Jump to content

Jordan Peterson's ideas on politis


Hans de Vries
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Curious layman said:

 

@swansont

Um, what else would someone call you, that's your name. Are you really that brittle?

Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness.

And with a snap of the fingers you have managed to summarily dismiss the feelings and pain of millions by telling them they have yet another weakness that isn't even worthy of your consideration.

Everyone's feelings are genuine to them whether you care to address them or not. Please try to see things from their perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

In certain (rare) circumstances they can. It is an in-vs outgroup situation. Among folks who know you and can contextualize your action certain otherwise egregious behaviour can be accepted and even endearing. E.g. you might use insults among your friends, but that can turn ugly if you use the same with random folks you don't know.

The use of words like "nigger" have been specifically used by white folks  in order to denigrate and subjugate black folks. Theoretically a group of black folks might be comfortable with having a specific white friend use the term around them, but it is so loaded that even the white person might feel uncomfortable using it (as it invokes a power differential).

I am also not sure whether random black folks calling each other that term is acceptable under all circumstances. There is certainly more nuance to it (i.e. slightly more acceptable but still can be used in an insulting way).

1 hour ago, swansont said:

can't truly fathom what it would like to be belittled for whatever characteristics of what I look like or how I am. The reality is likely far, far worse than what I can imagine. So maybe characterizing this as petty political correctness is underselling the problem, and perhaps we can recognize that there are issues within this class of problem that are very real and need solving (bullying and harming people because they're different, keeping them from exercising their rights, etc.)

I think the worst thing about it is that it is tiring. There is always some mental overhead used for navigating these situations where you somehow need to demonstrate you belong (e.g. you need to show competence without appearing uppity) but ignore rather obvious slights (especially if they are done unconsciously). Highlighting issues usually makes things worse, so one needs to keep it bottled up. Of course it is only related to visible characteristics (there are also more subtle social cues in certain areas) but it is often one of the hardest to hide. The thing is that it has become less socially acceptable, which gives rise to the PC nonsense. But again, it is the same thing as it has always been, just the topic and mechanism has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:
6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Really, didn't they turn that word from slave to friend?

So why can't white people use it in the same context?

Have you seriously not figured this one out yet?

48 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think the worst thing about it is that it is tiring. There is always some mental overhead used for navigating these situations where you somehow need to demonstrate you belong (e.g. you need to show competence without appearing uppity) but ignore rather obvious slights (especially if they are done unconsciously). Highlighting issues usually makes things worse, so one needs to keep it bottled up.

Especially if there is en element of fear - as, if the minority you belong to has been traditionally the target of violence. If you 'let it slide', assume it's unintentional or whatever, you may be seen as weak: a soft target. So you know it won't stop, and you watch for sign of it escalating, which takes even more emotional energy.   Taking issue may resolve the situation - if the offender really didn't doesn't mean to offend and if he's not one of the adamant non-PC and if you broach it in the right way at the right time.... Or else it may have negative consequences. That's a heavy piece of luggage for little kid to pick up and carry all through life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Have you seriously not figured this one out yet?

 

Nice condescending style. ;) I always forget to avoid issues of racism and feminism here. It always ends the same. Sorry guys, I'll stay out.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.

I always pictured long necked white birds swimming in a lake of tea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I appreciate the sentient, but your words leave me wondering where accountability, personal responsibility, and progress fall in all of this. 

What is deemed acceptable to a civilized society rightly evolves with time.

Interesting debate. All the examples given by iNow in the above post, would be deemed as insulting in most civilised societies. Calling a female "sugar tits" because she has a great bosom, is rather innapropriate and a comment on a person's physical form or attributes, or lack thereof. We could based on that example be also able to comment on another person's disability. Which would likewise be innapropriate and cruel to boot. The same goes for your other examples. 

I believe an important aspect of one's speech and another's feelings is intent. I've had a mate I hadn't seen for 12 months or so, call out to me, "Hey beecee you old bastard, where have you been?" It [calling me bastard] was used as a term of endearment, and no second thoughts by me ever entertained anything different to what I knew was the "intent"

In saying that, I also agree with Intoscience's comments below....

12 hours ago, Intoscience said:

People are far too sensitive these days and over react to such petty political correctness. Maybe if people focused more on real problems that require solving, which will have an actual positive impact on society rather than wasting time and effort over interpretation of the use of language, the world would be a better place for all of us.   

I have given an example of PC being taken to far earlier with regards to a crazy edict being brought down by the firm I once worked for, saying we were not to call manhole covers by that name anymore. 

Some other everyday examples, of which I myself use near everyday, is everyday banter with people, both people you know, and strangers also. Let me explain...I was a while back having trouble paying for some renovations to a builder in transferring the money to his bank account. I approached the female bank teller for advice, and she explained it fully to me and which I was deeply appreciative for. I said to her, "thanks love, you're a bloody angel!".....she replied, "glad to be of assistance sweetie" or words to that effect, and laughed heartedly. She was around 45ish years of age. Many times I have approached shop assistants and asked if a female, "excuse me love, where is the extra virgin olive oil [or whatever]? Or if a bloke, "excuse me mate, where do you hide the  paper towles? The British version of the game show "The Chase" hosted by the very funny Bradley Walsh and one I prefer over the Aussie edition, often has Bradley addressing female contestants as "darling" or love...many, many many other examples, way too many to list!!

The reason I raised all this is because I was told it was wrong, sexist and innapropriate by a person I see as a radical extremist and feminazi. It is not any of those things, but simply examples that I am involved with every day of my life...it is nothing more than casual everyday banter, that has no intent of sexism or any impropriety whatsoever. A year or so ago, my next door neighbour asked me to look after her dog...she called me love...no offence was taken on my part, in fact It was never given a second thought, no sinister motive was afoot on her part, it was nothing more then examples of everyday banter between everyday people, with zero intent of sinister motives, or insulting behaviour. My final example...I was waiting at a crossing to cross the road, and was just about to cross against the "don't walk" sign, when I noticed two police behind me, a male and a female. I turned and said, "gee lucky i saw you there, I was about to cross" The female office replied with a big cheesy grin, "and I was ready to grab you by the collar sweetie."

I hate misogyny sexism, misandry, and disrespect, but I also hate the efforts sometimes of society in trying to eliminate undesirable traits, just going way too far, as can be shown by PC being taken too far and normal everyday banter. 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Have you seriously not figured this one out yet?

Especially if there is en element of fear - as, if the minority you belong to has been traditionally the target of violence. If you 'let it slide', assume it's unintentional or whatever, you may be seen as weak: a soft target. So you know it won't stop, and you watch for sign of it escalating, which takes even more emotional energy.   Taking issue may resolve the situation - if the offender really didn't doesn't mean to offend and if he's not one of the adamant non-PC and if you broach it in the right way at the right time.... Or else it may have negative consequences. That's a heavy piece of luggage for little kid to pick up and carry all through life.

It does not have to be adversarial, which adds to the exhaustion. Often the issues can be subtle. Some common examples in my area are collaborative settings, it is always assumed that the typically senior (white) male is actually the mastermind. If they say no it was actually a [similar or junior female, or minority], it can be often seen as generosity. Subsequent correspondence still goes to the perceived lead.

It is a small thing but if you bring it up yourself folks get defensive, they did not meant it that way. Which could be driven by the fear that they could actually offend the perceived  actual leader. I.e. they just act in a system of familiarity where the project leads used to be mostly male and white, and they may not be flexible enough to adjust to changing situations. This is of course not a PC situation as such, but an example how perceptions clash with changing situations. The person not adapting to these situations is almost automatically defensive as from their perspective they were just conforming to norms. And because of that, a person speaking up may just be overly sensitive. Yet from the other side it means you need to careful modulate your responses so that folks slowly get used to the idea that you are actually running the show without making folks feel bad about their behaviour.

20 minutes ago, koti said:

I always pictured long necked white birds swimming in a lake of tea. 

The first time I across his name all this years ago I had a similar image. Just a more a giant teacup situation.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some other everyday examples, of which I myself use near everyday, is everyday banter with people, both people you know, and strangers also. Let me explain...I was a while back having trouble paying for some renovations to a builder in transferring the money to his bank account. I approached the female bank teller for advice, and she explained it fully to me and which I was deeply appreciative for. I said to her, "thanks love, you're a bloody angel!".....she replied, "glad to be of assistance sweetie" or words to that effect, and laughed heartedly. She was around 45ish years of age. Many times I have approached shop assistants and asked if a female, "excuse me love, where is the extra virgin olive oil [or whatever]? Or if a bloke, "excuse me mate, where do you hide the  paper towles? The British version of the game show "The Chase" hosted by the very funny Bradley Walsh and one I prefer over the Aussie edition, often has Bradley addressing female contestants as "darling" or love...many, many many other examples, way too many to list!!

That is again based on context, isn't it? In various groups that is entirely acceptable. If I called a student love or a student called me sweetie, it could cause issues. That is the issue for things considered socially acceptable, all rules are basically made up and society kind of (but not really) agrees on some of them for a given period, before perception shifts.

PC going wild is then basically a descriptor for a situation where different groups assume different things I think the real issue is that many things are hard to resolve now as they travel quickly outside our area of influence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That is again based on context, isn't it? In various groups that is entirely acceptable. If I called a student love or a student called me sweetie, it could cause issues. That is the issue for things considered socially acceptable, all rules are basically made up and society kind of (but not really) agrees on some of them for a given period, before perception shifts.

PC going wild is then basically a descriptor for a situation where different groups assume different things I think the real issue is that many things are hard to resolve now as they travel quickly outside our area of influence.

Good point re teacher/student issue. 

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

It does not have to be adversarial, which adds to the exhaustion. Often the issues can be subtle. Some common examples in my area are collaborative settings, it is always assumed that the typically senior (white) male is actually the mastermind. If they say no it was actually a [similar or junior female, or minority], it can be often seen as generosity. Subsequent correspondence still goes to the perceived lead.

It is a small thing but if you bring it up yourself folks get defensive, they did not meant it that way. Which could be driven by the fear that they could actually offend the perceived  actual leader. I.e. they just act in a system of familiarity where the project leads used to be mostly male and white, and they may not be flexible enough to adjust to changing situations. This is of course not a PC situation as such, but an example how perceptions clash with changing situations. The person not adapting to these situations is almost automatically defensive as from their perspective they were just conforming to norms. And because of that, a person speaking up may just be overly sensitive. Yet from the other side it means you need to careful modulate your responses so that folks slowly get used to the idea that you are actually running the show without making folks feel bad about their behaviour.

The first time I across his name all this years ago I had a similar image. Just a more a giant teacup situation.

That is again based on context, isn't it? In various groups that is entirely acceptable. If I called a student love or a student called me sweetie, it could cause issues. That is the issue for things considered socially acceptable, all rules are basically made up and society kind of (but not really) agrees on some of them for a given period, before perception shifts.

PC going wild is then basically a descriptor for a situation where different groups assume different things I think the real issue is that many things are hard to resolve now as they travel quickly outside our area of influence.

 

Your post makes a lot of sense....Certainly far more sense then the extremist feminazi that tried bullying me into submission! Your teacher student one is valid certainly. Relating another example I was involved in. Last Summer with our extreme bushfires, the Mrs was having real problems with her asthma and breathing...so much so that I called the ambulance, two paramedics, one female one male. They brough great comfort to myself and the troubled Mrs with remarks like don't worry sweety, breath deep honey and similar. They were both 30ish, we are both in our 70's. 

When I was a boy in the 50's schooling, Australia had a big immigration program, with many migrants from war torn Europe. A lot of them opened grocery stores, fish n chip shops etc and worked their arse off to succeed in their new chosen country. That didn't stop many of us locals [including us school kids] from derisively and insultingly, with malice, calling them wogs, and greasy dagoes. Words that today are unnacceptable in general society.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 2:26 PM, CharonY said:

It means that if we are in a conflict situation we should start puffing up and bring deterrents to the table. 

 

I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. 

What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. 

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. 

Human communities don't have pack leaders who maintain dominance of a harem through threat of force, generally speaking. Our leaders tend to be the best negotiators and diplomats - people who can generate cooperation and influence/convince people.  Emotional intelligence, active listening and generating likeability are going to place you at the center of a social dynamic, rather than dominance, in most cases. The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.

 

Edited by Arete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Arete said:

 

I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. 

What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. 

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. 

Human communities don't have pack leaders who maintain dominance of a harem through threat of force, generally speaking. Our leaders tend to be the best negotiators and diplomats - people who can generate cooperation and influence/convince people.  Emotional intelligence, active listening and generating likeability are going to place you at the center of a social dynamic, rather than dominance, in most cases. The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.

 

Not to mention that in social animals hierarchies are often far more complex than anticipated. For chimpanzee there were a few fairly recent papers highlighting non-linear properties of their hierarchies, for example.

I would need to find the papers again, but I think that funnily there were some similarities to what you describe. There was a theoretical dominant individual which beat most others up but was not beaten in return. But socially that individual was rather isolated. Which might indicate that chimpanzees have a more differential social view than quite a few humans...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Arete said:

 

I've seen his analogies to chimpanzee troupes and lion prides to explain dominance behavior. 

What these simplistic, "alpha" "beta" scenarios get wrong is that humans are not pack animals. Social hierarchy is dependent vastly more on social cooperation than the threat of force. 

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to be at a social gathering with an adherent to the "alpha male" philosophy, where they come in and start "negging" and "dominating" everyone, is that they just come across as massive jerks. I had a guy in in my grad school expanded circle who would routinely come to gatherings. The aggressive handshakes, forced eye contact, domineering posturing just made him look like an asshole. We ended up manipulating his own behavior - when someone was grilling, or mixing drinks, etc he would insist they were doing it wrong and take over. We'd let him, then go somewhere else, leaving him cooking our food while we socialized. Once the food/whatever was done he'd come in all puffed out having "alpha'ed" by providing all the resources to us "betas", showing all the womenfolk he was the leader of the pack. In reality, we'd kept him occupied like a toddler so we didn't have to put up with his behavior. 

I bet the girl who was most disgusted with his behavior that night ended up having his kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, koti said:

I bet the girl who was most disgusted with his behavior that night ended up having his kids.

...after having torn all the polite men apart with her claws, no doubt....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, koti said:

I bet the girl who was most disgusted with his behavior that night ended up having his kids.

Assuming the group are adults, you might be losing that bet assuming there are no additional qualities on display.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427

Quote

Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid "personalism," but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Arete said:

The analogies are simply too simplistic as to be wrong.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. 
 

On 10/5/2021 at 9:05 AM, iNow said:

What do I think? I think it’s too simplistic to be useful and likely wrong as a direct result of that fantasy level simplicity. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

And with a snap of the fingers you have managed to summarily dismiss the feelings and pain of millions by telling them they have yet another weakness that isn't even worthy of your consideration.

Everyone's feelings are genuine to them whether you care to address them or not. Please try to see things from their perspective.

There certainly is a line in the sand which people should not cross, but sometimes....take the following for example....https://www.salon.com/2018/12/19/william-shatner-says-metoo-has-become-hysterical-changed-the-way-he-interacts-with-fans_partner/

extracts from Shatner....

"The “Star Trek” icon started the conversation by addressing his social media postsurging Christmas radio stations to play “Baby It’s Cold Outside” on the airwaves. The song was temporarily pulled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over complaints about its suggestive lyrics".

Those of you too young to remember the song, here it

is..

.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTNheCEUP_A

Shatner went on to say......."Shatner prefaced his #MeToo remarks but calling out the positive side of the anti-harassment movement. “I think it’s great that these hidden forces are exposed and not to be allowed and women have equal rights,” the actor said. “I’ve got three daughters [aged 60, 57 and 54], I’m all for that.”

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{

How many songs do we ban?, this.... "Island Girl" by Elton John, or perhaps "Ebony and Ivory" by Paul McCartney, or the King's  Kissin' Cousins?

I hate rap, heavy metal crap [yeah I know tastes in music are subjective] but don't we have lyrics in songs such as rap about the "F" word, and killing cops and such? Should any of that stuff be ever aloud? Isn't that simply distastful, and bordering on manic evil expressions? Other music re drugs etc are in the same category, and yet some PC extremists talk about PC with regards to the lyrics in for example, Elvis' jailhouse rock...remember the lyrics...went something like this....“

“Number forty-seven said to number three:
"You're the cutest jailbird I ever did see.
I sure would be delighted with your company,
Come on and do the Jailhouse Rock with me." 

Some of the PC brigade today may see that as a gay love song....

Perhaps the PC brigade may have to wait until old farts like myself die off, but then again, I have a sneaking suspicion many of our normal younger folk, would also cringe at some of the extremes of PC.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some of the PC brigade today may see that as a gay love song....

Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing as saying "don't be so sensitive". Completely disregards their thoughts on the matter.

I imagine at some point in your life you might have said something like 'women managers are too emotional'. But (I hope) not anymore. And that is because women pushed back against men dismissing them as inferior in their thinking.

Many people who have been marginalized all their lives finally feel they can push back against the slights they experience every day because of their ethnicity, religion, culture, etc. And you dismiss them as being part of the PC Brigade, or others say they are too sensitive.

Mostly people don't say "women are too emotional at work" anymore but instead limit their comments on emotional instability to concrete example. Generalizations are no longer appropriate.

I'm hopeful that in the near future people will quit dismissing those who feel a sign, or song, or Tomahawk Chop is something that makes them feel bad, and has the temerity to ask others to stop. Maybe then those who speak up against slights against them won't be pigeon-holed like blacks, women and other minorities were, until they finally said "ENOUGH".

Using an example of an obvious overreach by someone objecting to a song as a reason to say "people are too sensitive" or "you are part of the PC brigade", is no more appropriate than using an example of a black man being lazy to say "blacks are lazy".

Unless you understand the details of why a person is objecting to something, it is not fair to summarily dismiss their objection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Unless you understand the details of why a person is objecting to something, it is not fair to summarily dismiss their objection.

I don't summarily dismiss anyone's objection/s. Even if that objection is totally invalid, I would probably shrug my shoulders and move on, muttering perhaps under my breath. If the bank teller in a previous example I gave, had of objected in any way whatsoever, looks, speech, body language, or whatever, I would have apologised and moved on. If the female shop assistant had of objected to being called love, I would again have offered an apology and moved on. There are lines in the sand...I would never call an indigenous Aussie a Boong...the equivelent in calling a Black American a nigger. I have a heap of indigenous friends in actual fact, as I live in a suburb next door to a recognised indigenous settlement. 

And no, in actual fact I have never said anything out of the ordinary about a female manager being emotional, at least  no more then a emotional male manager.

Yes, you have a point in certain situations, the same as iNow had a point with his pupil/teacher relationship and interactions.

But it does not change the fact/s that there are reasonable sensible limitations on sensitivity. I'm pretty sure we could examine with a fine tooth comb, the words of most songs and find something potentially objectionable to someone, but I'm just as sure, it would normally go over both your's and my heads.

I doubt there are any really extreme undesirable and offensive people that I have conversed with on this forum on such matters, just those with views both left and right of the political centre...some I agree with, others I don't. I certainly as I have made known, object to the subject of the thread, J Peterson and see his views in many cases to be extreme with a minor exception or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC, this thread was supposed to be about "Jordan Peterson's ideas on politics".

Not about gender discrimination, power hierarchies, male-female relations, etc.
The only aspect of his endeavors which is political, is his objection to the Government of Canada's proposed Bill C-16, and his distaste for Marxist ideology.

It is kind of difficult to have that discussion when other stuff, like gender discrimination, is brought up.
Gender discrimination is illegal.
On the other hand, offending people is not.
This law attempts to vilify, and punish, people who may say something someone else doesn't like, because they claim to be offended.

I noticed that in the example @TheVatbrought up, quite a few of you called the professor a jerk, but the 'offended' student, for whom an explanation was not good enough, and who proceeded to report/sue the Prof was absolved of all culpability.
I guess some males use the threat of violence to establish hierarchies, others use the threat of law.
Either way is an attempt at control of discourse, and the dissemination of ideas.
No one should be able to control others ideas, and the way they think.

But if you want to discuss gender discrimination, or male-female relations, please open a thread, and do so. Here, we are discussing J Peterson'e political ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zapatos said:

And with a snap of the fingers you have managed to summarily dismiss the feelings and pain of millions by telling them they have yet another weakness that isn't even worthy of your consideration.

Everyone's feelings are genuine to them whether you care to address them or not. Please try to see things from their perspective.

Yes, perhaps, my point was mainly aimed at those that continually complain about petty PC.

iNow replied mainly with examples of purposeful comments that were intentionally designed and aimed at being offensive, even though some appeared to be or attempted to be jokingly cloaked.  My point was aimed at the minority who just take things completely out of context when it was evident that the allegation is totally unfounded.

But this seems to have gone over everyone's head. So now I'm made out to be unsensitive (which I could take offense at) by not considering everyone's perspective, the irony.

There are people dying all over the world from disease, starvation, wars... I'm saying some people need to get a grip and consider those poor people's feelings.   

JP often takes this approach and is slammed for his opinion, and many times people are offensive towards him. Whether you agree with his claims or not, right or wrong he maybe, considering his perspective and then discussing this can be productive, especially when the things he talks on are "sensitive" subjects.   

   

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

Assuming the group are adults, you might be losing that bet assuming there are no additional qualities on display.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.427

 

"Three multimethod studies (total N = 348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation"
I wonder if N is the amount of people in the control group or the amount of kids the guy from Arete's story eventually had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The only aspect of his endeavors which is political, is his objection to the Government of Canada's proposed Bill C-16, and his distaste for Marxist ideology.

It is kind of difficult to have that discussion when other stuff, like gender discrimination, is brought up.
Gender discrimination is illegal.

Coulda sworn that's what C-16 was about.

Marxist ideology wasn't mentioned in that or any other context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Are you really that blind? His name is based on the military lingo for Swanson, T. When people use "-snot" instead of "-sont, it can seem purposeful and disrespectful, and it's not being "brittle" when the same people continue to do it.

Another thing from the military (though not exclusively military, of course) was called "attention to detail"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.