Sorry theboatman,supposed to be a reply to rene59

I’ve no idea, why don’t you enlighten us?

I thought since you brought it up and placed a degree of importance on it you might know.

Is that your excuse for not going?

I don’t go because in the main I find TRAs loud, obnoxious and intolerable people.

<span>No! I am Jurdan Peterson!</span>

You’ll perhaps forgive me if I’m sceptical.

Of course I will forgive you but you’re wrong to be sceptical.

I’ve been working with people in the trans commiunity to tell their story photographically ever since my best friend, whom I’ve known since I was 14, came out as a trans woman. I’ve been with her to support her during both the very nasty and vindictive break up of her marriage and her physical and emotional transition to become female. She is my dearest friend and it has been a priviledge to be with her on this journey and learn more about the experience of trans gender people. That experience is what triggered my desire to tell their story in a positive way. I’ve blogged about it numerous times on my website if you care to look.

I’d like it if one of JP’s admirers would give us a specific claim and its associated evidence to examine.

OK how about the idea that while equality of opportunity and choice is really important, equality of outcome is not. Of course, we have to be sure that we really do have equal opportunity and that men and women are genuinely unencumbered in the choices they make. But assuming they are, then the fact that more men choose careers in say engineering and more women in caring related fields, shouldn’t be a problem for society.

It is explainable by the fact that everywhere you go in the world, you find measurable differences between men and women in their inherent traits. The differences are small, there is still far more overlap than difference, but still significant and they lead to differences in the choices we make about our careers.

If you look up the concept of the ‘gender paradox’ you will find that even in countries where everything that could be done to engineer true gender equality has been done (the Nordics primarily), you still see significant differences in the levels of representation in careers and levels of attainment.

This is all empirically measured and clearly documented and yet people get sacked and pilloried for mentioning it or suggesting it. Examples of this include James Damore at Google (and before anyone says anything, make sure you’ve bloody well read the paper he wrote) and Alessandro Stumia at CERN who pointed out the same thing (albeit with a very clumsy and poorly worded statement).

This is the dangerous orthodoxy that I and others feel needs to be challenged. But do not mistake that challenge for thinking I don’t agree fully with the importance of equality because I whole heartedly do.

But of course, imagine my surprise if the responses to that statement end up being derisory…..

 But assuming they are, then the fact that more men choose careers in say engineering and more women in caring related fields, shouldn’t be a problem for society.

How many women in engineering have you talked to?

when he vehemently opposed Bill C16 and compelled speech.

well, this is embarrassing… We’ve covered this on one of your other previous episodic JP threads.

JP has come under fire because of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns, including instances where an individual prefers them and explicitly requests use of them; that is, even before “The Law” compels*  that he use a certain pronoun, other than the typical “he” or “she,” JP refuses to use it. He (seems to, who can tell?) argues that the rationale for the use of gender-neutral pronouns is flawed, irrational, and unscientific, he has also characterised people who prefer the use of gender-neutral pronouns as “self-aggrandising” and “narcissistic,” and perhaps a “particular kind of irrational”. (Your friend, his actual words, feel free to check.)

*which it doesn’t really, (well not a University lecturer) C-16 sets a very high bar, extreme hate speech for instance, and requires Public Disorder as a possible or actual outcome. which if you give it an ounce of critical thought, JP CANNOT therefore cause by his non use of them..! He got his own argument arse about face

JP refers to this as an aspect of “political correctness”, or to use his preferred phrase “cultural Marxism” He has (as far as I can tell) never actually articulated his arguments about why Marxism (an economic philosophy) and political correctness are linked, and the claims for both being linked are therefore suspicious at best, he’s also not offered an argument about why or how preferred pronouns stem from Marxist thought. As a public philosopher, he’s clearly not articulating himself well (quelle surprise) as a fan of JP to get this so very wrong seems to suggest that you can’t grasp his convoluted arguments either. What hope therefore for the rest of us?

But in the spirit of the thread, you smell, so ner…

Oh and to conclude now I have a seat

If you look up the concept of the ‘gender paradox’ you will find that even in countries where everything that could be done to engineer true gender equality has been done (the Nordics primarily), you still see significant differences in the levels of representation in careers and levels of attainment.

You are claiming outcome based on about 2 generations of change. Nordic countries.may be leading but this is a monumental change in thinking from housewife to industry leader. The women I have met in engineering are not there by bias or help they are there on merit. The skills that it requires are not gender specific especially in the modern world

This is all empirically measured and clearly documented and yet people get sacked and pilloried for mentioning it or suggesting it.

Damore was sacked as likely as not for writing a 10 page polemic of badly mashed together stream of consciousness (yes I read it, and agree FWIW with bits of it) that once made public was bound to make Google think about it’s public relations, he pretty much forced their hand. Part of his paper was based on the work of a 46 meta-analysis of Prof. Janet Hyde that directly refutes the very differences he (and you presumably) claims exist.

Stumia actually suggested that the reason men make better physicists is that they get more papers published, ergo that must mean they have better ideas…To suggest that his paper was “poorly worded” merely hints at the level of idiocy he indulged in.

your examples are badly chosen TBH

JP has come under fire because of his refusal to use gender-neutral pronouns,

No that’s wrtong. He’s come under fire because he doesn’t believe we should be passing laws that require this. He has openly said he would happily use whatever pronouns a polite individual asked him to use. I have seen him sy this in video interview.

argues that the rationale for the use of gender-neutral pronouns is flawed, irrational, and unscientific

I’m honestly not sure about this and sometimes he says thing about gender identity that I am not sure I fully understand the intenent of.

For example, I am of the belief that gender identity is a social construct, whereas ‘sex’ is biological and there is amply scope on a normal distribution for the bluring of lines between the social and the biological that results in an individual self reporting a sense of conflict.

The whole premise of the science of psychology (differentaited from the garbage of most ‘popular’ psychology’) is still predicated on the basis of ‘self report’, i.e. what is it that people say about their experience of the world and themselves in a verifiably honest way.

If pepple self report feeling at odds with their gender in anything like the kind of numbers we see, then there is an inherent validity to that otherwise social construct (I mean gender dysphoria).  So it does seem odd to me that Peterson might argue that male and female are quite as entirely discrete features. I am not 100% sure he has ever said that, but if he has, then I disagree with it.

he has also characterised people who prefer the use of gender-neutral pronouns as “self-aggrandising” and “narcissistic,” and perhaps a “particular kind of irrational”. (Your friend, his actual words, feel free to check.)

I will check this – if yo ucan provide me with a link to him being quoted I would be grateful. I would never condone this conclusion though it wouldn’t change how i feel about other things he has said.

which it doesn’t really, (well not a University lecturer)

Well either it does or it doesn’t – which is it? Are you saying their are exemptions?

requires Public Disorder as a possible or actual outcome

But there has been plenty of that on Canadian campuses. It would not be hard to prove this as an outcome to his opposition to Bill C16. I’ve seen the footage of what happened and can quite imagine this being brought before a court of law with reasonable expectations for a conviction.

He has (as far as I can tell) never actually articulated his arguments about why Marxism (an economic philosophy) and political correctness are linked,

I have – you’ll either just need to accept it or do your own research. But, and this is not meant to be patronising, start by reading ‘All Life is Problem Solving’ by Karl Popper as a good grounding for what Peterson’s argument here is actually about. After that, research the writings of third wave feminism, Patriarchy and Capitalism. I read about this a lot myself in my under graduate degre and the link between them all is relatively straight forward.

he’s also not offered an argument about why or how preferred pronouns stem from Marxist thought.

Yes, he has, though I agree it is a complex argument that might otherwise appeart convoluted. The basic premise boils down to the difference between the principles of collectivism and those of the soverignty of the individfual. This is where the balance between the political left and right can be most clearly articulated. The left is based on collective identity, the right on individual identity. This is of course a rather jejune oversimplication; there is way more nuance involved but the basic premise is correct.

Peterson is arguing that the politics of identity have over taken the politics of individual responsibility. The soverignty of the individual has always been a conservative paradigm (think Thatcher for example) whereas the collectivist principles of Marxism are evident in the totalitarian regiemes of the far left states we have seen throughout histotry and even still today, as in the DPRK.

As a public philosopher, he’s clearly not articulating himself well

Well he makes perfect sense to me, but I understand not everyone likes him and so the message won’t be getting through.

But in the spirit of the thread, you smell, so ner…

I am sure you’ve commented before on things I;ve posted on this topic, and from memory, those posts have always been reasoned and polite as has this post. So thank you for this. Your posts always remind me that whatever else people think of the posts I make here, my genuine and heart felt inclination is to look after people – the ‘humanity of the person in front me me’ as I always say.

I feel sickened by collectivist ideologies and the politics if identity, if only because I’ve never felt I ‘belonged’ to any one particular power group. I also feel sickened by the very real erosion of freedom of speech. That Jonathan Pie clip cites real stories and we should really be worried about this:

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/oct/07/graham-linehan-police-warning-complaint-by-stephanie-hayden-transgender-activist-twitter

You are claiming outcome based on about 2 generations of change.

That’s true but the gap is not diminishing in terms of representation, I think, but would need to check the claims, that it’s getting wider despite the efforts to creatre a more equal society. It is diminishing in terms of the pay gap as you can see here:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/genderpaygapbyageintheuk

How long do you think you need to give equality of opportunity a chance before you conclude that perhaps some of the differences in choices are innate?

from housewife to industry leader

Peterson’s argument here is that actually ‘industry leader’ is not a feature set that is to be particularly welcomed. The people running Fortune 500 companies are not especially likable; they are extremely driven, they work 70 hours a week at least, they never see their family, they are very high testosterone individuals who want to ‘win’ and beat others. Yes we need them, but the problem isn’t that they are mostly men (and they are, I accept that), the problem is, why would anyone want to live their life like that? I sure as hell don’t. I have friends like this and they don’t lead fun lives I can tell you.

The skills that it requires are not gender specific especially in the modern world

No they aren’t but then no one is saying there is such a thing as a gender specific skill. The argument being made is that there are small differences in preference that lead to bigger differences in choice. The differences are not binary – they are simply a feature of variable representation. Women tend more towards caring roles, men towards roles focused on how things work (this is the women = people/men = things reference you will see/hear).

Also have you looked at the concept of ‘greater male variability’ by any chance? It was apparently something that not even Darwin could figure out the (evolutionary) cause for but it exists across all species.

In the context of this debate it is possible that this phenomenon explains why at the extremes of achievement you see greater male representation, this being for both high achievement (as in ‘high energy physics’ for examnple, which will only ever be populated by the extremes of IQ) or complete failure of the individual (as in that far more men are homeless than women). This does not for one minute suggest any kind of difference in actual ability based on sex, only in the numbers of representation (which is what the scientist from CERN and James Damore from Google were saying).

The women I have met in engineering are not there by bias or help

Of course not and no one is saying otherwise. But if we deliberately engineer an equal number of men and women in these roles, then that WILL be the case and our scientific progress will suffer as a result.

But if we deliberately engineer an equal number of men and women in these roles, then that WILL be the case and our scientific progress will suffer as a result.

Why?

What makes women less suiterd or qualified for the job?

Part of his paper was based on the work of a 46 meta-analysis of Prof. Janet Hyde that directly refutes the very differences he (and you presumably) claims exist.

Just responding to this in isolation since your (eolquent) reply came while I was writing my ‘thesis’ ;o)

Hyde’s findings that men and women are far more alike and identicle in terms of cognitive abilities in areas like math’s are not contradicted by people like Peterson. Indeed he agrees with this. But small differences in preference can lead to larger differences in choice, especially when you factor in social pressures to confirm to gender stereotypes.

I agree that gender stereotypes exist as does Peterson and I agree, as does he, that they are damaging to society.

If there is any debate about this, it is confinecd to refuting the notion of ‘patriarchy’, where that concept is defined as being a contrived or conspiratorial engineering of an outcome specifically to disavantage one group over another (men over women).

I don’t believe this is the case and there is a lot of evidence to refute the notion of this. For example, was it recently the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote, or of all women and 85% of men getting the vote? It’s interesting how that salient fact never got a mention. Why is that?

But sitll, gender stereotyopes do exist and they are deeply problematic.

Women have in the past been excluded from the work place.

Men have, and to a much larger degree, continue to be excluded from the family – witness the fact that it’s still legal to offer women a differentaited level of maternity pay over fathers. The outcomes for men are also far more negative for both judicial and medical interventions – look at the rates of custodial sentences passed for example or the mortality of men.

We have a long way to go but we should be ditching both the bipartisan view of gender poitics and the flawed view that equality of outcome is a idea.

Why?

What makes women less suiterd or qualified for the job?

Because if you engineer something that is contrary to what people want out of life, irrespective of their abilities, then you make the world a less happy and less effective place for a start.

Plus, if you have more men who are willing and capable of pursuing careers in engineering than women, but you deliberately exclude some of those men in order to hire an equal number of women, you reduce the level of competition. See the principle of ‘greater male variability’ for a practical example of why this might happen.

Read Porter’s ‘The Competitive Advantage of Nations’ as a pracxtical illustration of this point.  Or else have a look at the level of compeition in sport and ask if women’s sport is, in general, as competitive as men’s.

I am not saying we should encourqage all the capable women into engineering roles that we can  – we absolutely should, but we should do that on the basis of free choice, not on the basis of quotas (and yes no one has mentioned quotas yet but the disparity in represenation is always given as evidence of deliberate discrimination, which is what is being refuted here).

Or else have a look at the level of compeition in sport and ask if women’s sport is, in general, as competitive as men’s.

As competitive, yes.  As accessible and as well funded, no.

If you’re not capable, no worries.

Capable of what?

If it’s making a cup of herbal tea then I’m quite capable, pop round.

If it’s substantiating your claims then I’ve already called you out as a hypocrite. Prove me otherwise. It should be easy…

Because if you engineer something that is contrary to what people want out of life, irrespective of their abilities, then you make the world a less happy and less effective place for a start.

It is not engineering something, it is removing the blocks and making entry equal so that the women with the same abilities as men have the same path.

How is a fairer and more equal world less happy and less effective?  Less happy for who?

Geetee,  apologies, I’m aware of JP’s arguments regarding Marxism and political correctness, what I of course meant was that I was yet to hear make a “good” argument for them. In short (like your good prof) you make the same  comparison that Individualism and Collectivism are somehow opposites, when they’re just points on a philosophical continuum, JP here is conflicted by his beliefs (I’d like to hear him to argue that religions aren’t collectivist for instance) and his obvious politics. Plus, the left/right broad brush strokes don’t work here either, Again I’d love to hear the prof discuss Fascism/National Socialism as not collective. Identity politics aren’t Marxist in origin, many on “the left” opinie they are a child of post “Fordism” (terrible phrase IMO,but it serves well enough here) Neo-liberalism. Marxism is the struggle to overthrow capitalism, identity politics has grown out of the worker settlement post war enrichment (the baby boomers).

What’s missing from his all this discourse of Marxism (I honest believe he uses the word as merely a scare tactic, as it has obvious overtones for a largely North American audience) is clearly the class struggle. It’s been a while since I read Das Capital, but I can’t remember much discourse on Pronoun choice.

Notes on C16. It’s a law defined to try to encompass all the various states definitions of hate crimes and tries to give broad definitions to various groups that could be targeted. The law as it stands makes no claims to enforce a particular pronoun. What it does do, is suggest that their use can be part of Hate speech.(gender stereotypes etc) . The test of whether the breach has occurred in Public Disorder. ie, the people bringing the claim (the offended party) have to be able to demonstrate that the use of pro-nouns (in this case) caused (or might cause) a riot. If the prof won’t use them he cannot be accused of using it to inflame discourse, under the terms of the bill.

It’s poorly understood, and some would argue badly written. but that’s lawyers for you, and at least I haven’t accused you of being one of them.

I feel sickened by collectivist ideologies

You live (largely) in a collectivist society, and humans are by their nature group animals. Have you considered Montana?

That experience is what triggered my desire to tell their story in a positive way. I’ve blogged about it numerous times on my website if you care to look.

I’ve looked and couldn’t find anything. There is a section titled “Trains”. Is that what you mean?

https://gregturnerphotography.co.uk/home

 Have you considered Montana?

All the time!! Bring them back you chuffing monsters!! 😭😲

It is not engineering something, it is removing the blocks and making entry equal so that the women with the same abilities as men have the same path.

How is a fairer and more equal world less happy and less effective? Less happy for who?

Sure that is the definition of creating equal opportunity, which I am all for as is JP. (Note however that the terms ‘same path’ should be ‘same opportunity for the same path’; not all path’s need be the same as people have different motivations and end goals).

This links to two additional points. First, how far do you need to go before individual responsibility, motivation and drive to achieve something become the only limiting factors? This is the classic conundrum of affirtmative action/positive discrimination (which is still discrimination).

Second if in creating that equality of opportunity we still find that the outcome is not equal (as we see in the Nordic countries), at what point do you stop worrying about the outcome; do you then want to move to a quota system?

It’s the idea of a quota system that is potentially very damaging because that denudes comptitiveness by promoting otherwise less able people into positions in order to satisfy the agenda of outcome.

you make the same comparison that Individualism and Collectivism are somehow opposites, when they’re just points on a philosophical continuum

Yes true, I agree they are a continuum but as such they are at opposite ends of that continuum. I think your broader point about it not being possible to be outside of a collectivist ideology though is very true and I can see why, at one level, JP’s arguments about collectivism/individualism might seem entirely contradictory.

Honestly I don;t have an answer to that – more importantly, your point does make me think more carefully about what I believe and why so thank you for that.

Fascism/National Socialism as not collective.

Actually he cites this many times in his material including in the original video I posted. He specifically makes the point that any extreme of ideology, when the ideology becomes over dominant in the collective conscience is where the problems within society start. This exists on both the left and the right and he is at great pains to point out that both are equally as evil.

The problem we have, such as there is one, is knowing where the tipping point is. It’s not discrete. The west has done a good job of figuring out where and when the exteme right goes too far (this is his argument now not mine), but we haven’t done a good job recently of figuring out where the left goes too far.

The evidence for this is the fact that despite our well placed political intentions, we are seeing the rise of far right agendas through the western world; we have a dog of a President in Trump and we have the mess that is Brexit. All these outcomes are almost certainly a reactionary response to left leaning politics perhaps going a little too far and leaving people behind.

In the UK, that Jonathan Pie video shows that we are getting dangerously close to a police state; that is likely to turn a lot of moderates into PC culture hating conservatives. I don’t want to see that, which is why I make a point of bringing this subject up.

is clearly the class struggle.

Yes I think you make a good point here. JP explains in one of his videos the Gini co-efficient and its impact on violence in society. He gets pretty close to making the case for more effective means of distributing wealth to reduce the wealth gap! Ironic really.

You live (largely) in a collectivist society,

Sure and you’re right in your point; I should qualify what I mean. Identity/collectivist politics can certainly make a meaningful summation of large scale social structures based on available data. The problems with this are twofold.

First, the arguments put forward for why these patters exist aren’t always accurate or even corollaries of each other, e.g. the small difference in the gender pay gap must be because of patriarchy and not any other cause.

Second, when one individual in dialogue with another individual uses the large scale observations (and their own theory of the cause of these) to make judgements about that individual. This is the basis for discrimination – you are A, B and C so therefore you must also be D. That’s a vile assessment but it’s happening all the time today.

I’ve looked and couldn’t find anything. There is a section titled “Trains”. Is that what you mean?

That’s not me. Try again in won’t be hard to find me.

As competitive, yes. As accessible and as well funded, no.

Well they can’t be both; it can’t be that women’s sport is as competitive as men’s but also harder to get into. The fewer competitors there are, the less competitive things will be.

I did a quick assessment of this (really just a baisc view) by looking at the average differences in times between the first and last runniners in the men’s and women’s 100m Olympic Finals. Over the last 14 years the average difference between men is 2.99% and for women it’s 4.11%. Draw your own conclusions.

Draw your own conclusions.

That all competitors are competing equally as hard but that the bias in funding and accessibility means that men’s results are tighter because they have a more level playing field?

That all competitors are competing equally as hard but that the bias in funding and accessibility means that men’s results are tighter because they have a more level playing field?

No, no, no.  You must be one of those stupid people that don’t understand.

I really can’t wait for the thesis.

That all competitors are competing equally as hard but that the bias in funding and accessibility means that men’s results are tighter because they have a more level playing field?

The degree to which a field is competitive is not the same as the degree to which those participating in that field are trying their best.

The degree of competitiveness in a field is the product of the number of players; the more people there are trying to get into that field the more likely it is that the very best talent will be represented in pool from which the competitors are drawn.

How many people are choosing to compete will depend on a number of variables, including personal motivation to compete, social or domestic pressures, awareness of latent capabilities, the rewards on offer, accessibility to the arena etc.

If you’re arguing that there is less funding and more obstacles in women’s sport that may be true, but if it is, then you’re also saying that fewer competitors will mean women’s sport is less competitive.

The degree of competitiveness in a field is the product of the number of players; the more people there are trying to get into that field the more likely it is that the very best talent will be represented in pool from which the competitors are drawn.

In a perfect world yes.  In the actual world no, not by a long way.

Extreme example but do you think the very best drivers in the world are those 30 who are in formula 1 or do you think others factors have played a bigger part than talent alone?

Extreme example but do you think the very best drivers in the world are those 30 who are in formula 1 or do you think others factors have played a bigger part than talent alone?

We are making the same point – I’m saying the same thing as you and vice versa. The F1 example is interesting because overall I think the sport is highly competitive but that is only because of the vast resources and money made available to it and the fact that the driver is only one component in the overall result. There’s a vast team behind the result.

Whether those 30 drivers are the best drivers there could be is a different point and I agree with you that the answer to that question is clearly no. The chance that other people who are equally or potentially even more capable than the current crop of drivers is very high; those 30 drivers are the very best of a relatively small pool of talent so it stands to reason that the upper limit is not yet reached.

The degree of competitiveness in a field is the product of the number of players; the more people there are trying to get into that field the more likely it is that the very best talent will be represented in pool from which the competitors are drawn.

As can be demonstrated by the local, open to all park runs.  I believe their measure of success is that the average time is actually increasing as the pool of talent grows….oh, hang on?

Thanks Geetee, you’ve made some interesting points to think about.

This links to two additional points. First, how far do you need to go before individual responsibility, motivation and drive to achieve something become the only limiting factors?

Well if you really want that then the solution would be an upbringing and education along the lines of the city in the Republic.  Odd that its rarely proposed by those who try and claim its talent which always wins out (dont get me wrong its a crap solution but if you really want a society purely based on innate talent thats the way to go).

It’s the idea of a quota system that is potentially very damaging because that denudes comptitiveness by promoting otherwise less able people into positions in order to satisfy the agenda of outcome.

Or alternatively it forces people to look more broadly than they would otherwise and get past their innate bias. Anyone looking at the average boardroom make up will have to have some doubts about whether they really are selecting the best of the best or just selecting from a very limited pool.

 All these outcomes are almost certainly a reactionary response to left leaning politics perhaps going a little too far and leaving people behind.

You would need to explain this in a lot more detail. How exactly is “left leaning politics” leaving people behind.

I would argue its more the opposite. If you look at new labour etc they dived heavily rightwards buying into the myth of meritocracy and individualism. This did leave many parts of society left behind and destitute whilst others profited. So its more the “left wing” parties moving rightwards which is the problem.

As an attempt to cover up the mess and the failure of these policies some groups are going all out attacks on anything vaguely leftwing and trying to ridicule it. For example identity politics which, frankly, if you ever look at a Trump rally you see a perfect example of it in action.

In the UK, that Jonathan Pie video shows that we are getting dangerously close to a police state

We really arent in terms of having equality. We are having certain risks due to technological development and the rise of an unaccountable corporate sector but thats a complete different discussion and one which the ranting about the left seems to me to be a handy excuse to deflect anger.

the small difference in the gender pay gap must be because of patriarchy

Actually fairly significant and whilst some do oversimplify it to that others over simplify it the other way.

That’s a vile assessment but it’s happening all the time today.

Thank **** thats only the fault of the left eh? As opposed to being a standard part of human nature.

 I believe their measure of success is that the average time is actually increasing as the pool of talent grows

I think they are arguing that even if average drops the top 1% should be faster.

Although that said I am not sure where they are going with this. If anything the argument of getting more people into a field is an argument for early intervention to try and ensure entry options are the same.

 so it stands to reason that the upper limit is not yet reached.

You do realise F1 write the rules to ensure there is a high level of competition and will ban things which they think gives any specific team a significant advantage or results in an overall too high speed.

I’ve already called you out as a hypocrite.

You’re seemingly under the misguided impression that your opinion has value.

Never heard of him before. I watched the piece.

All seems a bit nebulous to me.

There are many better examples of misogyny out there worth rallying against.

He seems to be subject to the internet echo chamber when he’d actually be better off being ignored if it’s not your thing.

You’re seemingly under the misguided impression that your opinion has value.

And yet you still asked…!

Says a lot. Still no substance, BTW…

There are many better examples of misogyny out there worth rallying against.

So he is just a little bit misogynist

This thread….make it stop….please…I can’t take it anymore…

In short Jordan p. Massive knob. Uses big words to present small ideas. The man is pointless.

Now i’ll admit i didn’t watch the whole thing,but let’s consider the opening gambit …

We have to move forward in  the world – this is  a biological imperative

We have to move forward towards what we want

To move forwards toward something is to value it

We live in a framework of value, and there’s no escaping that

So there is no life without value

It’s dead easy to sound clever – you could even use Latin phrases like non sequiter and everything – but you’d have to frame your arguments much more coherently within the first five minutes if you’d like to bend my ear for the next hour.

All these outcomes are almost certainly a reactionary response to left leaning politics perhaps going a little too far and leaving people behind.

Ah, the old ‘Frankenstein’s Monster Defence’

Where’ve we seen that before?

https://youtu.be/7swS0dExZuw

Read the comments at your leisure.  If you think you can relate to the anti-left anger then well done for escaping the oppressive lefty bubble that we’ve all been suffocating in for the last decade or more.

Breaking news: ‘Western Chauvinists’ have just taken to the streets (one brandishing a sword) to give a handful of anti-fascist protestors a good kicking.  JP and KH will be crying all the way to the bank saying ‘we told you so’.   Are they selling the antidote or spreading the virus?  You decide…

Thankfully Fox News reports ignored the ‘Western Chauvinists’ and instead misreported that it was actually the ‘anti-fascists’ who gave themselves a kicking.  It’s pure poetry.  Especially seeing as JP interviewed the ring-leader/former stablemate some time ago and told him that the left don’t like to fight one on one.  Looks like the bloke took that and ran with his pack to show them how it’s done.  Now, I believe JP’s research grant is funded by these people but we shouldn’t let that colour our judgment.  Neither his showing up on the the PragerU propaganda films to tell us that the minds of our children are being poisomed by evil lefties. Because that would be naive of us, wouldn’t it?