Its better if the change comes from within of course. I think we can all agree about that. (Except some people on the left attacking those acctually trying to change it from the inside, like Imam Tawhidi)
"Sati or suttee is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband's pyre or takes her own life in another fashion shortly after her husband's death.
Mention of the practice can be dated back to the 3rd century BC while evidence of practice by widows of kings only appears beginning between the 5th and 9th centuries CE. The practice is considered to have originated within the warrior aristocracy in India, gradually gaining in popularity from the 10th century AD and spreading to other groups from the 12th through 18th century CE."
But its not always the case. Who knows ? What would be of this tradition if not banned by Queen Victoria in 1861 ? Would it been better to wait for the change to come from the inside ?
On February 02 2018 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence.
I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier.
I also disagree with that statement, nota as behemently as you but isnt it a much more serious fault in general of the feminist movement to not condemn Islam in how they treat women? you just disagree with their approach but you dont feel the outrage you feel when JBP said that thing.
It's not about how feminists feel about how Islam treats women. It stems from the belief that critique is only really worthwhile when it comes from within. It's like, actions don't just have one consequence. they have several. It is obvious that women in islamic countries, and muslim women in western countries, struggle more with 'the patriarchy' than western women do. Very few feminists would disagree with this.
At least to me, the issue is to what degree westerners criticizing Islam leads to more liberation of muslim women or whether it leads to Islamic communities becoming more insular - which can be assumed to lead to a slower liberation process. Like, I accept that harsh critique of Christianity was instrumental for the reform of Christianity - but this happened from within. It wouldn't work if it was a bunch of asian Buddhists explaining in what ways reform is needed.
So the idea is basically that inclusiveness must have priority over condemnation, because otherwise the condemnation loses any function (aside from being exclusionary - which I think is a goal for some people). Societal evolution has to happen step by step, or generation by generation - it's a long fight.
To be honest, I'm not saying all, or a majority of, feminists genuinely subscribe to this theory. I think the idea that Peterson responds to when making the idiotic statement - that muslims are higher on the victimhood hierarchy and that this makes many people who identify as feminists consider them a bad target - has some degree of truth to it. I don't care whether right wingers accept this or not, but feminists and leftists really are very genuine in their fight against injustice. Many will genuinely feel that with Muslims already being discriminated against in many ways, piling on to this is counter-productive, and adopt somewhat of a defensive position because they don't want to add to the derision, even if they actually agree with many points of critique. That said politics can also be a factor - I'm not discounting this, in the sense that feminists tend to be leftists who tend to be pro-immigration, immigrants are often muslims so attacking islam ends up being counter-productive to The Cause, but I think that's mostly just for a very small % who are actually involved in politics, not for most people who identify as pro-immigration feminists.
Its not a small minority, the main banner for the women's march was a girl in a hijab, one of the main oragnizers of the event, Linda Sarsour constantly spits out hate against Ayaan Hirsi who is an actual Islam reformist, it simply not true that is a fringe small % of the feminist movement that have this contradictory idea, [b] prominent feminist figures openly refused to support the iran anti-hijab movement that ended in deaths and imprisonment of Iranian women only because they didn't want to align with the "alt-right" who were supporting this movement.
Last time you said that Sarsour didnt show up in the notable feminist wikipedia article, and frankly who gives a shit? Sarsour has dozens of time the platform and followers than all those in the list combined, Sarsour IS mainstream feminism.
On February 02 2018 14:55 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the unabomber was also prominently quoted in breivik's manifesto iirc!!
Yeah, he apparently plagiarized whole parts of it. You can also find countless posts by Peterson fans that claim that the Unabomber "got it right" and was "spot on" in his critique of leftism/SJWs. One of them concludes that those who fight for social justice "virtue signal to numb the relentless pain of suppressed shame." Top notch psychologizing.
On February 01 2018 09:49 Loco wrote:
I was thinking about lebowski's post when I posted this, because he said Peterson is not that bad to follow blindly, but he was probably not considering how many people can be self-radicalizing right now partly due to his influence.
Loco if someone goes on a killing spree because of "cultural marxism" I think it'd be absurd to blame JP about it.
I haven't seen all of his videos but I don't really think it's necessary, the guy talks it out even vs people yelling at him, he has never hinted that violence is appropriate and his "clean your room" thing is obviously him trying to make people fix themselves instead of focusing on others. I said Peterson is not that bad to follow if people have to follow someone blindly because it seems to me that he tries to make people more individualistic and his whole demeanor appears to be the opposite of violent or extreme. It doesn't matter if he is wrong or not on political or philosophical issues tbh, because I've seen him call people to own their ideas, to be analytical etc. I'd rather have a Brian from "life of Brian" shouting "you are all individuals" to clueless morons than any random religious or populist figure, even if Brian was dead wrong about most stuff
It's the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Peterson makes a big deal about responsibility and being careful and "cleaning your room before trying to change the world" and the dangers of acting within a complex system, yet he peddles an absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theory which has an effect in the world. Whether he intends people to be violent or not as a result (which I don't think he intends), you cannot possibly absolve him from putting that out into the world. He knows that things that you say and do will escape your intentions and that it's all the more reason to be careful. He stresses it, he just doesn't live it. You cannot reconcile these two positions. You cannot just focus on what he says which seems positive and avoid looking at that which contradicts it. Making people "more individualistic" is not a noble thing in itself if that form of individualism is based on a delusion and a distortion of historical facts. In his case it's all coming from one single book of bad scholarship by an Objectivist.
It doesn't matter if he is wrong or not on political or philosophical issues tbh, because I've seen him call people to own their ideas, to be analytical etc.
You have it backward. It couldn't matter more because everything he advocates for is built on that foundation, and his audience consists of mostly impressionable men who will mostly take him at his word -- and he insists that he has got it right. He insists way more on how right he is about politics and philosophy -- despite not being an expert in either -- than on telling people to doubt everything he says and to research primary texts for themselves. That kind of insistence and repetition doesn't have a trivial effect. Even if people aren't taking what he says on faith, they do not have the capacity to be good judges. At some point they have to make a decision to take a side, and it is their emotions that will choose for them, not reason. None of them are philosophers or historians, they are people who were starved for meaning and purposeful action; it would probably take them a decade of serious study to unravel all of the threads of what he has thrown at them and become good judges, knowing what to keep and what to discard. They don't have time for that. They're probably a lot more interested in looking powerful, which they can do by memorizing what he says so they can own their lib friends and the post-modern trans person at school the next day.
You have to appreciate the deep irony of protecting Peterson on such grounds here. The reason Peterson came to prominence was because he opposed a bill which added gender expression and identity as a protected ground to the Canadian Human Rights Act. His justification for that was that it would compel speech (it did not) -- he claimed that it was motivated by a "murderous ideology". So in essence, his position is that LGBT rights is how communism gets its ideological foot in the door. You think my position vis-a-vis Cultural Marxism and radicalization/violence is a leap, but you don't think that's a leap?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 02 2018 12:16 Santafairy wrote:
guys did you know the radical post-modern Neo-Marxists support gay marriage, you don't want them to win do you? you like western civilization right? good thanks for opposing gay marriage
On February 02 2018 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence.
I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier.
I also disagree with that statement, nota as behemently as you but isnt it a much more serious fault in general of the feminist movement to not condemn Islam in how they treat women? you just disagree with their approach but you dont feel the outrage you feel when JBP said that thing.
It's not about how feminists feel about how Islam treats women. It stems from the belief that critique is only really worthwhile when it comes from within. It's like, actions don't just have one consequence. they have several. It is obvious that women in islamic countries, and muslim women in western countries, struggle more with 'the patriarchy' than western women do. Very few feminists would disagree with this.
At least to me, the issue is to what degree westerners criticizing Islam leads to more liberation of muslim women or whether it leads to Islamic communities becoming more insular - which can be assumed to lead to a slower liberation process. Like, I accept that harsh critique of Christianity was instrumental for the reform of Christianity - but this happened from within. It wouldn't work if it was a bunch of asian Buddhists explaining in what ways reform is needed.
So the idea is basically that inclusiveness must have priority over condemnation, because otherwise the condemnation loses any function (aside from being exclusionary - which I think is a goal for some people). Societal evolution has to happen step by step, or generation by generation - it's a long fight.
To be honest, I'm not saying all, or a majority of, feminists genuinely subscribe to this theory. I think the idea that Peterson responds to when making the idiotic statement - that muslims are higher on the victimhood hierarchy and that this makes many people who identify as feminists consider them a bad target - has some degree of truth to it. I don't care whether right wingers accept this or not, but feminists and leftists really are very genuine in their fight against injustice. Many will genuinely feel that with Muslims already being discriminated against in many ways, piling on to this is counter-productive, and adopt somewhat of a defensive position because they don't want to add to the derision, even if they actually agree with many points of critique. That said politics can also be a factor - I'm not discounting this, in the sense that feminists tend to be leftists who tend to be pro-immigration, immigrants are often muslims so attacking islam ends up being counter-productive to The Cause, but I think that's mostly just for a very small % who are actually involved in politics, not for most people who identify as pro-immigration feminists.
Its not a small minority, the main banner for the women's march was a girl in a hijab, one of the main oragnizers of the event, Linda Sarsour constantly spits out hate against Ayaan Hirsi who is an actual Islam reformist, it simply not true that is a fringe small % of the feminist movement that have this contradictory idea, [b] prominent feminist figures openly refused to support the iran anti-hijab movement that ended in deaths and imprisonment of Iranian women only because they didn't want to align with the "alt-right" who were supporting this movement.
Last time you said that Sarsour didnt show up in the notable feminist wikipedia article, and frankly who gives a shit? Sarsour has dozens of time the platform and followers than all those in the list combined, Sarsour IS mainstream feminism.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you are really arguing here.
Apart from Sarsour what feminists have been attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I know lots of feminists. I've honestly never heard any of them talk negatively (hardly at all) about her. It's like, 'feminism' is a pretty broad umbrella term. I'd guess in the west, there's at least an 8 digit number, maybe 9, of people who self-identify as feminists- depending on the definition used. You're gonna try to shoehorn all of these because one prominent and outspoken one (who has social media/twitter as her biggest platform?) had a stupid public squabble with another, more important one?
lol POKER
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Feb 03 2018 12:22. Posts 2227
On February 02 2018 12:16 Santafairy wrote:
guys did you know the radical post-modern Neo-Marxists support gay marriage, you don't want them to win do you? you like western civilization right? good thanks for opposing gay marriage
wow peoplebigots are on the opposite side of an issue from you politically and have many arguments about it
this is exactly analogous to your infantile association logic where you think there's a pressure you can exploit not to agree with something a dead psychopath once thought
fun fact hitler hated fox hunting
let's go get the bastards
"conspiracy theory" is another useful term that totally poisons the well and discredits the people you don't like, it's lucky there are trustworthy politically neutral internet encyclopedias you can cite for that... if you actually listen you couldn't identify "conspiracy" in what JBP et al. are talking about
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
On February 03 2018 04:05 Loco wrote:
You have to appreciate the deep irony of protecting Peterson on such grounds here.
" Protecting " is a weird choice of words. It has an "us or them" mentality implied that I'm not really fond of. JP's influence on the world doesn't have to be clearly black or white. I also don't want to appear overly argumentative in favor of Peterson because I probably haven't even seen a third of his videos and maybe I'm missing out on a lot of stuff he has said.
His justification for that was that it would compel speech (it did not) -- he claimed that it was motivated by a "murderous ideology". So in essence, his position is that LGBT rights is how communism gets its ideological foot in the door. You think my position vis-a-vis Cultural Marxism and radicalization/violence is a leap, but you don't think that's a leap?
His position seems to be that cultural marxism gets an ideological foot in the the door in this occasion (because he thinks
free speech is endangered). I don't think he'd generalize to all LGBT rights. I assume you're right about the law not actually compelling speech (haven't read much about that) but it doesn't really matter regarding the point I'm trying to make.
JP's strong (let's say completely) wrong opinions come as a package with other ones that negate extremist interpretations on what to do about them, coupled with some that even facilitate personal growth. If some psycho decides to ignore those then it's not really JP's fault, just like it would be wrong to eg say that Nietzsche inspired Nazism's atrocities (not remotely implying that the magnitude of their influence/intellect is comparable heh).
It couldn't matter more because everything he advocates for is built on that foundation, and his audience consists of mostly impressionable men who will mostly take him at his word -- and he insists that he has got it right. He insists way more on how right he is about politics and philosophy -- despite not being an expert in either -- than on telling people to doubt everything he says and to research primary texts for themselves. That kind of insistence and repetition doesn't have a trivial effect. Even if people aren't taking what he says on faith, they do not have the capacity to be good judges. At some point they have to make a decision to take a side, and it is their emotions that will choose for them, not reason. None of them are philosophers or historians, they are people who were starved for meaning and purposeful action; it would probably take them a decade of serious study to unravel all of the threads of what he has thrown at them and become good judges, knowing what to keep and what to discard. They don't have time for that. They're probably a lot more interested in looking powerful, which they can do by memorizing what he says so they can own their lib friends and the post-modern trans person at school the next day.
It's true that people are like that. Opinions formed like that are also very quick to be abandoned.
I don't think there's ever been a popular charismatic "leader" that didn't have strong convictions that were blatantly wrong. People will follow the hell out of them. The fact that JP appears certain about stuff yet still preaches thinking things through, owning your ideas etc to me seems like an upgrade to the usual Alcibiadean figures that do nothing else but try to facilitate the herd mentality of their followers.
new shit has come to light... a-and... shit! man...
On February 03 2018 04:05 Loco wrote:
You have to appreciate the deep irony of protecting Peterson on such grounds here.
" Protecting " is a weird choice of words. It has an "us or them" mentality implied that I'm not really fond of. JP's influence on the world doesn't have to be clearly black or white. I also don't want to appear overly argumentative in favor of Peterson because I probably haven't even seen a third of his videos and maybe I'm missing out on a lot of stuff he has said.
Fair enough. I just think that you're not fully informed that it is Peterson who has a very black and white view of things. This is true at least where it matters the most (bio-essentialism and Cultural Marxism forces him into that).
If some psycho decides to ignore those then it's not really JP's fault, just like it would be wrong to eg say that Nietzsche inspired Nazism's atrocities (not remotely implying that the magnitude of their influence/intellect is comparable
This is not what I'm doing. This is what Peterson does. He does it in his books and he does it in his interviews. One recent example is when he talked with Benatar. He explicitely said Benatar's antinatalism is the exact same logic that leads to Nazism and Columbine murders. That they wouldn't even be distorting his views by committing these acts. It didn't matter that Benatar corrected his misrepresentations of his arguments multiple times, Peterson kept to his guns.
What I'm saying is that he's not being careful as he claims we should be when we act within a complex system. He is responsible for not doing his due diligence. He has not engaged with any professionals on these matters. He just assumes everyone who opposes his ideology is corrupted by a strange force. Any serious student of philosophy and history would dismiss Cultural Marxism for the paranoid fantasy that it is. Peterson's "Post-modern Neo-Marxism" is even more confused: it's a contradiction in terms. I reiterate: you can't absolve those who promote conspiracies that establish an "us vs them" mentality and then fully separate them from those who act on them in the way that they deem justified.
If you don't understand this, think about this scenario. If I spread a rumor about someone in your family which, some years later, got that family member beaten to death, you might never be able to trace it back to me, but I would know I have played a part in it, no matter how small, and I'd have to live with it. Also, if I was spreading that rumor multiple times a day, I'd have to feel a lot more responsible than if I only spread it once. If I spread it for 15 months and had 700,000 subscribers on my channel, it would be very difficult to argue that this was inoffensive. You might say, "well, it would depend on the rumor, and a rumor isn't the same as a conspiracy." Ok, what if the rumor is that they were part of a conspiracy?
I don't think he'd generalize to all LGBT rights.
He opposes anti-discrimination laws for trans people and he opposes gay marriage, both on the grounds that it is the first step for Cultural Marxists to take over. What more do you need, exactly?
other ones that negate extremist interpretations on what to do about them, coupled with some that even facilitate personal growth
They don't negate his conspiratorial views. I have already addressed this. His ideology has much more staying/destructive power than anything that you imagine negates it. There is a massive affective force behind ideological speech, it grips people, while there is little force behind statements like "think for yourself tho". These are empty platitudes. And self-help books and lectures don't help people grow. They give them the illusion of personal growth. At best they act as a nice placebo (or stimulant) to give yourself a kick in the ass for some period of time to reach a personal goal.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On February 02 2018 12:16 Santafairy wrote:
guys did you know the radical post-modern Neo-Marxists support gay marriage, you don't want them to win do you? you like western civilization right? good thanks for opposing gay marriage
wow peoplebigots are on the opposite side of an issue from you politically and have many arguments about it
They have so many [legitimate] arguments about it that they squeezed them into a one minute alarmist speech which concludes by saying "These are my views. I know they are confused." Gotcha.
something a dead psychopath once thought
Yeah, he's only thought once about it and it didn't have an impact on his life and actions at all. This is not banalization at all. There is exactly a zero percent chance that you wouldn't have said this if someone close to you had been his victim, right? You're way too rational for that, you know that's what the commies want.
"conspiracy theory" is another useful term that totally poisons the well and discredits the people you don't like, it's lucky there are trustworthy politically neutral internet encyclopedias you can cite for that...
Please link your alternative encyclopedia and explain why Wikipedia is not a legitimate one. I'm happy to compare sources. It's the second time you claim Cultural Marxism is (or might be) a totally legitimate thing and you don't provide any evidence for it. I don't care about your opinion, so please give me something else to read.
if you actually listen you couldn't identify "conspiracy" in what JBP et al. are talking about
Yet I can link to at least a dozen professionals who will say as much, some of which have a line by line critique of what Peterson actually says. And you have what exactly? Your totally unbiased feelings? Your great familiarity with the corpus of the Frankfurt School? Oh right, we are in a post-experts world now, everyone with a computer knows just as much as them, so we shouldn't bring them up.
Tangentially related: the "if you actually listened to Peterson you'd see how right he is" chestnut is a very popular one. I don't know what makes these people experts in the subject (and in interpreting his words) but yeah. The consensus is that critics must be reacting reflexively because he hurt our feelingz by poo-pooing on our favorite philosopher Derrida. Not being able to "hear him" is just a side effect of having our postmodern panties in a knot: we just can't stand that much Petersonian Truth. In my case it's not like I have my own research agenda which has close to no overlap with post-structuralism or anything. Occam would be proud.
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: 04/02/2018 10:06
1
Santafairy Korea (South). Feb 07 2018 19:03. Posts 2227
On February 02 2018 12:16 Santafairy wrote:
guys did you know the radical post-modern Neo-Marxists support gay marriage, you don't want them to win do you? you like western civilization right? good thanks for opposing gay marriage
wow peoplebigots are on the opposite side of an issue from you politically and have many arguments about it
They have so many [legitimate] arguments about it that they squeezed them into a one minute alarmist speech which concludes by saying "These are my views. I know they are confused." Gotcha.
an erudite fellow like yourself has so little exposure that you don't even know what the various arguments against gay marriage are? this is something obama came into office opposing and it all just went over your head?
Yeah, he's only thought once about it and it didn't have an impact on his life and actions at all. This is not banalization at all. There is exactly a zero percent chance that you wouldn't have said this if someone close to you had been his victim, right? You're way too rational for that, you know that's what the commies want.
a zero percent chance I wouldn't have said it, I agree completely, 100% chance I would have said it
good appeal to my imaginary dead relatives though
you're a feminist right? ever had one rape every actress close to you? bet you wouldn't be a feminist anymore then right?
On February 04 2018 06:53 Loco wrote:
Please link your alternative encyclopedia and explain why Wikipedia is not a legitimate one. I'm happy to compare sources. It's the second time you claim Cultural Marxism is (or might be) a totally legitimate thing and you don't provide any evidence for it. I don't care about your opinion, so please give me something else to read.
so you didn't listen the first time and kept at it?
if you actually listen you couldn't identify "conspiracy" in what JBP et al. are talking about
Yet I can link to at least a dozen professionals who will say as much, some of which have a line by line critique of what Peterson actually says. And you have what exactly? Your totally unbiased feelings? Your great familiarity with the corpus of the Frankfurt School? Oh right, we are in a post-experts world now, everyone with a computer knows just as much as them, so we shouldn't bring them up.
...he angrily said from his computer
For any issue you can find an expert on any side, intellectuals especially in fields that aren't concrete tend to excel more at rationalization than being right, but anyway if you thought so highly of these and wanted to spread their light in the world you could have linked them, what are you doing? just wanted an internet point? especially you just said "I don't care about your opinion, so please give me something else to read," you're a mess
Mainly you don't know what a conspiracy theory is, or you think the people reading you don't and found an easy phrase that discredits and poisons the well
for example you probably think Republicans run on helping Joe the Plumber and then when they're in office only help big business and special interests, this isn't a conspiracy theory it's just what you think is going on
a conspiracy theory is when something happens and it's so extraordinary to people's preconceptions that they can't accept the common explanation and have to craft a new one, which tends not to actually fit the data, so they have to invoke a conspiracy is at work and hence the phrase conspiracy theory
for example flat earthers, they specifically insist governments are hiding the true shape of the earth for nefarious reasons, moon landing conspiracy demands the silence of 400,000 people who worked on the apollo program, and the complicity of the USSR who tracked the astronauts in space and didn't say anything, 9/11 involves the government lying and bombing its own people while training people to fly planes to cover it up
there would be no "conspiracy theory" of trickle down economics just because I don't like that you don't like Republicans and there's no "conspiracy theory" of cultural marxism just because you don't like that people don't like the revolutionary and totalitarian left
cultural marxism is that people in the west who can read 1984 and saw the USSR and can see China and so forth aren't gullible enough to fall for the communism that was able to carry people to power elsewhere in the world so it's repackaged in terms of color and sex and sexual orientation and everything else you learned in intersectionality 101, so instead of a class struggle it's an anti-imperialist anti-colonialist anti-white anti-male
it's that universities and the media are full of people perpetuating all kinds of regressive ideology, it doesn't make a claim to the secret complicity of anyone involved, that there is some kind of treachery where they are selling out, it's not a conspiracy but a huge organically arising mass of stupid in the world, and the results are real
cultural marxism is just what they're doing, it's just our identifier for that group, where is the conspiracy? please
On February 04 2018 06:53 Loco wrote:
Tangentially related: the "if you actually listened to Peterson you'd see how right he is" chestnut is a very popular one. I don't know what makes these people experts in the subject (and in interpreting his words) but yeah. The consensus is that critics must be reacting reflexively because he hurt our feelingz by poo-pooing on our favorite philosopher Derrida. Not being able to "hear him" is just a side effect of having our postmodern panties in a knot: we just can't stand that much Petersonian Truth. In my case it's not like I have my own research agenda which has close to no overlap with post-structuralism or anything. Occam would be proud.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about with this latest hobbyless projected anti-Peterson obsession venting, is he really the first time you heard someone say cultural marxism?
It seems to be not very profitable in the long run to play those kind of hands. - Gus Hansen
Those pictures are an example of cultural marxism... uhhh... wut? Looks like the work of a conspiracy theorist to me. Like what? You can't just post pictures of people before and after they are "out" and blame culture marxism. You know gay people do exist. Lesbians, queers, transgendered folk too. Women can grow hair under their arms and not be communist. Many of those people just changed their haircut. The post is so bad it almost comes off as a troll.
On February 02 2018 20:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm usually not a fan of discrediting people based on single statements but when the guy actually says stuff like 'feminists support the rights of muslims because of their unconscious wish for brutal male domination', that comes off as such a ridiculously DUMB statement that it becomes hard to think he can be right about other stuff without it just being mere coincidence.
I'd be very fine with him if he was just telling people to clean up their own lives and take individual responsibility or whatever, and I totally buy that he has a lot of genuine insight when it comes to psychology, but his political commentary and understanding of groups is shit-tier.
I also disagree with that statement, nota as behemently as you but isnt it a much more serious fault in general of the feminist movement to not condemn Islam in how they treat women? you just disagree with their approach but you dont feel the outrage you feel when JBP said that thing.
It's not about how feminists feel about how Islam treats women. It stems from the belief that critique is only really worthwhile when it comes from within. It's like, actions don't just have one consequence. they have several. It is obvious that women in islamic countries, and muslim women in western countries, struggle more with 'the patriarchy' than western women do. Very few feminists would disagree with this.
At least to me, the issue is to what degree westerners criticizing Islam leads to more liberation of muslim women or whether it leads to Islamic communities becoming more insular - which can be assumed to lead to a slower liberation process. Like, I accept that harsh critique of Christianity was instrumental for the reform of Christianity - but this happened from within. It wouldn't work if it was a bunch of asian Buddhists explaining in what ways reform is needed.
So the idea is basically that inclusiveness must have priority over condemnation, because otherwise the condemnation loses any function (aside from being exclusionary - which I think is a goal for some people). Societal evolution has to happen step by step, or generation by generation - it's a long fight.
To be honest, I'm not saying all, or a majority of, feminists genuinely subscribe to this theory. I think the idea that Peterson responds to when making the idiotic statement - that muslims are higher on the victimhood hierarchy and that this makes many people who identify as feminists consider them a bad target - has some degree of truth to it. I don't care whether right wingers accept this or not, but feminists and leftists really are very genuine in their fight against injustice. Many will genuinely feel that with Muslims already being discriminated against in many ways, piling on to this is counter-productive, and adopt somewhat of a defensive position because they don't want to add to the derision, even if they actually agree with many points of critique. That said politics can also be a factor - I'm not discounting this, in the sense that feminists tend to be leftists who tend to be pro-immigration, immigrants are often muslims so attacking islam ends up being counter-productive to The Cause, but I think that's mostly just for a very small % who are actually involved in politics, not for most people who identify as pro-immigration feminists.
Its not a small minority, the main banner for the women's march was a girl in a hijab, one of the main oragnizers of the event, Linda Sarsour constantly spits out hate against Ayaan Hirsi who is an actual Islam reformist, it simply not true that is a fringe small % of the feminist movement that have this contradictory idea, [b] prominent feminist figures openly refused to support the iran anti-hijab movement that ended in deaths and imprisonment of Iranian women only because they didn't want to align with the "alt-right" who were supporting this movement.
Last time you said that Sarsour didnt show up in the notable feminist wikipedia article, and frankly who gives a shit? Sarsour has dozens of time the platform and followers than all those in the list combined, Sarsour IS mainstream feminism.
I'm sorry but I don't know what you are really arguing here.
Apart from Sarsour what feminists have been attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali? I know lots of feminists. I've honestly never heard any of them talk negatively (hardly at all) about her. It's like, 'feminism' is a pretty broad umbrella term. I'd guess in the west, there's at least an 8 digit number, maybe 9, of people who self-identify as feminists- depending on the definition used. You're gonna try to shoehorn all of these because one prominent and outspoken one (who has social media/twitter as her biggest platform?) had a stupid public squabble with another, more important one?
Just like Loco you are in total denial of 3rd wave feminism, no its not just Linda Sarsour, do you think a crazy outlier gets to be organizer of the women's march? No she represents the thousands and thousands of feminists that think like her, the ones who want to smash the patriarchy, talk about mansplaining, manspreading, toxic masculinity and whine about non existent problems like the wage gap while sipping their male-tears mugs.
You know it doesnt matter if you know plenty of feminist who arent crazy because I've never claimed they all are, in fact older feminist from the 80s and early 90s are against 3rd wave feminists because they naturally have seen their movement devolve into misandry.
Sadly since there is no data of the % of feminist who hold X or Y beliefes I guess we are at an impass since we can't prove with numbers who is right, thankfully that pushes me to bombard this thread with with Feminist, PC and in genearl lefty crazy bullshit so perhaps you can see what I see.
btw, im interested, what are these reasonable feminist friends of you think of the wage gap?
he opposed a bill which added gender expression and identity as a protected ground to the Canadian Human Rights Act. His justification for that was that it would compel speech (it did not)
Except that Bill C16 as all bills in the Candians human rights specifies it protects against: "inciting hate", which in its ridiculous vagueness opens the legal door to shut down speech through litigation and even direct police action like you can see in the UK.
It is disingenuous to frame this as if there wasn't a movement to supress freedom of speech in favor of "not being offended" through hate speech laws , if you claim there isnt, you are either dishonest or ignorant and about to be bitchslapped with some information.
The main meme of the Jordan - Cathy interview is about her question: "why should your right to freedom of speech trumph a tran's person not to be offended", but I guess Cathy is also some fringe weirdo that totally does not represent any mainstream ideology right?
Liquid`Drone Norway. Feb 08 2018 01:12. Posts 3093
the wage gap isn't non-existent, it's just smaller than the regularly cited figure. I don't feel like googling now but iirc the reputable sources I saw were putting it at 93 cents per dollar (as opposed to the 70 I have also seen mentioned and discredited).
However, the feminists I know are basically all Norwegian, and Norway is completely different from the US in this regard - we generally don't negotiate salaries individually, they're determined by job, education level and experience, so stuff like 'culturally determined male assertiveness during salary negotiations' ends up being a non-factor. I don't push for complete gender equality in terms of job positions - but I want complete equality in terms of opportunity - and I think most work-places benefit from a mixed-gender environment. (I've seen studies, and experienced myself, indicating that if a work environment changes from 10 guys 0 girls to 8 guys 2 girls, or from 10 girls 0 guys to 8 girls 2 guys, this tends to have positive effects).
As for the other things you mention in your opening paragraph:
Girls make up 50% of people. If there is a patriarchy, smashing it is a good thing. The degree to which there is one varies greatly from community to community and society to society, but saying that we've completely eradicated it in the west seems flawed.
I think it's a real phenomenon that some guys have a tendency to assume that they know more about any given subject than a random girl does, and I think it's a real phenomenon that girls don't have the same tendency to assume that they know more about any given subject than a random guy does - even if the overall knowledge levels of the two individuals in question are the same. Attributing the term 'mansplaining' to this phenomenon is actually totally fair with me. No comment on the frequency, I don't know that, and I have no problem seeing that twitter and social media is full of ridiculous people making mountains out of ridiculously small problems. That's not a 'feminist' issue, it applies to most ages and genders and religions and political beliefs.
Manspreading is ridiculous.
Toxic masculinity has some validity to it as a term, but I am sure many people use it too broadly. The way I think it has validity is probably best illustrated by 'The Punisher' - the tv show. That guy is basically the biggest testosterone bomb ever portrayed in media - and his inability to actually talk about his issues and deal with his problems in ways that don't entail KILL ALL THE MOTHERFUCKERS, that's an example of what I would characterize as masculinity taken so far that it ends up being negative to himself and the ones around him - hence the description toxic. There's nothing toxic about fixing your own car or about wanting to fuck lots of girls or about wrestling with your buddies or standing up for yourself when somebody is trying to intimidate you, but there is something toxic about having emotional problems and dealing with them through drugs, alcohol or suicide rather than talking about them 'because you don't want to be perceived as a whiny pussy'.
I really think you have an issue with not really knowing people from 'opposing camps' so you end up getting your impressions formed by the loudest voices in (social) media. social media doesn't cater to the moderate voices, it caters to the controversial ones. It's kinda like if I sat down and quoted the 10 most ridiculous statements made during the american libertarian primaries and said 'this is what you believe' - maybe you'd be able to contextualize and make sense out of some of them but overall, you'd feel that 'no, these guys are fucking lunatics and don't represent how I feel at all.' Or I hope so anyway.
On February 08 2018 00:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:
the wage gap isn't non-existent, it's just smaller than the regularly cited figure. I don't feel like googling now but iirc the reputable sources I saw were putting it at 93 cents per dollar (as opposed to the 70 I have also seen mentioned and discredited).
However, the feminists I know are basically all Norwegian, and Norway is completely different from the US in this regard - we generally don't negotiate salaries individually, they're determined by job, education level and experience, so stuff like 'culturally determined male assertiveness during salary negotiations' ends up being a non-factor. I don't push for complete gender equality in terms of job positions - but I want complete equality in terms of opportunity - and I think most work-places benefit from a mixed-gender environment. (I've seen studies, and experienced myself, indicating that if a work environment changes from 10 guys 0 girls to 8 guys 2 girls, or from 10 girls 0 guys to 8 girls 2 guys, this tends to have positive effects).
As for the other things you mention in your opening paragraph:
Girls make up 50% of people. If there is a patriarchy, smashing it is a good thing. The degree to which there is one varies greatly from community to community and society to society, but saying that we've completely eradicated it in the west seems flawed.
I think it's a real phenomenon that some guys have a tendency to assume that they know more about any given subject than a random girl does, and I think it's a real phenomenon that girls don't have the same tendency to assume that they know more about any given subject than a random guy does - even if the overall knowledge levels of the two individuals in question are the same. Attributing the term 'mansplaining' to this phenomenon is actually totally fair with me. No comment on the frequency, I don't know that, and I have no problem seeing that twitter and social media is full of ridiculous people making mountains out of ridiculously small problems. That's not a 'feminist' issue, it applies to most ages and genders and religions and political beliefs.
Manspreading is ridiculous.
Toxic masculinity has some validity to it as a term, but I am sure many people use it too broadly. The way I think it has validity is probably best illustrated by 'The Punisher' - the tv show. That guy is basically the biggest testosterone bomb ever portrayed in media - and his inability to actually talk about his issues and deal with his problems in ways that don't entail KILL ALL THE MOTHERFUCKERS, that's an example of what I would characterize as masculinity taken so far that it ends up being negative to himself and the ones around him - hence the description toxic. There's nothing toxic about fixing your own car or about wanting to fuck lots of girls or about wrestling with your buddies or standing up for yourself when somebody is trying to intimidate you, but there is something toxic about having emotional problems and dealing with them through drugs, alcohol or suicide rather than talking about them 'because you don't want to be perceived as a whiny pussy'.
I really think you have an issue with not really knowing people from 'opposing camps' so you end up getting your impressions formed by the loudest voices in (social) media. social media doesn't cater to the moderate voices, it caters to the controversial ones. It's kinda like if I sat down and quoted the 10 most ridiculous statements made during the american libertarian primaries and said 'this is what you believe' - maybe you'd be able to contextualize and make sense out of some of them but overall, you'd feel that 'no, these guys are fucking lunatics and don't represent how I feel at all.' Or I hope so anyway.
So the feminist you know acknowledge that the wage gap when taking into account all factors is statistically negible?
It doesnt matter if they benefit or not from being mixed, because if it did, would you be against women working in "men-fields" if they underperformed? I guess you wouldn't, and I dont think anyone is against equal opportunity between women and men, actually is far easier for a woman to get a job in STEM than a man, as JBP what people are against is equal results, there aren't an equal amount of women in STEM by their own volition, Loco deliberately ignored the example where scandinavian countries like your own show an even bigger tendency to pick traditional gender-based jobs than the 3rd world.
Even if "mansplaining" were a thing, it is obvious that the term itself oozes misandry don't you agree?.
Of course masculine traits have negative side, but so does femenine traits and you dont see people using the term Toxic-femeninity when you are refering to things like lack of assertiveness or risk aversion do you?, again an obvious misandric double-standard.
You couldn't be more wrong, most of my friends are hippy leaning, like almost half of them are gay or lesbian and an alike % of them are vegan and also had 2 trans friends, one of them was violently murdered in a hate crime, they usually avoid discussing a lot with me because as you can imagine I'm too aggro
It is better for me to stay far far away from all of that.
The first thing that comes to mind with toxic masculinity for me is when there was hazing in high school sports. In one case the upperclassmen captain took the freshman's equipment and dumped it all over the road and then wrestled him and pinned him and embarrassed him. Keep in mind the freshman was a bit of a punk and talking a lot of trash. I didn't see anything wrong with this at the time and still don't. Bullying is a part of life. Figure out how not to be the weak target. Figure out how to take a joke. Figure out how to put in needles of your own. These are valuable skills. Now of course domestic violence and homophobia are not cool. That's not masculinity. That's idiocy. That is malevolence. So, what does it mean to be a man? Is it this and that and the other blah blah blah.... "yeeaah, that and a pair of testicles." But, there are plenty of men missing testicles. At the same time there is an archetype of man kind of bread from the early days probably dating back to even middle age atrocity, certainly slavery days, and this idea of a 1950s man that hasn't really left some circles. The type where smoking is cool, being an alcoholic is cool, beating your wife is cool, belittling all women is cool, bashing LGBTQ is cool, etc. There are some outwardly this way with no apologies and plenty of closet cases. Frat houses = toxic masculinity. It does exist. We should continue to get rid of negative aspects of masculinity. Gaston is a villain. He is a douche and lacks integrity. That is toxic masculinity. Being a douche and lacking integrity. Of course that should be weeded out of acceptable behavior. So, what exactly is the problem? There will be people overreacting and pushing one way. Maybe that isn't the worst thing. The core of what masculinity should be and the qualities will only improve through out time. Just as long as the people overreacting don't have all the power. Which if all of the left are falling for this dogma we could be in bigtime trouble. Oh well, nothing to think too much about. I am comfortable with my masculinity so maybe I just don't really care. It's not like I am going to have kids or anything. Fuck it. The world is going to shit. What else is new?
There was this fat guy with an attitude in my high school gym class. He never washed his gym clothes so we started calling him Big Vinegar. We would make fun of him pretty badly. You know what he did? He washed his gym clothes. We still called him Big Vinegar but the bullying eased up.
There was another guy on the bus route. He touched one of the girls against their will/consent. We called him Chester the Molester. So, that is quite a strike against the guy. I think there is probably a way to move forward with some grace but this guy lacked any semblance of it. He was bullied pretty steadily through out.
One day I showed up to lacrosse with a friend's pink lacrosse stick. I didn't hear the end of it. I didn't do anything stupid though and didn't let my ego get out of hand so my ego ended up not having to be checked.
I have a friend who is a bit of a twink/different though and I have heard some pretty bad stories. Even in a big city like Pittsburgh. That's pretty pathetic bullying. Same for one of my lesbian friends who is very much a dyke. These are not behaviors that they should be changing. In my book they are acceptable behaviors and should be accepted that way. The fact that a lot of these people have kind of cool hair, dyed hair, piercings, wear makeup, whatever does not mean they should be bullied or that there is some legitimate cultural marxist thing going on. Most of these people (probably all) I know in real life are not communists and many did not even go to college. In conclusion, bullying people for egos getting out of line, not cleaning gym clothes, and being a creep are ok. Bullying someone for just being a bit different or LGBTQ not ok. Need better reasons. Toxic masculinity is a thing. Fortunately it mostly exists in like Shittown, Alabama and frat houses at Vanderbilt University. But, I would imagine as you get outside of the red zones there is a lot of subdued toxic masculinity. It's there. It gets subconsciously or consciously put into action at times. Oh well, fuck it, I'm done writing for now.
"Bullying is a part of life. Figure out how not to be the weak target. Figure out how to take a joke. Figure out how to put in needles of your own."
Well if you move from the countryside with a weird accent to fe. a rich area its not always that easy to stand up to the cool kids / or do and act the right way according to the new social set of rules there. And if you get a bad start you could be "marked" and not be able to fix your image. The coolest way to handle it I ever saw was some movie about a jewish kid that was bullied, he went to boxing classes everyday and eventually beat the f out of everyone.
United States. Feb 07 2018 22:08. Posts 8577
