racist", "misogynist", or some other form of hater. For the most part, the purpose seems to be to make a person toxic enough that they'll be de-platformed and ostracized from the public debate. It's a tactic to silence that person. Have you considered that maybe it's a standard response to someone making some form of hate speech, you loving simpleton? Yes, "white men making more than white women for exactly the same work is normal and justified" is misogynistic holy poo poo what is wrong with you? e: Note, don't take my post as being angry, telling idiots that they're idiots is just hugely cathartic to me; I am extremely joyful at your presence in this thread, RealTalk QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 22:06 on May 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:03
|
|
QuarkJets posted:e: Note, don't take my post as being angry, telling idiots that they're idiots is just hugely cathartic to me; I am extremely joyful at your presence in this thread, RealTalk Same
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
It's not terribly controversial that those who have hold of the truth have a moral obligation to silence falsity. There's a discussion to be had about acceptable methods in various contexts, but as a general principle, 'never try to silence anyone, no matter what they're saying' is obviously anti-rational.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Protests and call-in campaigns, the horror. I didn't "equate" anything. Why can't I criticize the left-wing speech police without it being seen as condoning right-wing extremism? The funny thing is that Jordan Peterson has openly criticized the alt-right and doctrines of racial supremacy. He's opposed to "ideology" itself and has repeatedly warned people against being seduced by identity politics ideologies of either the left or right. Historically we know where left-wing ideologies lead if taken to their extreme. We know where right-wing ideologies lead if taken to their extreme. Neither is a good place. Yeah, compared to the KKK lynching blacks in Mississippi eighty years ago, left-wing protests against public speakers like Peterson seem benign. But that's a ludicrous comparison to make. By that standard, almost every political tactic is harmless. The question is simple. Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland or should they cave to pressure and cancel his appearance? Russell Brand recently spoke to Jordan Peterson at length: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLFQxVOvan4 This is an example of a left-wing person discussing issues with Peterson in a respectful and serious way. I enjoyed this particular discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:28
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:The question is simple. Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland or should they cave to pressure and cancel his appearance? Should protesters be allowed to voice their dislike for Peterson's views, or should the government be called in to silence them in the name of free speech? quote:Russell Brand recently spoke to Jordan Peterson at length: So you have in fact seen a progressive find a conservative or libertarian's ideas interesting and worth discussing. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Peterson is a New York Times bestselling author and one of the most influential public intellectuals in the world right now. One may honestly disagree with his views, but his ideas need to be heard and openly discussed. He isn't, I do, they don't. Though I'll grant Peterson's stunning unwillingness to actually state forthrightly and without ponderous circumlocution what it is he believes and what his positions actually are makes that last one tricky.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Historically we know where left-wing ideologies lead if taken to their extreme. We know where right-wing ideologies lead if taken to their extreme. Neither is a good place. And yet here we are, you are doing the thing that you suggest is ludicrous: accusing the left-wing of being too extreme because they're staging peaceful protests and call-in campaigns.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:The question is simple. Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland or should they cave to pressure and cancel his appearance? Is this all you can offer? You came in promising to defend Peterson's views as true, but you haven't done that. All you can do is complain about how people choose to go about saying that they're false. One might be forgiven for thinking that you're not actually all that interested in the truth, after all.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
his ideas are vacuous mostly either they're true but obvious, or they're just wrong
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I wanted to go back to the accusation that Peterson is a misogynist, a racist, or some other kind of hater. quote:The current plight of black Americans has less to do with white racism than is commonly believed. quote:The wage gap between men and women can be rationally explained, at least in part, by factors other than male oppression and the patriarchy. quote:There are biological differences between men and women that explain in part disparate outcomes. quote:Affirmative action laws are counter-productive and not a good response to historical oppression of minorities. quote:Anti-discrimination laws violate the principle of freedom of association so they should be opposed. quote:Not all cultural values are equal, or equally compatible with liberal values and human prosperity. quote:Citing any scientific research, or even undertaking any scientific research, that indicates (or might indicate) any difference between races or groups of people. Also: quote:I will concede that some of the statements I mentioned earlier could be used as subterfuge to conceal actual bigotry towards women or minorities. But by the same token, I know of individual people who have accepted one or more of those propositions while not being the slightest bit bigoted.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
i love how he says poo poo like "the civil rights act is bad freedom of association and property rights are tantamount, but only for white people who want to oppress anyone who isn't them  tl;dr https://twitter.com/BlanksSlate/status/997225667019276288
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:He's opposed to "ideology" itself and has repeatedly warned people against being seduced by identity politics ideologies of either the left or right.  
Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:49 on May 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:The question is simple. Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland or should they cave to pressure and cancel his appearance? The absurd number of situations in which Americans will use their first amendment as some kind of loving Mjolnir that can be used in every single situation is, frankly, the biggest supporting argument for countries (like  ) not enacting a specific bill of rights. It's not even the "if you only have a hammer, all problems are nails" kind of thing; more like "I have this hammer that is perfect as a butter spreader, a fashion accessory, a surgeon's scalpel, a telecommunications device and a sex toy. Just watch how it works! WHACK WHACK WHACK WHACK WHACK"Case in point, jrod's "argument" that if a community decides that they don't want to give bigoted arseholes a public forum in their community, then the will of the community should be shoved aside by First Amendment Mjolnir which states that no you lefty scum fuckers, you will accept Petersen into your community and you will sit down and listen to him and YOU WILL loving ENJOY IT
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:I, but I think this conservative Libertarian is a blind place to the problem of racism, their second icon is interesting, worth talking," and to tell the progressive people and did not listen to anything. Was it possible to learn the above statement as an insight to conceal the bias against women and minorities that I recognize. Some of the more prominent, white for the problem of black racism, if we believe that this is not the argument of other problems, it will be racist. You sure seem angry about the fact Jortypete has no explanatory power, and indeed is less persuasive a speaker than Mike Pence. Why is that? RealTalk posted:I didn't "equate" anything. Why can't I criticize the left-wing speech police without it being seen as condoning right-wing extremism? Because the left wing speech police only exist inside delirious right wing extremist ranting. RealTalk posted:Should Peterson be allowed to speak in Portland, or should I consider my eyes? Recently, Russell talked to Peterson in Jordan with a serious attitude as a representative of the left wing to discuss Peterson's problems. You said it yourself, Jortypete hates black people.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:That culture is always personified or represented as masculine in ancient cultures, which is both easily dismissed as untrue (it's not even true for Ancient Greek culture), but also forms part of a broader web of beliefs that ultimately infer that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women. The reason he affirms what are ostensibly Jungian beliefs is so that he can use the imagery of ancient cultures to affirm traditional values, which is, by the way, an utterly anti-Nietzschean project. Stating that certain aspects of reality and consciousness are metaphorically referred to as "masculine" and others "feminine" does not infer "that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women". I'd like to see you present a quote from Peterson that backs up your assertion.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:The specific aspects of reality and perception of senses are metaphorically called "male", "feminine" does not allow women to control women and control women. I would like Peterson's quotes, support your request. That's the point, Peterson's poo poo doesn't support anything ever.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
Time to criticize the left speech police by demanding the left police all political speech and show sufficient  to their right-wing opponents.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
RealTalk posted:Stating that certain aspects of reality and consciousness are metaphorically referred to as "masculine" and others "feminine" does not infer "that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women". I'd like to see you present a quote from Peterson that backs up your assertion. What's the metaphor, exactly, and what good is it? Is it true? Is it the basis of a productive research program? What is the claim being made here?
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:23
|
|
RealTalk posted:Stating that certain aspects of reality and consciousness are metaphorically referred to as "masculine" and others "feminine" does not infer "that men are superior to, and destined to dominate, women". I'd like to see you present a quote from Peterson that backs up your assertion. Except that that's the express purpose of presenting them in that way in Peterson's worldview. While in theory he often presents masculine traits and feminine traits as crossing sexual boundaries, he also vaunts masculine virtues and attributes them typically to males; moreover, he attributes characteristics to each category without any sensible reason - 'masculine is order, feminine is chaos'. This is said to be fundamental to all culture and form a part of our unconscious, except there's no real indication that it really is historically or anthropologically true in all, let alone a broad spectrum of, ancient cultures. So even if it isn't sexist, it's still just invented word salad. What is the end product of Peterson's analysis, for example? Here's one: that executives and leaders will almost always be male, and insofar as they're not, they'll express masculine characteristics, because those are characteristics prevalent in males and those qualities are intrinsic to leadership.
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
Which is just another way of saying 'the pay gap is fine, tech companies being 100% dudebros is fine, we don't need more women leaders' or in short 'carry on as normal.'
|
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
Composing posts almost entirely of tired, decrepit talking points is low effort as gently caress. Real
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 00:31 |
|
|
Guys, don't you see? By attacking bigotry, hatred, and misogyny, we become the Nazis. It's so simple! So, why can't we be more tolerant of the rights for white supremacy to vocally advocate for genocide and death? So much for the tolerant left!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2018 23:49
|
|
