Forum menu
How do you know those 3 didn't have empathy?
Go on then, what is it? What keeps these rich old white folks happy
Sigh.
No substantiation then.
Peterson: Three hour lecture about Dragons as a metaphor for chaos and dragon slaying as a metaphor for gaining control.
The Guardian: Crackpot pseudo intellectual and alt right incel leader Jordan Peterson claims that dragons are real and encourages followers to murder endangered Komodo Dragon species on remote Indonesian Island.
STW: Substantiate JP's claims that dragons are real or I win the internet. PS you're a nazi who beats his wife and everything you say is invalid because you can't possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
Pol Pot – Wikipedia
Joseph Stalin – Wikipedia
Mao Zedong – Wikipedia
I'm surprised you didn't include Hitler on the grounds that he was a National Socialist.
everything you say is invalid because you can’t possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
you have psychic powers? I thought you might have been one of the chosen ones as you were able to translate his long words into other words that meant something different. Do I get to move to Level 6 now?
Peterson: Three hour lecture about Dragons as a metaphor for chaos and dragon slaying as a metaphor for gaining control.
The Guardian: Crackpot pseudo intellectual and alt right incel leader Jordan Peterson claims that dragons are real and encourages followers to murder endangered Komodo Dragon species on remote Indonesian Island.
STW: Substantiate JP’s claims that dragons are real or I win the internet. PS you’re a nazi who beats his wife and everything you say is invalid because you can’t possibly know what Peterson actually means unless you have psychic powers.
It would've been far quicker to just admit that you can't substantiate his claims.
aw shit ransos, I just paid my cash for level 6, or is the the Scientologists?
Jordan peterson? Blimey. All I'm seeing from his supporters here are the squeals and bleatings of yesterdays men.
The world is moving forward and the killer for the likes of JP, Trump and their supporters is that they can't stop it.
Jordan Peterson? Blimey. All I’m seeing from his supporters here are the squeals and bleatings of yesterday's men.
The herd mantra you are looking for is whining.
That's the buzz word, omit it at your peril.
Go on then, what is it? What keeps these rich old white folks happy?
NRA membership?
There are two themes that Jordan Peterson explores in his videos, one the clinical psicologist theme, and the other the slightly more political side.
You may disagree with this politics, however his videos on self improvement have genuinely helped people, some of the stuff he says is extremely relevant to people of my age group 20-30.
I believe some of his anger towards the left stems from working in a university, and the way that these institutions are indoctrinating students. Students who then join companies, who may end up working in HR.
In the UK we get a diluted version of some of the stuff happening in the US, however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to "I will tolerate you only if you think like me".
If you are over 30, chances are you will not be able to relate to some his videos or understand were he is coming from.
Woah there baboonz, you need to admit your undying love for Peterson or declare him Satan. The bivalency of this forum will accept nought else!
*See the EU thread if you need an example.
*Don't see the EU thread. 🙁
Where STW goes, NYT follows ...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html
(Edited to point out that the picture is in fact a link to an article - no idea how that happened - forum "improvement" I guess)
This place is looking more and more like a youtube comments section every day
Naah - YouTube have software that works.
Did they use his tinder profile pic for the NYT link 😉 seems like his direct quotes are the ones people are saying he didn't mean...
however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to “I will tolerate you only if you think like me”.
Ive spent the last 12 years working at universities & other than the odd sensationalist splash in the right-wing press, I don't see that.
Universities have changed, they are far more about keeping up student numbers & become more focused on recruitment than ever. With staff entirely focused on hitting research & teaching targets.
Students have also become more interested in vfm as the prices they pay keep rising, tho ultimately sex & booze are still high on the priority list.
Im not sure where they fit in the time to become all left-wing, smash the patriarchy type activists.
The world & society changes constantly, some people struggle to accept it & yearn for a golden age that never existed....
In the UK we get a diluted version of some of the stuff happening in the US, however in the past 7 years, universities have in some ways gone from liberal (live and let live) to “I will tolerate you only if you think like me”.
Erm.... ok then. I'm presently working at a university, and have done for a number of years. I've got quite a few friends who are senior lecturers. I think we all must have missed the memo on indoctrination.
If I adopted the same condescending tone as yourself, and made sweeping generalisations, I'd conclude that maybe more intelligent, educated people are less inclined to fall for cod-pseudo claptrap, pedalled by snake oil salesmen, that essentially exist to find excuses to justify misogyny and racism
His material and presentations/vids on psychology are really good.
However, is material on philosophy/methodology is mixed.
And the material on religion is a steaming pile of horse manure.
[I'm a lecturer and psychology graduate, if that's relevant]
find excuses to justify
I think thats where you utterly miss the point Binners
he's not "justifying" anything
he's talking about WHY things are the way they are.
See the Lobsters stuff for example - JP isn't arguing that social hierarchies are inherently good or bad, he's telling us that they are inevitable, and the biological/evolutionary background as to why that is so.
Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance
The lobsters thing is utter nonsense though. Cherry picking at its very worst.
Oohh does he opine about evolutionary genetics?
That should be amusing
he’s not “justifying” anything
he’s talking about WHY things are the way they are.
Oh come off it! He knows exactly what he's doing!
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He's absolutely complicit in it
Why?
Well..... ker-****ing-ching!
binners
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He’s absolutely complicit in it
Nope. What he says is only "seized on" by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context, portray it as racist, sexist and misogynist then serve it to the likes of you so you can get frothy and upset about it.
And the only reason they do it? ker-****ing-ching!
It works well by the look of it.
I was attempting to give some context as to why Jordan Peterson is popular, also noticed I said DILUTED version.
If you don't think Universities have eagerly embraced the worst version of political correctness any further argument is futile.
If I adopted the same condescending tone as yourself, and made sweeping generalisations, I’d conclude that maybe more intelligent, educated people are less inclined to fall for cod-pseudo claptrap, pedalled by snake oil salesmen, that essentially exist to find excuses to justify misogyny and racism
Buzzwords, insults and no substance.
See the Lobsters stuff for example – JP isn’t arguing that social hierarchies are inherently good or bad, he’s telling us that they are inevitable, and the biological/evolutionary background as to why that is so.
I understand.
But as lots of people keep saying, his conclusions cannot be justified by the self evident, universally accepted truths he uses to reach them.
Too many gaps.
A refusal to accept the validity of anything that doesn't fit in with his beliefs.
An astounding inability to understand that he is the perfect example of those he dislikes.
If you don’t think Universities have eagerly embraced the worst version of political correctness any further argument is futile.
I'm presently sat in one of the countries leading universities and I don't recognise that statement at all. Its complete and utter cobblers, no matter what the Daily Mail would have you believe.
They are open and inclusive places. If thats what you mean by 'the worst version of political correctness'?
And is there a better version of Political correctness you could reference? Or is it all just 'political correctness gawn maaaaad'?
He knows full-well that his more inflammatory stuff is immediately seized on by misogynists and racists as justification for their attitude, and (in some cases violent) actions. He’s absolutely complicit in it
Nope. What he says is only “seized on” by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context, portray it as racist, sexist and misogynist then serve it to the likes of you so you can get frothy and upset about it.
I don't know which of these statements is closer to the truth, though the net result is the same is it not?
But if you're a public speaker and what you're saying is inadvertently being used by "misogynists and racists" to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn't you perhaps want to adjust what you're saying so that didn't happen quite so much?
Nope. What he says is only “seized on” by clickbait authors who deliberately mis-represent it, strip it of any context....
But they do that to everyone!
It's a universal trait and attributing it only to those you disagree with smacks of paranoia.
But if you’re a public speaker and what you’re saying is inadvertently being used by “misogynists and racists” to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn’t you perhaps want to adjust what you’re saying so that didn’t happen quite so much?
Isn't this returning to the left wing censor everything we don't like vs the *centrist free speech let's get it all out in the open and discuss it argument?
*As opposed to the right wing we want to call people racist names free speech argument.
Isn’t this returning to the left wing censor everything we don’t like vs the *centrist free speech let’s get it all out in the open and discuss it argument?
Lets leave aside the rather optimistic viewpoint of the centrist position. Are you really confusing censorship and someone thinking "hmmm i dont want some halfwits misrepresenting me so I will try and make sure they cant?". I know if I was in that situation I would be wanting to avoid them misrepresenting me.
A refusal to accept the validity of anything that doesn’t fit in with his beliefs.
I've seen no evidence of this - in fact most of the stuff I've seen is the exact opposite, him debating with people who disagree with him, conceding some points and refuting others.
Unfortunately, very few of the 'media' interviews involve any form of actual debate.
Its funny to see so many people thinking that JP is somehow responsible for the beliefs, comments and actions of his followers... or more accurately, so many people who in another thread would be telling us that Jeremy Corbyn bears absolutely cannot bear any responsibility for the anti-semitic beliefs, comments and actions of his supporters 😉
I suppose he could always produce material only in print and not on YT. That would help keep some of the halfwits at bay, though people have been using religious texts to legitimize atrocious behaviour long before the advent of the internet, so where do you stop?
Let’s be honest here. The real reason the people who hate Peterson are still on this thread belittling him and calling him a racist mysoginist is because they know full well he’s not, they know full well he has a point and they’re shit scared of that. It’s easier to dismiss him and anyone who agrees with him as being a racist mysoginist because it means they don’t have to engage with the ideas he represents. Their lack of dialogue and engagement is indicative of precisely the kind of ignorant bigoted thinking JP is trying to highlight. The irony is that by responding this way, people like Binners only show up their own bigotry and prove JPs point.
Keep up the good work guys you’re helping the cause.
What ‘Cause’ would that be then?
Cougar
I don’t know which of these statements is closer to the truth, though the net result is the same is it not?
Well, no I don't think so. Binners is saying that JP knows that what he says will be used by racists and misogynists to justify their hatred of (insert whoever). Even if this were true (it's not) Peterson is still not responsible for the way individuals will interpret his words.
On the other end you have "journalists" deliberately mischaracterizing him, his words and his work to stir the pot and get paid. On this note it's worth listening to Peterson's email exchange with a Guardian journalist over his use of the label "alt-right" do describe Peterson. It's a perfect illustration of how journalists and publications simply don't care about accurately representing him.
JP has lectured (he says) for almost 30 years about the evils of Nazism, totalitarianism and the far right. He's admonished the far right multiple times publicly so it's absolutely laughable to label him as far right, right wing, nazi sympathiser etc, so that won't stick but instead people just use "alt-right" because it carries the all the same inferences but it's much woolier and almost impossible to define. Again, note that Kanye West is now "alt right".
One is a byproduct, the other is an intentional lie. That should at least inform you about the motivation. If two factions are stirring up controversy, animosity and racial tensions and one side is doing it deliberately and the other is doing it by complete accident due to willful misinterpretation, who's intentions are worse?
But if you’re a public speaker and what you’re saying is inadvertently being used by “misogynists and racists” to justify their nasty little attitudes, wouldn’t you perhaps want to adjust what you’re saying so that didn’t happen quite so much?
Again, he can't control how people who want to misinterpret him will misinterpret him. All he can do is say what he believes. He's been scathing about “misogynists and racists” ...presumably the “misogynists and racists” just ignore those parts and skip to the little parts they like?
If these misogynists and racists really want leadership, or material that justifies their beliefs there's plenty of inflammatory hatred out there.
The real reason the people who hate Peterson are still on this thread belittling him and calling him a racist mysoginist is because they know full well he’s not,
You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks. It's difficult to see your behaviour as anything better than rank hypocrisy.
@onewheelgood - your link was a thing of beauty, well worth reposting I feel
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/998385720992595968
<div id="singl-61cecc04c62c367448936d1e1e6c36d5"></div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks.
Well I did ask for clarification and for people to show their working six to seven pages ago but no one took me up on it, so you can hardly blame people from drawing conclusions from that.
Coming from a crowd that will shout "cite!" at the suggestion that grass is green, don't you think this is
rank hypocrisy?
Can any of the people saying that he's misrepresented explain to me the basic idea of what he's about?
All I seem to be able to find is arguments that say he's bad, followed by people saying naaah, you've not read his book and are misrepresenting him.
Well, can someone who's read his book explain WTF its all about?
edit: this isn't an attempt to fan the flames, I honestly can't see the truth in any of this.
You complain that people are unreceptive to his ideas yet you have the nerve to decide what everyone else thinks. It’s difficult to see your behaviour as anything better than rank hypocrisy.
So much this.
Some of what JP says is fine. At the headline level his 12 rules make sense - I'm all for people taking some responsibility for themselves and not blaming others for their misfortunes. A lot of the other ideas are rather worrying, and are seized on by people who want to do exactly that - find a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. JP knows this, but does nothing about it, indeed fans the flames in order to make a lot of money. So I'm not 'shit scared' that he's right, I'm shit scared that he's stirring up a very dangerous demographic (the same demographic that in other countries supplies most of ISIS's cannon fodder) just so that he can get rich off it.
@mogrim, thanks for the appreciation.
So the STW msogynists, white supremacists, rightwingers, Brexiters (and Brexit apologists), poor-people haters, muslim haters... like this bloke and the others don't.
Probably a grade A **** then.
Can any of the people saying that he’s misrepresented explain to me the basic idea of what he’s about?
Herein lies the problem.
Like most people I'm sure he has many opinions on many subjects. No one is going to agree or disagree with them all, though the herd will try as everything has to be made into an us vs them argument.
It's why I try and stay away from these threads; the inability of people preventing themselves going full tribal.
I don't do very well though I manage to avoid the EU thread due to the above. It was amazing how few people could get their head around the fact that I could be critical of the EU yet still be pro-remain.
So the STW misogynists, white supremacists, rightwingers, Brexiters, poor-people haters, muslim haters… like this bloke and the others don’t.
Just to help you along with your troll, exactly who are you calling what?
He reminds me in a lot of ways of Julian Assange, in that any message or 'cause' (god only knows what that is?) is distinctly secondary to their own messianic self-promotion.
But there seems to be a large pool of the gullible who are lapping it up. Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don't seem to have any answers.
Well.... none that make any sense
If Geetee could enlighten me as to what 'The Cause' is, I'm all ears.
10 pages for you to read back, sbob. Put people in whichever category you see fit. If you don't consider your posts have put you in any of them, don't take offence. And even then, only take offence if you've put yourself in a category you see as negatve
Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don’t seem to have any answers
Bit rich coming from you binners, I've been waiting since page three for you to provide evidence of your claims, yet nothing...?
He reminds me in a lot of ways of Julian Assange, in that any message or ’cause’ (god only knows what that is?) is distinctly secondary to their own messianic self-promotion.
But there seems to be a large pool of the gullible who are lapping it up. Best not to ask them too many questions as to why though, as they don’t seem to have any answers.
Binners, Isn't that what you used to say about Jezza before he started doing a bit better in the polls and you turned into a supporter?
10 pages for you to read back, sbob. Put people in whichever category you see fit. If you don’t consider your posts have put you in any of them, don’t take offence.
The only thing anyone has written that has come even close to offending me is being likened to ninfan for apparently avoiding the question.
An accusation made by someone who quite brazenly did exactly that at the start of this thread.
What's that word people are bandying about...?
Binners, Isn’t that what you used to say about Jezza before he started doing a bit better in the polls and you turned into a supporter?
When did I become a supporter? Just to clarify: I still think he's absolutely hopeless.
Not that that has the remotest relevance to this thread.
I think Corbyn is hopeless. But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
Something he seems ambiguous about, at best
Have any females posted their thoughts?
No. They know their place.
binners
I think Corbyn is hopeless. But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
You keep making the same noises and yet manage to say nothing....just broad allusions to "dangerous ideas" "bad people" "misogynists...racists" while proudly boasting that you'd rather stuff sand in your vagina than listen to Peterson.
Amazing.
Dezb
Have any females posted their thoughts?
I posted an article by Carol Horton, a female, a self declared liberal/lefty, whatever. It's a well written piece that does a great job of articulating her thoughts on Peterson and the controversy surrounding him. I'd be amazed if any STW members, male or female could do a better job of framing the debate.
Here's the link - http://quillette.com/2018/05/22/jordan-peterson-failure-left/
But I think Peterson is dangerous. Very dangerous. And there seem to be some pretty deranged people who are using his words to try and put the advancements in modern society regarding sexual and racial equality into reverse.
S'funny - pretty much what he says about lefties like Corbyn and his acolytes leading us back into a dark age of communist genocide
I'm with him until 48 seconds.
From 48 seconds his argument that post modernism and 'identity politics' are a conscious deception by the discredited left is without any logical basis.
It completely ignores societal changes engendered by the Industrial Revolution and both world wars for a start.
The emancipation and democratisation of non totalitarian states is ignored, as are the effects of global access to information.
From 1 minute 37 he's giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He's belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
From 3 minutes he repeats himself.
Your thoughts?
It was amazing how few people could get their head around the fact that I could be critical of the EU yet still be pro-remain.
I am surprised by that. Since I havent met any pro-remain person who didnt have reservations about some part of the EU or another.
I've just watched a few of his ramblings. Its so incoherent its difficult to know where to start
I cannot believe that people are investing the guy with any credibility whatsoever
He sounds like Marlon Brando as Colonel Kurtz delivering the monologue at the end of Apocalypse Now
I havent met any pro-remain person who didnt have reservations about some part of the EU
Likewise. I've never met a Remainer who thought the EU was perfect. Just that it was better than the alternative.
pretty much what he says about lefties like Corbyn and his acolytes leading us back into a dark age of communist genocide
OK, I've watched that and I reckon @Rusty Spanner has it about right.
I'd also say that although he claims it isn't 'a paranoid delusion' that is exactly what it sounds like. The idea that there is a shadowy organisation of Marxists seeking the overthrow of western civilisation, starting by infiltrating the Universities, middle management and the civil service is bizarre to say the least. Based on the evidence of that clip, I worry about his sanity.
I am surprised by that. Since I haven't met any pro-remain person who didn't have reservations about some part of the EU or another.
I have no doubt of them having reservations, just that there was a total lack of will to discuss them as that doesn't fit with the black and white, us vs them tribal nature of STW arguments.
Tell a lie, when trying to discuss the suitability of Juncker I managed to get four non-positive words out of a remainer. Four.
I have no doubt of them having reservations
You seem to be switching tracks here. So what do you have to support your claim that people cant get their heads round it?
Check out my first dozen posts to the EU thread, sbob. I outlined some of the downsides whilst being firmly in favour of membership.
I have no doubt of them having reservations, just that there was a total lack of will to discuss them as that doesn’t fit with the black and white, us vs them tribal nature of STW arguments.
Having discarded your previous assertion, I'm sure you'll be able to furnish us with some evidence to support your new one. I would also add that not wishing to discuss something with you specifically is not a reliable way of drawing wider conclusions.
I watched the vid, I haven't experienced anything so deluded and funny since reading Dylan on BM. Certifiable.
I’ve just watched a few of his ramblings. Its so incoherent its difficult to know where to start
It is odd. Maybe there are some better examples but all the ones I have seen your use of "ramblings" comes across as rather polite. Admittedly the first time I heard of him was on the carcrash of a show with Sam Harris which set the scene badly but every time I dip into his stuff it doesnt seem any better.
You seem to be switching tracks here. So what do you have to support your claim that people cant get their heads round it?
Not switching tracks, just thought I was being obvious with what I meant: despite repeatedly stating that I was a remainer posters would continuously argue against me as if I was a Brexiteer just because I dared to question the EU.
The point was the us vs them nature of discussion here.
Having discarded your previous assertion
I haven't.
If you add "whilst arguing in an STW thread" to the end of my first post you refer to you will see that I haven't changed what I was saying.
I didn't think it was necessary to add "whilst arguing in an STW thread" on the grounds that that was exactly what I was talking about.
Apologies for the confusion, but thank you for helping me to prove my point
I’m sure you’ll be able to furnish us with some evidence to support your new one. I would also add that not wishing to discuss something with you specifically is not a reliable way of drawing wider conclusions.
If making unsubstantiated claims is fine, why have you just asked me to substantiate a claim? 😆
It's intentional, like THM used to do- make your point badly and then mock people when they misunderstand you, and if it turns out you're wrong just pretend you meant something else. It's very hard to tackle an argument when it's so floppy.
"Enforced monogamy" is a good example of this. Lots of people thought that this meant, well, enforced monogamy. No you illiterate buffoons, he says, he just meant marriage encouraged by society, how could you be so stupid as to think otherwise? And how dare you lefties misrepresent me!
(actual quote: "My critics’ abject ignorance of the relevant literature does not equate to evidence of my totalitarian or misogynist leanings. I might also add: anyone serious about decreasing violence against women (or violence in general) might think twice about dismissing the utility of monogamy (and social support for the monogamous tendency) as a means to attain that end.")
So his own unclear wording becomes a chance for him to dismiss his critics as ignorant, and to pretend that they've dismissed any value in monogamy outright. And he's already gained attention which he wouldn't have gained had he just explained himself coherently. (his supposed actual point being obvious, uncontroversial, and not really interesting enough to be worth broadcasting)
All of which is very cunning etc, and if it weren't against the backdrop of an incel terrorist attack wouldn't be at all bothersome.
Check out my first dozen posts to the EU thread, sbob. I outlined some of the downsides whilst being firmly in favour of membership.
Yes, but you're reasonable. You're the exception that proves the rule.
I'm still confused, by this enforced monogamy? How would it be enforced?
What if some people while happily in a marriage want to have sex with other people & have their partners consent?
I haven’t.
Your words suggest otherwise.
If making unsubstantiated claims is fine, why have you just asked me to substantiate a claim?
You can claim whatever you like. I'll file it under "cobblers".
Northwind
So his own unclear wording becomes a chance for him to dismiss his critics as ignorant, and to pretend that they’ve dismissed any value in monogamy outright. And he’s already gained attention which he wouldn’t have gained had he just explained himself coherently. (his supposed actual point being obvious, uncontroversial, and not really interesting enough to be worth broadcasting)
That would be the least charitable way to look at it, and unsurprising. Another way to look at it would that he's using the correct nomenclature from whatever field of study he's refering to. A perfect example of this would be James Damore's use of the term "neurotic" and "neuroticism" regarding women in his memo to Google. Damore wrote a memo discussing the differences between men and women (higher trait neuroticism being one) and how emloyers should take this into consideration if they wish to improve STEM work environments and thus hire more women. People latched on to his use of the term "neuroticsim" as a pejorative attack on women and branded him a misogynist despite the fact that he was using the term correctly and in the context of a memo in which he was positing ideas to make it easier for women to work in STEM.
All of which is very cunning etc
Sorry, I thought he was stupid rambling incoherent etc, or a pseudo intellectual. Now he's very cunning.
if it weren’t against the backdrop of an incel terrorist attack wouldn’t be at all bothersome.
I like how you made a completely throwaway reference to incel attacks and thus make an inference that it's somehow relevant in any way. Put it like this, if incels are listening to Peterson then they are ignoring everything Peterson is saying to them and doing the absolute opposite. The complete diametrically opposite opposite of what he says. But I guess that's also part of a cunning strategy.
I’m still confused, by this enforced monogamy? How would it be enforced?
Well, in some societies they stone women to death for breaching it.
In other places other women quite rapidly excommunicate them, refuse to mix with them socially and call them names like 'whore' and 'slut'. ie, in the way that a womans behaviour being seen as normal or not normal can have social ramifications, ...
I'm sure there are fancy names for it, like 'morality' 'enforcement of social norms' and 'peer pressure'
Well, in some societies they stone women to death for breaching it.
Curious that you focus on women only.
Your words suggest otherwise.
Would you like further clarification?
You can claim whatever you like
See https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/eu-referendum-are-you-in-or-out/ for evidence.
just thought I was being obvious with what I meant: despite repeatedly stating that I was a remainer posters would continuously argue against me as if I was a Brexiteer just because I dared to question the EU.
What exactly do you mean by "as if I was a Brexiteer"?
Have you thought that, just possibly, they didnt share the same criticisms as you and so were challenging those specific criticisms? Do you think they shouldnt have challenged any claims they disagreed with?
I’m with him until 48 seconds.
From 48 seconds his argument that post modernism and ‘identity politics’ are a conscious deception by the discredited left is without any logical basis.
It completely ignores societal changes engendered by the Industrial Revolution and both world wars for a start.
The emancipation and democratisation of non totalitarian states is ignored, as are the effects of global access to information.
From 1 minute 37 he’s giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He’s belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
From 3 minutes he repeats himself.
Your thoughts?
Anything?
its an interesting point dissonance - i has no doubt that there are a significant number of men stoned to death for adultery in some countries, however the cases that tend to attract press attention in the west predominantly appear to be those of women being punished for it. I wouldn't like to guess whether thats an element of media bias or representative of it being more common for women to be the victims of male/societal violence, particularly given a number of countries where things like polygamous marriages appear to be common for males.
So, the video you posted?
From 1 minute 37 he’s giving his own opinion. No justification, no logical argument. He’s belittling those he disagrees with without reason, discourse or logical debate.
Hmm, he spends a couple of minutes after that making a very strong argument that communism, as enacted, failed, in part due to the centralisation of power - not something that I think most people would disagree with, but I'm sure you're entitled to.
edit:
so, the video you posted
FFS, Hold your horses for a minute, I'll answer you in my own time and when I get round to it, (as I just did). Look at you, hopping up and down shouting 'answer me, answer me' like an overgrown child.
Sorry darling, apologies for bringing you down to earth with a bump and everything, but you're opinion just isn't all that important to me.
Hmm, he spends a couple fo minutes after that makes a very strong argument that communism, as enacted, failed, in part due to the centralisation of power – not something that I think most people would disagree with, but I’m sure you’re entitled to
I have no idea what you mean.
I agree with everything he says about the left up to 48 seconds.
If you're trying to equate post modernism, female emancipation and universal suffrage to the failure of the left to acknowledge the limitations of communist dogma I'm happy to discuss that.