Forum menu
women are hypocritical if they are concerned about sexual harrassment yet also wear makeup to work.
But you said this, he didn't. I just listened to the whole thing, can you please give me the time stamp as I may have missed these words coming out of his mouth? Or are you simply saying that's what you think he meant? It's interesting this, I met my wife at work, happily she found me attractive so I didn't get reported. If she hadn't and I'd asked her out then what? These are big questions not easily stuck in boxes, much like people.
He doesn’t expand much other than to restate women are hypocritical if they are concerned about sexual harrasment yet also wear makeup to work
Did he get angry because the interviewer was (rightfully) laughing at him, or because he feels so passionate about it, I wonder?
I met my wife at work, happily she found me attractive so I didn’t get reported. If she hadn’t and I’d asked her out then what? These are big questions not easily stuck in boxes, much like people.
Well that reads like there are chunks redacted....
So much depends on people being able to read situations and deal with them rationally and not using power and position to their advantage. Also single cases do not make a guideline.
Given how much the world has changed over the last few decades I'#m sure you can see how easy it would have been for men to pressurise women in the work environment as statistically they represented the group with thew power.
Nobody is telling people not to have conversations or get to know people, what is being addressed (and rightly so) is abuse of power and position - see the MP list and number of senior people (mostly men) leaving jobs due to pushing boundaries and abusing their positions. think that is something we should be dealing with as a society?
Nobody is telling people not to have conversations or get to know people,
They might be! I think that's the point he's making in that interview, where is the line, is your line different to mine, is her line beyond yours, should we just have a blanket ban on any personal chatter at work like many companies are now doing? If you ask someone out for coffee and they say no, is that harassment? I'd say not but the person asked may think so male or female. It's not as easy to define as it looks because it's subjective which is why he's been described as nailing jelly to a wall, he won't commit because what would he commit to exactly?
joolsburger - 9:29
Yeah did miss that so fair enough I don't agree that make up is a hypocritical action at all. However that doesn't negate all of his views as simply as that.
What people get their nickers in a knot about is beyond me. The Cathy Newman interview, was a farce. She showed herself right up. The threats idiots made to her have nothing to do with him, even if they were made by his supporters. I'm not particularly a fan, less so the whingers who moan about him. Samunkim
Ah so no doubt Jordan Peterson has received a similar amount of death and rape threats? No? No.
Whilst I know proving a negative is difficult, proof please.</span>
Meanwhile.
www.infowars.com/busted-jordan-peterson-received-more-violent-threats-than-cathy-newman-after-controversial-interview
and this person actually going further than vague on-line threats and trying to break in whilst carrying a Garrotte
The threats idiots made to her have nothing to do with him, even if they were made by his supporters.
Today's non-sequitur award goes to...
Yeah did miss that so fair enough I don’t agree that make up is a hypocritical action at all. However that doesn’t negate all of his views as simply as that.
Notpology accepted 😉
Seems to be the right wing agenda du jour and I bet it will be surprisingly affective.
The plebs see these people as pragmatists, calling a spade a spade and getting things done in a world desperate for simple answers.
Yeah did miss that so fair enough I don’t agree that make up is a hypocritical action at all.
I do, but what I don't do is confuse that with any sort of acceptance or justification for sexual harassment.
Well that reads like there are chunks redacted….
Not to me it doesnt, sounds like a perfectly honest description of the posters personal experience, care to explain why you think that chunks have been redacted ?
I am not what you'd call a fanboy of his but in many ways he seems to be a pretty decent bloke. I can't help but look at what he has done and not just what he says. His clinical career is by all accounts a helpful and meaningful one. As far I am aware no-one under his professional care has been less than satisfied by his help, nor has his reputation been in question. I find it hard to read sinister intent into the guy based on what he has actually done with his life.
No redaction on my part. I've seen many relationships develop in workplaces and happily many have easily worked out. Just as easily a clumsy request for a date or longing glances over the desks could be horribly uncomfortable for the target of unwanted admiration. By the way this works both ways.
I can’t help but look at what he has done and not just what he says.
I'm sure he was kind to his mother but his misogynist preachings aren't making the world a better place. They're just helping sex pests feel better about themselves.
No redaction on my part. I’ve seen many relationships develop in workplaces and happily many have easily worked out. Just as easily a clumsy request for a date or longing glances over the desks could be horribly uncomfortable for the target of unwanted admiration. By the way this works both ways.
Fair enough, just the way it read to me. The issue with it working both ways is there is still an imbalance in the workplace where in the majority of cases men hold the upper hand.
I’m sure he was kind to his mother but his misogynist preachings aren’t making the world a better place. They’re just helping sex pests feel better about themselves.
What has he said that you find misogynistic, and how many of the sex pests that you know have been helped by him?
You don’t think his comments about women going to work in anything more provocative than a sack and a pair of wellies, having no right to then complain about sexual harassment are a bit.... you know....rapey?
....and if you answer ‘no’ to that question, you are Harvey Weinstein and I claim my session on the casting couch
Don't worry binners he is just defending that people might want to think like that....
Yeah.... there’s something of a theme emerging. Those poor persecuted middle class, middle aged white blokes having their god-given right to do whatever the **** they like being questioned by the snowflakes and feminazi’s, eh?
#metoo
You don’t think his comments about women going to work in anything more provocative than a sack and a pair of wellies, having no right to then complain about sexual harassment are a bit…. you know….rapey?
Quite scary how many people seem to think it's perfectly acceptable and sort of explains how organisation like incel come about in a supposedly advanced liberal society.
You don’t think his comments about women going to work in anything more provocative than a sack and a pair of wellies, having no right to then complain about sexual harassment
As he has never said that then I have no need to comment.
I do, but what I don’t do is confuse that with any sort of acceptance or justification for sexual harassment.
Well blow me down and dub me Nostradamus.
explains how organisation like incel come about in a supposedly advanced liberal society.
Did you listen to the podcast that I posted on page 1?
https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/120-invcel#episode-player
Actually explains where incel came from, it was actually set up by a very well meaning woman, however it's where it went later that got scary - well worth a listen actually.
I’m paraphrasing slightly, but he’s said that repeatedly.
How’s things in 1950? I quite fancy nipping back there too. I believe smoking wasn’t even dangerous back then, and I do miss the odd fag
and if you also had free licence to get a bit ‘handsy’ with any of your female colleagues whenever you fancied it....
CASHBACK!!
It amuses me that so many of you are completely and wilfully misrepresenting what Peterson has said. The same misrepresentation that Cathy Newman unsuccessfully used without which we probably wouldn't be discussing this.
Oh the ironing is the phrase to use, isn't it?
What doesn't amuse me is the piss poor quoting "feature" of the forum however, so I'm going out to play some darts.
Feel free to argue about some things that some bloke hasn't said in my absence though; fill your boots. 🙂
Yeah bit only 2 colours of crayons binners
I’m paraphrasing slightly, but he’s said that repeatedly
If he had you wouldn't need to "paraphrase". Try listening as carefully as Peterson speaks.
I’ve heard more than enough of his rampant misogyny fanks
As far as i’m Concerned he’s just a messiah for social inadequates looking for someone to justify their ****ed up attitudes towards women
you crack on with your darts though. Let us know if you win a speedboat
He's the L Ron Hubbard for a new generation innit?
Did someone post an infowars link in support of their argument?
😂😂😂😂
Does your girlfriend hate being a woman? Or having any rights?
In some ways, yes. It sucks being a woman in a lot of ways and it's pretty hard to disagree with her. Not sure what you mean about having rights though?
She's not the type of person who expects society or people to just give her things, so if she wants more money, she'll ask for it. She is of course in favour of 'equal pay for equal work' but understands the situation is more complicated than it often appears. As I mentioned, she agrees with Peterson on the wage gap, so woefully explored by Newman but also on other things such as how a lot of men are useless and are basically overgrown children (especially evident living in Whistler where your average 28 year old is about as much use as he was 10 years earlier) and a bunch of other stuff. But I'll stop talking about her and her views, it's not really my place to represent her/them.
As I mentioned, she agrees with Peterson on the wage gap, so woefully explored by Newman but also on other things such as how a lot of men are useless and are basically overgrown children (especially evident living in Whistler where your average 28 year old is about as much use as he was 10 years earlier) and a bunch of other stuff. But I’ll stop talking about her and her views, it’s not really my place to represent her/them.
Lol. I'd suggest experiences that are not sausage central then!
The real point is imagine she didn't have to extra justify earning what she is worth.
Sad Irony trackworld. The same five or six posters screaming, desperate to spread lies about Peterson every time he gets mentioned on this forum - a forum which is populated mostly by men, a huge number of whom suffer from depression and where every other week a regular poster will adopt a pseudonym to open up about their depression, failed marriage, suicidal thoughts, miserable at work, how their life is meaningless etc etc etc.
It goes without saying the people who so desperately want to trash Peterson have perfect lives and they have everything figured out but it's strange that they would be so vehemently against an author and psychologist because he's popular with men struggling to make sense of the world. Almost as if they haven't figured out that trashing Peterson is an industry these days and they are the target market. Perhaps they still believe that Guardian and Channel4 are still reputable, impartial news outlets and not purveyors of trash assassination pieces on anyone who challenges leftist orthodoxy .
Despite literally thousands of hours of Peterson on youtube people want to categorise him by a few out of context quotes or by his audience. He only appeals young angry white men. Oh well he's clearly evil. Strange that people who are no doubt against racism, sexism and ageism want to attack Peterson's audience with ageism, racism and sexism. A lot of little Cathy Newmans on STW as usual...
He appeals to men = he must hate women.
Says men and women are different = Women are inferior.
Deconstructs biblical and mythological archetypes = Christian fundamentalist.
Says white privilege is a myth = Hates blacks.
Hates authoritarianism = Fascist leanings.
Classic liberal = Alt Right.
Believes in science = Biological determinist.
People give him money = Monster.
Judging by the roll call thread there are obviously far more lurkers than posters, and while a vocal few try their best to gang up on, and shout down anything that threatens the sanctity of their little safe space, there are no doubt plenty of rational, normal, people who would enjoy Peterson's work and perhaps benefit from some it. Too bad it's impossible to discuss any of it at all because the leftist echo chamber culture that dominates STW.
I see Kanye West is Alt-Right now too 🤣
Eh?
I'd never heard of him before seeing him mentioned on here.
I'm listening to what he says - he seem to use some valid points/universal truths to justify a huge leap to unpleasant and illogical conclusions.
I've spent a while researching what he says he actually believes. It's not very nice.
His arguments rely on logical fallacies and his own irrational belief and prejudice.
He refuses to respect the views of others yet when others disrespect his views, uses that as the cornerstone of his arguments against them.
He knows what he's doing and appears to attract those desperate to blame others for their own failings - ironic when his main argument is the exact opposite.
I don't hate him, he's a product of an intellectual vacuum and the inability of the left to address their own failings.
He's dangerous in the same way that all hate mongers are dangerous.
The failure of the mainstream media to challenge him every time he opens his mouth is a disgrace.
The same Jordan Peterson who in a recent lecture stated that he believed that the DNA double helix (discovered in 1953) is depicted in ancient Aboriginal, Egyptian and Chinese art, with the caveat that “it’s complicated to explain why”?
Thanks, but I’m out.
I think he's brilliant; a refreshing voice of clarity and objectivity in a world so up its own arse at the moment it doesn't know which way is up or down.
Professional arguer exploiting a niche.
a refreshing voice of clarity and objectivity
See, this is what I really object to about him (and his supporters).
He is deliberately unclear about how his observations lead to his conclusions.
And objectivity only applies to his particular world view, not anyone else's.
Rustyspanner
Eh?
I’d never heard of him before seeing him mentioned on here.
I’m listening to what he says – he seem to use some valid points/universal truths to justify a huge leap to unpleasant and illogical conclusions.
I’ve spent a while researching what he says he actually believes. It’s not very nice.
His arguments rely on logical fallacies and his own irrational belief and prejudice.
He refuses to respect the views of others yet when others disrespect his views, uses that as the cornerstone of his arguments against them.
He knows what he’s doing and appears to attract those desperate to blame others for their own failings – ironic when his main argument is the exact opposite.
I don’t hate him, he’s a product of an intellectual vacuum and the inability of the left to address their own failings.
He’s dangerous in the same way that all hate mongers are dangerous.
The failure of the mainstream media to challenge him every time he opens his mouth is a disgrace.
Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap based on nothing but your own opinion.
You've exemplified my points exactly.
Thank you.
I'm happy to debate the issue if you're prepared to behave in a reasonable manner.
He is deliberately unclear about how his observations lead to his conclusions.
Well I respect the fact that you don't agree with him, but having read and listened to most of what he has to say, this statement is just not right. He consistently backs up his arguments with data. Maybe he choosese to interpret that data in a way that supports his view point and that is definitely something we should debate (and something Peterson would champion and encourage), but the data is there.
The Damore/Google case is a good example. All the data cited by Damore is real. The interpretation of it is subjective.
He appeals to men = he must hate women. - Or does he appeal to men by telling them it's not their fault - blame somebody else?
Says men and women are different = Women are inferior. - Then tries to make leaps to other conclusions
Deconstructs biblical and mythological archetypes = Christian fundamentalist.
Says white privilege is a myth = Hates blacks. - Denying something that exists? Dangerous, he then chooses how provocative he wants to be with it
Hates authoritarianism = Fascist leanings. - Nope just falls into the deeply unpleasant right to behave badly and disrespectfully then claim free speach
Classic liberal = Alt Right. - panders to the alt right, PC Gawn MAD, better when we could just call people racist things and get away with it.
Believes in science = Biological determinist. - Science with a religious background? Sounds confused
People give him money = Monster.- More taking a look at the people paying him money and how he is monetising his ideas.
Happy to debate the issues
Maybe he choosese to interpret that data in a way that supports his view point and that is definitely something we should debate (and something Peterson would champion and encourage), but the data is there.
Finding things to back up your argument is bad science, Examine the data then draw the conclusions.
It's a fascinating case geetee, I agree.
Maybe he choosese to interpret that data in a way that supports his view point and that is definitely something we should debate
This is my problem, whoever it applies to.
Relying on data without the context of how it it is collected, used or reflects the fundamental flaws of human nature will always lead to closed minds and parody of what debate should be.
This applies equally to everyone who shouts downand refuses to engage with those they disagree with, whatever their point of view.
He's not presenting a genuine alternative to that closed minded attitude, he's just another example of it.
RustySpanner
You’ve exemplified my points exactly.
Thank you.
You don't have a point. You expressed your opinion devoid of facts, context, reference or supporting argument. You could have saved yourself some time and typed "I don't like him".
I’m happy to debate the issue if you’re prepared to behave in a reasonable manner.
So criticizing the empty fear mongering and complete lack of any reference or evidence or context in your post constitutes behaving in an unreasonable manner? You've not posted anything worthy of debate. Your opinion / My opinion, equally valid, equally worthless.
mikesmith
He appeals to men = he must hate women. – Or does he appeal to men by telling them it’s not their fault – blame somebody else?
And yet, that's not what he does. Probably Peterson's most famous phrase is "Tidy your room" ie sort your own life out before you go looking to blame other people for your problems.
Says men and women are different = Women are inferior. – Then tries to make leaps to other conclusions
Such as?
Says white privilege is a myth = Hates blacks. – Denying something that exists? Dangerous, he then chooses how provocative he wants to be with it
Tell me, does your white privilege travel with you? Do you enjoy white privilege in Asia, or the middle east, or Africa? If not why not?
Hates authoritarianism = Fascist leanings. – Nope just falls into the deeply unpleasant right to behave badly and disrespectfully then claim free speach
Cite deep and unpleasant bad behaviour?
Classic liberal = Alt Right. – panders to the alt right, PC Gawn MAD, better when we could just call people racist things and get away with it.
Who are the Alt right? Who's stopping you from calling everyone you want a racist? That's exactly what you're doing by throwing around the alt right tag for everyone and anyone who doesn't buy into your political opinion. Hilarious that you are bemoaning the good old days when you could call everyone a racist whilst calling everyone a racist.
Believes in science = Biological determinist. – Science with a religious background? Sounds confused
Not really, but then you'd have to listen to him, not 10 minute edits designed to take his views out of context.
People give him money = Monster.- More taking a look at the people paying him money and how he is monetising his ideas.
Hmmmmm must be a young white, angry alt right conspiracy.