On January 24 2018 02:14 Loco wrote:
And my claim was made in the thread "gambling sucks, poker sucks".
and mine was made in the ROFL thread!
You were making fun of those guys, I made fun of a caricature of your stance and then you demanded quotes and thought you hurted my ego by proxy lol.
So to clarify again, you did not hurt my ego nor people I respect: I dont know who the black guy is, Shapiro is sharp at debates but he is a religious idiot with a kippa, I havent heard Weinstein talk for over 5 minutes total, Harris seems resonable but has retarded views about imperialism, and JBP while I like a lot of his stuff actually none of it its related to this gender/evolutionary biology stuff at all, and he is also intellectually dishonest when talking about religion or anti natalism as I've said previously, so no, my ego doesnt extend to these people at all.
You cry that I insult you yet you pretend that these are my idols athat encompass my views and I'm one of the redpilled army... so I guess in return I should believe that your idols and your beliefs are based on the words of Lena Dunham and Slavoj Zizek
How can you say that none of this stuff is related to JBP? He is huge on gender differences, evo psych and critiquing feminism. Literally everything we have argued about on this and you have presented to me as strong evidence of X is something I later found out JBP had shared on his Twitter or is directly relevant to his current crusade. He's been filmed crying multiple times recently because he finds it touching that the majority of the people he has touched have been white men who felt they had been discriminated against and lied to about the patriarchy and their privilege. e.g.:
I just can't imagine that you would make an insulting & completely baseless statement like this out of left field unless you felt personally insulted like I was not in a position to criticize a redpiller which you sympathize with. It just makes no sense to me. Why jump to that person's defense through insult if you're not sympathizing with them? Ok, assuming I was wrong to assume all of this, you have to do a better job of explaining your reaction to me. How were you caricaturing my stance? What stance? How did your comment relate to me reading into the obvious meaning of the picture and being aware that the person who made it has a Twitter dedicated to spreading a redpill/far-right agenda?
I said the stuff I like about JBP isnt about gender not that he doesnt talk about it often, also I dont get why you posted that vid, I don't seem anything wrong with what he said do you?
Oh, I thought you were saying the stuff you liked about him (the self-help you said you valued in the past and maybe other things like his lectures on existentialism) had nothing to do with gender/evolutionary psychology. I misread. I posted the video to make it clear that he is way more influential on these latter matters than his actual academic interests.
I have no issue with the first few mins in the video, I agree with him that there is a state of desperation and purposelessness particularly in young men and there is a need for revivification. I'm all for that. But as soon as he gets into the reasons as to why they feel like this, i.e. because of the evil feminists, I just can't. How can someone reduce such a complex matter to something seemingly so trivial? I personally can't relate to this at all, I've never been told these things and I don't believe for one second that this is a significant causal factor. Then he goes into "our culture is not perfect, it's true, it's not completely fair" lol, understatement of the fucking year is all that comes to mind. Saying that we have a wonderful civilization because the rest of the world is doing worse than us is a dumb fallacy. Peterson glorifies dominance hierarchies because they have served him well, but he doesn't see the big picture -- he has a huge blind spot there. Video ends with the usual conspiratorial rantings about how academia is completely corrupt of course. Thank God Peterson has such a good heart and he will eventually save us with his anti-postmodern neo-marxist university.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
How can you say that you don't find anything wrong in that video as an anarchist? What's the raison d'être of anarchism if you're not critical of hierarchical structures of dominance? The whole point of Peterson here behind this male drama is that we have to accept these structures and find meaning through maintaining and climbing them. This is fundamentally wrong. This is the main reason why people are miserable in the first place despite being in the midst of abundance. Peterson can't see this because of his nightmarish visions of the USSR. His analysis simply stopped there, he never managed to diagnose the problem correctly so he couldn't find a solution to the problem and he instead decided to pick the lesser of two evils.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 24 2018 07:03 Loco wrote:
How can you say that you don't find anything wrong in that video as an anarchist? What's the raison d'être of anarchism if you're not critical of hierarchical structures of dominance? The whole point of Peterson here behind this male drama is that we have to accept these structures and find meaning through maintaining and climbing them. This is fundamentally wrong. This is the main reason why people are miserable in the first place despite being in the midst of abundance. Peterson can't see this because of his nightmarish visions of the USSR. His analysis simply stopped there, he never managed to diagnose the problem correctly so he couldn't find a solution to the problem and he instead decided to pick the lesser of two evils.
Anarchy doesnt have anythingn to do with hierarchy, (dont quote retarded definitions please) its about not having a state, no compulsory impicit social contract, this abundance you talk about is generated by capitalism, and of fucking course he couldnt find a solution, capitalism has its flaws where wealth accumulates at the top and even after bloody revolutions where all these men are killed the status quo returns nearly instantly.
His nightmarish vision of the USSR is god damn right, because that is what happens when you topple capitalism, so you think Engels, Marx et.al didnt truly understood how to solve the problem but you do, you would succeed where they failed?
On January 24 2018 06:00 Loco wrote:
Oh, I thought you were saying the stuff you liked about him (the self-help you said you valued in the past and maybe other things like his lectures on existentialism) had nothing to do with gender/evolutionary psychology. I misread. I posted the video to make it clear that he is way more influential on these latter matters than his actual academic interests.
I have no issue with the first few mins in the video, I agree with him that there is a state of desperation and purposelessness particularly in young men and there is a need for revivification. I'm all for that. But as soon as he gets into the reasons as to why they feel like this, i.e. because of the evil feminists, I just can't. How can someone reduce such a complex matter to something seemingly so trivial? I personally can't relate to this at all, I've never been told these things and I don't believe for one second that this is a significant causal factor. Then he goes into "our culture is not perfect, it's true, it's not completely fair" lol, understatement of the fucking year is all that comes to mind. Saying that we have a wonderful civilization because the rest of the world is doing worse than us is a dumb fallacy. Peterson glorifies dominance hierarchies because they have served him well, but he doesn't see the big picture -- he has a huge blind spot there. Video ends with the usual conspiratorial rantings about how academia is completely corrupt of course. Thank God Peterson has such a good heart and he will eventually save us with his anti-postmodern neo-marxist university.
Its absurd to think that he is implying its the only cause of despair of men of that age, however that demographic is indeed being targeted by pop culture get out of your cave more often, words like toxic masculinity, white privilege, mansplaining, manspreading etc. I think like you i'm going to post shit against this narrative in the ROFL thread so you give a look at the stuff thats going on, perhaps you are not aware of it.
So according to your way of thinking that if I disagree with you its because I think I know MORE than you on the subject, then since you disagree with JBP you think you know more about the subconscious than a PhD psychologist?
fwiw I obv think he is wrong, progressives will try to protect what they consider victims of western patriarchy and that includes muslims even if its absolutely contradictory to their feminist views.
Your post wasn't a disagreement it was a belittling strawman (shown by the fact that you couldn't find the quote I asked for). And you are conveniently ignoring that the view he holds here is a minority one among PhD psychologists, so appealing to authority is wrong minded. My opinion becomes quite irrelevant when it's his field that disagrees with him.
So Wikipedia is retarded again? Are you ever going to explain why you seemingly hold it in such disdain? It's almost conspiratorial at this point. You don't even leave yourself any room to be wrong, it's just a flat out wrong concern for anarchists to oppose hierarchies in your view.
I'll get to the rest of your posts later when I have time. They are huge questions to address and it's certain I can't even scratch the surface, but yes, Marx-Engels were wrong and we have the benefit of hindsight to know how they were wrong exactly but not to throw everything they analyzed out of the window.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Why would it not make my point look good? It's in the lede and it's significant, that's all I needed since Baal's claim was that anarchism has nothing to do with it, i.e. it's insignificant. It seems like he's trying to collapse anarchism into strict anarcho-capitalism. Yet if we're going to debate what anarchism is in its truest form, it's the opposite that holds more credence: "There is a strong current within anarchism which believes that anarcho-capitalism cannot be considered a part of the anarchist movement, due to the fact that anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist movement and for definitional reasons which see anarchism as incompatible with capitalist forms."
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 24/01/2018 23:45
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Jan 24 2018 23:56. Posts 5299
robert nozick invented the term anarcho-capitalism for his form of capitalism without a state, as far as i know. It is strange to use that term, since his writings reflect the exact opposite of what anarchism had always been about. It's like if karl marx decided to call his political views capitalist-communism.
most of the political philosophies today are completely twisted of their original meanings, academics are highly indoctrinated, and have made liberalism and libertaranism supportive of capitalist institutions, whereas they didn't used to be.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
Anarchy doesnt have anythingn to do with hierarchy, (dont quote retarded definitions please)
aaaaaand you did.
Anarchy can mean 100 fucking things, obviously when I say I'm an anarchist I mean a stateless society, anarcho communist dont like hierarchy, but that is more in the word COMMUNISM than anarchy for fucks sake.
On January 24 2018 21:46 Spitfiree wrote:
you should've underlined "several authors" as well, but it doesn't really make your point look good
you've fallen for the same authority appeal he did even though you literally point it out 2 sentences before that...........................
I didnt make an appeal to authority fallacy, I was mocking locos way to argue that he thinks if you disagree with someone, it must be becuase you think you KNOW more about the subject, which is ridiculous, I believe theologists are wrong for believing in god, but I dont think I know more about theology than them, an an Ideal world where belief is based on knowledge that would apply, but we arent logical creatures.
anyway since Loco doesnt see pop culture attacking white males I think I'm going to post some images, but not sure If they should be here or the ROFL thread
On January 24 2018 06:00 Loco wrote:
Oh, I thought you were saying the stuff you liked about him (the self-help you said you valued in the past and maybe other things like his lectures on existentialism) had nothing to do with gender/evolutionary psychology. I misread. I posted the video to make it clear that he is way more influential on these latter matters than his actual academic interests.
I have no issue with the first few mins in the video, I agree with him that there is a state of desperation and purposelessness particularly in young men and there is a need for revivification. I'm all for that. But as soon as he gets into the reasons as to why they feel like this, i.e. because of the evil feminists, I just can't. How can someone reduce such a complex matter to something seemingly so trivial? I personally can't relate to this at all, I've never been told these things and I don't believe for one second that this is a significant causal factor. Then he goes into "our culture is not perfect, it's true, it's not completely fair" lol, understatement of the fucking year is all that comes to mind. Saying that we have a wonderful civilization because the rest of the world is doing worse than us is a dumb fallacy. Peterson glorifies dominance hierarchies because they have served him well, but he doesn't see the big picture -- he has a huge blind spot there. Video ends with the usual conspiratorial rantings about how academia is completely corrupt of course. Thank God Peterson has such a good heart and he will eventually save us with his anti-postmodern neo-marxist university.
Its absurd to think that he is implying its the only cause of despair of men of that age, however that demographic is indeed being targeted by pop culture get out of your cave more often, words like toxic masculinity, white privilege, mansplaining, manspreading etc. I think like you i'm going to post shit against this narrative in the ROFL thread so you give a look at the stuff thats going on, perhaps you are not aware of it.
What is the big picture he is missing?
I'm not unaware of it, hell, I live in my "cave" with a feminist who has used some of those words. I just don't buy into (1) the extent of its destructiveness and (2) the presuppositions of where this "radical feminism" comes from (postmodern Neo-Marxism corruption). On the latter, which affects the former, and partly answers your last question, here's an excellent article we could discuss: https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/...s-life/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
He's missing the big picture, i.e. the full extent of what’s in store for the individual and the collective if this ‘mode of being’ predominates. For the individual, he fails to see how damaging the "heroic quest" he's imparting on his followers actually is. We are not lobsters and we should not be glorifying participation within dominance hierarchies because we have an alternative, granted to us by our neocortex and thalamus. That alternative is to find one’s pleasure in the realm of knowledge and the imagination, not seeking dominance over others. The latter is a self-defeating goal.
We can explore this a number of ways but a simple one would be Freud’s. As an organism with a central nervous system you are ruled by the pleasure principle. You constantly seek equilibrium (homeostasis). Once you enter into a social dynamic within civilization, the pleasure principle is no longer primary, you have to obey the reality principle.
This principle, in the context of a hierarchy of dominance which exists only to preserve its own hierarchical structure, leads to you having to necessarily restrict your behavior in a number of ways: you are no longer free to be yourself, to pursue your own pleasure. You have to quell your impulses; you have to submit to the more powerful other, and ultimately to the power of the state, because your survival depends on your submission. In instances where it would be temporarily biologically advantageous to fight in order to maintain your equilibrium, you can’t, because it’s socially prohibited and therefore overall it would lead to an even bigger problem.
And so for as long as you persist in those structures, even if you are successful in accumulating wealth and status, it is at the cost of your sanity and well-being: you never get to the point where you are free to be yourself and where you don’t have to submit to power, so you often remain inhibited. In this state of inhibition, you are creating oxidative stress, weakening your immune system and inviting psychosomatic illness. That is the uncontroversial consequence of prolonged inhibition of action.
Obviously, I’m not creating a pleasure principle (good)/reality principle (bad) dichotomy here. They are both necessary. The question is, to what degree should we be inhibiting ourselves. My answer is: if we are rational and we value our well-being and longevity, then it should be the least possible, insofar as we aren’t causing harm to others. The alternative Peterson proposes is to take on as much social responsibility as possible. We should work to be respected and admired, and always prevent our children from doing things which we dislike, even if we have to use force. We should pursue our own immortality through our genes by creating little conformists. Is that admirable? Remember that the person who encourages you to do this and to “be the lobster” has been on a strong cocktail of anti-depressants for decades and has imposed this (and more) on his own children as well. I would say this is not admirable.
Secondly, the collective impacts.
The raison d’être – the finality -- of structures of dominance is to maintain themselves for as long as possible regardless of their impacts on people and the environment in which they exist. In supporting them we not only support ill-health in individuals, we support a long list of problems, injustices and unsustainable ways of living on a planet which we all rely upon. I could make a long list of those problems and injustices, but I’m sure you are pretty well aware of them already so I’ll save myself the time. Peterson, being a staunch carnivore and a climate ‘skeptic’, obviously isn’t well aware of them, on the other hand.
The thing with pointing to the abundance we have due to consumer capitalism is that it doesn’t say anything about the system as a whole, let alone that it’s the best system conceivable and we should seek to change it the least possible. It’s like if I drenched you in gasoline and lit you on fire and pointed to the homeless men next to your burning body who now have a source of warmth in the middle of winter and I only analyzed the pleasure of the homeless men. We have to look at the whole system, its gains and its losses, its developments and underdevelopments.
I can’t do that in any elaborate way in this post, but I can say that when people talk about progress, they point to economic growth and technological advancements, but they do not account for what the economists are blind to, namely human suffering. It’s insufficiency to address human emotion and human development is glaring. I would argue that the increase in well-being leads to increases in ill-being elsewhere. Technological and economic development bring with them affective and ethical underdevelopments which are by no means trivial. I maintain that the main reason people are feeling the way they do currently is because they do not understand themselves and they do not understand the self-defeating nature of their aims. It’s not significantly caused by the feminists or any other boogey-man.
The central problem with our structures is that we haven’t found a way to hierarchically reward creative imagination. It’s easy to understand why that is. If creative imagination exercises itself in the domain of structures versus that of consumer goods, it constitutes a danger to the existing socio-economic hierarchical structures of dominance. They cannot be envisaged by them since their fundamental finality is to conserve themselves the way they are. But acting like this stops all evolution—all genuine innovation--and favors structural sclerosis while encouraging the production of consumer goods based on the current structures.
Lastly, some words on Marx and capitalism.
The central problem with Marx is that for him, science brought certainty. Nowadays we know that science only provides local, provisional certainties – theories are scientific in the measure that they are refutable. When it comes to fundamental questions, scientific knowledge finds itself faced with inscrutable uncertainties. Marx thought we needed to do away with philosophy because science supplanted it, but nowadays, scientific advances have shown that our philosophical interrogations are absolutely necessary and should be complementary to our scientific inquiries (here I'd encourage everyone to read Thomas Kuhn).
Marx believed the world obeyed a sovereign dialectic and he thought he uncovered the laws of historical becoming. Nowadays, we are learning that, each in their own way, different levels of organization (the physical, biological, human) evolve based on dialectics of order/disorder/organization containing risks and bifurcations and they are all threatened to be destroyed.
The old determinist/materialist conception of freedom was inconceivable for Marx but now we understand scientifically concepts of auto-production (auto-poesis) and self-organization, so we can understand that individuals and human societies are non-trivial machines, capable of creative and unexpected acts.
Marx’s anthropological conception was unidimensional: neither the imagination nor the myth took part in human reality. The human being was homo faber, he had no inner world, no complexity, he was simply a Promethean producer destined to master nature. Unlike Shakespeare, Pascal, Montaigne, Dostoevsky who conceived of homo sapiens as homo sapiens demens – a complex, multidimensional being who carries within himself dreams, fantasies and prejudices which drive him consciously and unconsciously and which in the latter case he justifies with a logical discourse.
The Marxist conception of society prioritized the means of production and the struggle between classes. The key to power over society was in the appropriation of the forces of production. Ideas and ideologies, such as the idea of a nation, were just illusory superstructures. The state was just an instrument in the hands of the dominant class.
How can we not see today that there is a specific problem with the power of the state, a socio-mythological reality in the nation and a genuine reality to ideas? We can see now that the relations between classes are ‘dialogical’, meaning they are simultaneously antagonistic and cooperative, at some point the antagonism manifests as a struggle between classes and at another, cooperation manifests under collaborations and negotiations.
Marx believed that history was profoundly rational. He was convinced of the historic mission of the proletariat to create a classless society, but history is reliant on hazards, there are determinisms that rattle each other. History doesn’t progress linearly, it progresses through deviances becoming trends. Trends which are always under threat and which have to be regenerated constantly. The belief in acquired, irreversible progress is messianic rather than scientific, whether it was Marx’s vision of the mission of the proletariat or the multiple other messianic narratives which rule today. They are a transposition on earth of the Judaeo-Christian salvation found in Heaven. It’s a tragic and devastating illusion.
Marx ignored the principle of the ecology of action, which says that the more complex an environment is, the easier it is for an action to escape the intention of the actor, because it enters into a process of inter-retroactions in an environment of unpredictability, often leading to the opposite result from the one that was desired.
Marx’s diagnosis of the modern world focused on its capitalist nature and made secondary (if not completely unessential) their characters as states, nations, democracies, techniques, bureaucracies – therefore occulting the complex qualities of socio-historical reality. Bureaucracy, technology, technocracy are no less abstract or real than capitalism. They’re anonymous realities that are no less powerful and which, all being distinct, can be associated closely. In our complex societies, capitalism is one of the dominant traits, but not the only one. In a democratic society, the domination of capitalism can be tempered by syndical action and political action. In an authoritarian or totalitarian society, capitalism can be more controlled than controlling.
Marxism concentrated within capitalism all of the ills of modern civilization. Imperialism’s source was capitalism and the source of wars was imperialism. But imperialism and wars are historical phenomena which precede capitalism by a long shot. The ills that come from the power of money can no longer mask the ills that come from the power of power and which, moreover, maintains corruption through money.
It’s obvious today that capitalism has not been the worst evil, that award goes to the supposed socialism of the USSR, China, Vietnam and Cambodia. The biggest threat on this planet right now holds in alliance two barbarities: one which, coming from deep historical ages, brings war, massacre, deportation, fanaticism, and reproduces through different societies/hierarchies of domination and exploits other people, some of which are proper to capitalism. The other, coming from our techno-bureaucratic industrial civilization, which imposes its cold, mechanical logic. It’s anonymous, ignores individuals, their inner worlds, their feelings, and puts at the hand of the powerful their weapons of destruction and means of manipulation.
Neither the ills which determine fanaticism, racism, nationalism, nor those which determine technique and bureaucracy can be reduced to those which are produced by capitalism. It’s better to have a democratic regime, even a limited one with capitalism, than a totalitarian one without it.
It can be tempting today when identify/discover new ills caused by globalization to conceive of it as the supreme state of the domination of the capital, which is what many people do to retrieve their Manichaeism. Their mistake shouldn't make us dismiss Marx entirely. Marx has to be surpassed, which is to say, he needs to be integrated in a constellation of thinkers who can inform our reflections, beginning with his aspiration of a system of knowledge that is anthropo-socio-historical. His conception of capitalism has to be integrated in the whole of technical, sociological, democratic, ideological developments of modern history. But we have to abandon any sort of law of history, or providential belief in progress, and the sinister faith in the salvation of humanity. What stays from Marx are the aspirations of a better society, the focus on human liberty, fulfillment and fraternity.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 24 2018 21:46 Spitfiree wrote:
you should've underlined "several authors" as well, but it doesn't really make your point look good
you've fallen for the same authority appeal he did even though you literally point it out 2 sentences before that...........................
I didnt make an appeal to authority fallacy, I was mocking locos way to argue that he thinks if you disagree with someone, it must be becuase you think you KNOW more about the subject, which is ridiculous, I believe theologists are wrong for believing in god, but I dont think I know more about theology than them, an an Ideal world where belief is based on knowledge that would apply, but we arent logical creatures.
I don't think that and I didn't argue that. I'll have to repeat myself again. Your first post to me in the rofl thread was an ad hominem attack, not a disagreement. The position you attributed to me was false and you know it (or at least you can't substantiate it, which means you cannot keep defending this point as legitimate until you do). On top of being false, you attributed it to me in a patronizing manner. We only patronize people on topics that we consider ourselves to be more knowledgeable about. The analogy you are giving here is really terrible. Even if we remove the patronizing tone which was essential to my analysis of the statement and we just look at the analogy itself, it doesn't work. The question wasn't our comparative knowledge of gender studies (which you analogize to theology here), it was that of evolutionary biology.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 25 2018 01:55 Baalim wrote:
anyway since Loco doesnt see pop culture attacking white males I think I'm going to post some images, but not sure If they should be here or the ROFL thread
I found the article archived somewhere (it's not even up on the main site) and it's just a click-bait title, he clearly says that some men are able to control their impulses and won't take advantage of women when they're in a position of power over them. It's a very poorly written article, one or two sentences paragraphs. Looks like a kid wrote it. Not sure what this kind of stuff is supposed to prove. I guess you'll say "who cares, it's just one example, this stuff is rampant everywhere, it's a real threat". I'd say, a threat to whom? Why should I be concerned? Is this affecting policy?
I'll say this about the shortcomings of feminism: they have been so focused on women's issues that most of them have missed or underplayed some very serious issues affecting men. Women are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression, but men are four times more likely to take their own lives. It's easy to figure out why-- there's a silent epidemic of depression in men and they are driven to take greater risks. Terrence Real writes:
Over the last twenty years, researchers have investigated the relationship between traditional masculinity and physical illness, alcohol abuse, and risk-taking behaviors—and have demonstrated what most of us already know from common experience: many men would rather place themselves at risk than acknowledge distress, either physical or emotional. In The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien gives a clear example of the force of men’s shame, when he remembers his fellow “grunts” in Vietnam:
They carried their reputations. They carried the soldier’s greatest fear, which was the fear of blushing. Men killed, and died, because they were embarrassed not to. It was what brought them to the war in the first place, nothing positive, no dreams of glory or honor, just to avoid the blush of dishonor. They crawled into tunnels and walked point and advanced under fire. They were too frightened to be cowards.
Preferring death to the threat of embarrassment, the men O’Brien describes remind me of Harry, the old-fashioned Irish father of one of my clients, who was too ashamed to see a doctor until cancer had eaten away half of a testicle.
The theme of the “manly” denial of vulnerability was epitomized by my patient Stan, a twenty-one-year-old undergraduate whom I saw for a short time. One hot night in Fort Lauderdale during spring break, Stan let himself be drawn into a Hollywood-style barroom brawl with some locals. After “too many brews” and “with a bunch of sweaty pals” to show off to, Stan started swinging just like they do in the movies. Stan bragged to me that he “did a lot of damage that night.” Evidently someone did some damage to him as well. One punch was enough to sever a nerve in his cheek and cause paralysis in almost half of Stan’s face. The skin hangs like leather. Stan, having seen so many celluloid heroes take a drubbing only to stand up and dust themselves off again, never considered that another man’s punch could do such a thing to his face.
Men’s willingness to downplay weakness and pain is so great that it has been named as a factor in their shorter life span. The ten years of difference in longevity between men and women turns out to have little to do with genes. Men die early because they do not take care of themselves. Men wait longer to acknowledge that they are sick, take longer to get help, and once they get treatment do not comply with it as well as women do.
The problem here is that these stereotypes are reinforced by both men and women. You are focusing on the problems with feminists, yet you are ignoring that Peterson is reinforcing these traditional stereotypes under the banner that they are 'archetypal'. He is no 'hero of masculinity', he is a threat to men's well-being.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 24 2018 21:46 Spitfiree wrote:
you should've underlined "several authors" as well, but it doesn't really make your point look good
you've fallen for the same authority appeal he did even though you literally point it out 2 sentences before that...........................
I didnt make an appeal to authority fallacy, I was mocking locos way to argue that he thinks if you disagree with someone, it must be becuase you think you KNOW more about the subject, which is ridiculous, I believe theologists are wrong for believing in god, but I dont think I know more about theology than them, an an Ideal world where belief is based on knowledge that would apply, but we arent logical creatures.
I don't think that and I didn't argue that. I'll have to repeat myself again. Your first post to me in the rofl thread was an ad hominem attack, not a disagreement. The position you attributed to me was false and you know it (or at least you can't substantiate it, which means you cannot keep defending this point as legitimate until you do). On top of being false, you attributed it to me in a patronizing manner. We only patronize people on topics that we consider ourselves to be more knowledgeable about. The analogy you are giving here is really terrible. Even if we remove the patronizing tone which was essential to my analysis of the statement and we just look at the analogy itself, it doesn't work. The question wasn't our comparative knowledge of gender studies (which you analogize to theology here), it was that of evolutionary biology.
your video of Peteson was also patronizing so then you must think you know more than him about psychology... again your argument makes no sense.
I found the article archived somewhere (it's not even up on the main site) and it's just a click-bait title, he clearly says that some men are able to control their impulses and won't take advantage of women when they're in a position of power over them. It's a very poorly written article, one or two sentences paragraphs. Looks like a kid wrote it. Not sure what this kind of stuff is supposed to prove. I guess you'll say "who cares, it's just one example, this stuff is rampant everywhere, it's a real threat". I'd say, a threat to whom? Why should I be concerned? Is this affecting policy?
Thats why I'll keep em coming so its clear its rampant, and its a threat to the people it targets, the ironically racist counter-racist movement does affect policy and other things for example news networks openly discriminating against hiring whites, specifying only people of color.
I'll say this about the shortcomings of feminism: they have been so focused on women's issues that most of them have missed or underplayed some very serious issues affecting men. Women are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression, but men are four times more likely to take their own lives. It's easy to figure out why-- there's a silent epidemic of depression in men and they are driven to take greater risks.
You think that is the only shortcomign of feminism? lol. No mention of glorifying the hijab and the most misogynistic culture on earth, removing due process in universities, stiffling free speech... jeez I could go on and on and on.
The problem here is that these stereotypes are reinforced by both men and women. You are focusing on the problems with feminists, yet you are ignoring that Peterson is reinforcing these traditional stereotypes under the banner that they are 'archetypal'. He is no 'hero of masculinity', he is a threat to men's well-being.
No, thse stereotypes come in great part from personal choice, we had this discussion before, the most egalitarian countries in the world have the biggest traditional distribution of occupations, and unlike you (or perhaps Peterson) It's not because thats what I want, on the contrary I find it a bit sad.
