mikewsmith

well I do wonder how you know what people are saying, what they really mean, what they were thinking and how they meant what they said???

Mike, you realise my speculation as to Peterson’s meanings by his “enforced monogamy” comment were pretty much what he came out and said a few nights ago? That is of course unless you are asking about the secret meaning he infers by criticizing the people he is supposed to lead by using a deliberately rambling, incomprehensible nonsensical pseudo speak.

I’m confused as to why anyone would constantly ask “what he means” by this or that comment then lash out claiming that any respondents were pretending to be psychic.

Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?

Yeah, sadly it’s getting that way.

As an anarcho–lefty I hate the lazy, stupid ‘buy into an ideology, give up independent thought’ attitude of both sides.

I like Corbyns policies, but utterly despise his links to failed ideology. Luckily, I’ve been to loads of Momentum meetings and can tell you categorically that his younger supporters view him in exactly the same way.

JP has some points that need addressing.

So let’s address them, before they fester.

But let’s be honest and treat him with the same scepticism that we apply  to everybody else.

Once again, his points are valid  – everyone is entitled to a voice.

But…. his arguments just don’t stand up.

No insults, but the logic is pathetic. I’ve negotiated in boardrooms for pay settlements and defended my union members against some remakably intelligent people.

He’s nowhere near that level of debate – he would be laughed out of the room.

Which is what rings the alarm bells. If we carry on like this, then we might as well just choose our weapons now.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”
Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end
“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”
I laugh, because it is absurd.
“You’re laughing about them,” he says, giving me a disappointed look. “That’s because you’re female.”</p>

Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?

Yeah, sadly it’s getting that way.

Sorry but that was a somewhat rhetorical question. Perhaps we’ll need to revisit that question when being a “left wing bigot” actually carries the same social stigma as the second most murderous regime of the 20th century.

JP has some points that need addressing.

So let’s address them, before they fester.

But let’s be honest and treat him with the same scepticism that we apply to everybody else.

Once again, his points are valid – everyone is entitled to a voice.

But…. his arguments just don’t stand up.

No insults, but the logic is pathetic. I’ve negotiated in boardrooms for pay settlements and defended my union members against some remakably intelligent people.

Pre Trump, fake news and that godforsaken Brexit vote it was all quite reasonable.

He’s nowhere near this level. he would be laughed out of the room.

So in other words, using your high powered perception and superior intellect you can cut through Jordan Petrson’s weak arguments like a knife. Well I have great news, he’s doing an AMA on Reddit tomorrow. Someone with your experience could really make a name for himself and no doubt quite a bit of money by exposing the great deceiver for the charlatan he really is.

Of course given the incredible career you’ve just alluded to you probably have no need for things like wealth or material gain but surely in the interests of setting the world to rights you should get involved and expose him? Failing that you could start your own Youtube channel wherin you could layout your rebuttals and counter arguments to Peterson’s fallacious and incoherent ramblings. Should be easily done. If money doesn’t motivate you then do it for the good of humanity.

Sorry but that was a somewhat rhetorical question.

If you’re reduced to “my insult is bigger than your insult” then it’s time to stop and have a think.

I’ve been working a lot lately hence I’ve not been active on the thread.

Anyone can be a left wing bigot, just like they can be a right wing bigot or just a plain old bigot.

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people who hold views different to their own.

Binners is a bigot for example as he has very clearly demonstrated in most of the things he’s ever writen about me personally when engaging in debates about the subject of gender on here. He’s resorted to all manner of horrific personal insults to the point where people have called him out on it.

But hey that’s OK. It doesn’t bother me.

In my original post I was simply pointing out that there are a lot of people who aren’t willing or capable of listening to what JP has to say and would rather simply dismiss him as bad person motivated by misogyny, racism, hate etc, when nothing could be further from the truth.
<div>

GT, please, let’s debate this issue without the nasty insults.

Sure – wasn’t aware I’d insulted anyone but apologies if I did. Toi make it simpler, these are the points JP makes that I think are important:

Equality of opportunity is morally and functionally important for society but equality of outcome is neither of these things.

Unequal outcomes are not evidence of a lack of equal opportunity

There is no gender pay gap in women under 40 but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it’s only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.

The vast majority of men are decent people and the vast majority of crimes of all natures, but specifically relevant to this debate, against women, are committed by a tiny percentage of men. Framing the debate around violence against women as being a problem with masculinity is a bigoted view and utterly wrong.

For the same reason, claiming there is anything like ‘white priviledge’ is also based on bias; it assumes to know something about a person based on nothing more than outward characteristics.

We are in danger of marginalising boys and masculinity to a dangerous degree in the right and just pursuit of fixing other problems that women experience. These other thigns need to be fixed, but movements like MeToo are in danger of blaming men and masculinity, when it is the fault of neither.

BTW Edukator – I saw what you wrote, and while a lot of bad stuff has happened to me, with respect, you don’t know me and you’ve never met me so, respectfully, please refrain from offering your warped view as to what kind of person I am.

I’m a decent, well adjusted respected member of my community who does volunteer work with disadvantaged young adults, is a wonderful father and a loyal and loving husband who has supported his wife’s career development at the expense of his own. I’ve been open about the challenges I’ve experiecned but I’m no different to most people in that respect.

</div>

A dissection of JP’s 12 Rules

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/

your high powered perception and superior intellect you can cut through Jordan Petrson’s weak arguments like a knife. Well I have great news, he’s doing an AMA on Reddit tomorrow.

I”m just a bloke expressing his opinion.

Of course given the incredible career you’ve just alluded to you probably have no need for things like wealth or material gain but surely in the interests of setting the world to rights you should get involved and expose him?

I’m a care worker (and unpaid union rep) on minimum wage. I’ve never claimed privilege or a single penny in benefit.

My old fella told me that the only way you can influence people is by your own actions and your behaviour.

I’ve worked **** hard and am proud of what I have achieved.

I try to be a good man and live up to his ideals.

I might be poor, but I’m happy that I’ll always treat other people like I’d like to be treated myself.

So stop it with the insults.

The vast majority of men are decent people and the vast majority of crimes of all natures, but specifically relevant to this debate, against women, are committed by a tiny percentage of men. Framing the debate around violence against women as being a problem with masculinity is a bigoted view and utterly wrong.

Who is doing that? However relying on stats is very shaky ground here given the amount if under-reporting here. Claims that monogamy makes things better, polygamy leads to civil war etc are dangerous to make.

For the same reason, claiming there is anything like ‘white priviledge’ is also based on bias; it assumes to know something about a person based on nothing more than outward characteristics.

Outcomes tell us a lot here. Denying that in the west or majority of the developed/rich world where Caucasians dominate politics and business is trying to ignore a real issue, using the technicality route of whataboutery Asia and Africa is a poor excuse for not addressing the issues facing us.

We are in danger of marginalising boys and masculinity to a dangerous degree in the right and just pursuit of fixing other problems that women experience. These other thigns need to be fixed, but movements like MeToo are in danger of blaming men and masculinity, when it is the fault of neither.

Firstly giving rights and empowerment to women is taking nothing away from men/boys. It’s something people try and use to stop us making the world equal, elevating people to a position of equality does remove privilege from those who have it already, that is not a right or something you deserve, it’s something that has been taken from others over the years, it’s only fair we give it back.

Jimjam wrote,
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

Mike, you realise my speculation as to Peterson’s meanings by his “enforced monogamy” comment were pretty much what he came out and said a few nights ago?

</div>
Have you done any better than him at explaining how it is the cure for hate crimes? I mean, it wouldn’t be hard, since he didn’t make any attempt to do so, he just said it like it was obvious.

Toi make it simpler, these are the points JP makes that I think are important:

Equality of opportunity is morally and functionally important for society but equality of outcome is neither of these things.

So, what do we do?  If we give everyone the same chance and look after those who have issues then how exactly are we failing?

Why are we all entitled to the same outcome?

Give everyone the same chance. Help those who can’t compete. It’s not their fault.

There is no gender pay gap in women under 40 but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it’s only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.

So how can treating people equally make any of this worse?

Yes, of course men and women are different.

But why should that affect the way people live their lives? What gives JP the right to use that differeice to categorise people?

Equality isn’t frightning, it’s liberating.

 but there is a massive one in women over 40; there are many factors that contribute to this, and for sure bia will be one of them, but it’s only a about 10% (or thereabouts) of the variance and many other variables not associated with bias are at work here.

One of the things we can do is make sure that women who bring up kids and take time away from work to do so are not punished by the pensions system for that. This again is not taking away a right from men, it’s making the outcomes equal.

Or as a simple example, if you have 5 kids and give one of them 5 sweets and the others none what happens?

Is you think again and give each of the kids 1 sweet is taking away rights from the one who got 5 the last time please explain why.

There is no gender pay gap in women under 40

Office of national statistics says otherwise, stating the gap is small but is still there.

“<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>When looking at age groups, the gap for full-time workers remains small at younger ages; however, from age 40 onwards the gap widens reaching its peak between ages 50 to 59.</span>

• Holding all other factors constant, for 2017 women’s pay growth in respect of age was lower than men’s pay growth and also stopped growing at a younger age.”

“…at the age of 24 men’s pay has grown by 2.9 percentage points more (since the level at age 16), but this divergence in growths continues and by the age of 48 men’s pay has grown 16.3 percentage points (since the level at age 16) more than women’s.

Firstly giving rights and empowerment to women is taking nothing away from men/boys. It’s something people try and use to stop us making the world equal, elevating people to a position of equality does remove privilege from those who have it already, that is not a right or something you deserve, it’s something that has been taken from others over the years, it’s only fair we give it back.

Well said and to me this is the crux of the matter.  Anyone who can’t see that and just sees everything as taking things away from privileged white males really doesn’t realise the privilege they have.

Edukator — I’m certainly not aware of everything geetee has posted on here, but from what I have read I don’t sense any negativity against women from him.

For example, I can see he started a thread about International men’s day, but I don’t see him being negative about women on it, although nonetheless he received a fair bit of abuse. This is despite him turning the insensitive responses of others (e.g. someone saying ‘Is this just another name for Steak & Blowjob day?‘) back on track towards something more useful (e.g. his response ‘No it’s another name for men are 85% of suicides days‘). (The Steak & Blowjob poster remained unscathed by abuse).

I also see he posted a link to what was essentially a trans-awareness blog post, but not a single person replied.

I found his opening up about his experience of domestic abuse on here to be brave and insightful. And perhaps more importantly, even when he received abuse and victim blaming on that thread, he remained calm and respectful. This thread has got about 4x more replies than that one, which is pretty s**t.

To get back to Jordan Peterson. I just don’t find his arguments particularly persuasive.

He’s found an audience by telling a group who were worried that their special status is being diminished that they are still special.

He is presenting a lot of pseudo intellectual speculation as fact and drawing conclusions that appear just to be based on his opinion of how society should function. Very little of it appears to be substantiated.

Can I pop this in here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e32duDpXRyI&t=7s

Another conservative who is regularly accused of being a race traitor, nut job, right wing fascist etc etc. There does seems to be a bit of a pattern in so much as anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the western democracies being set up specifically to oppress people in whatever minority (essentially anyone that’s not a white male AFAICT) gets pretty badly personally abused.

It feels like the loudest (and most controversial) voices both on the left and right get heard and the vast majority of people who are somewhat in the middle are asked to pick from two shitty sides.

Bertrand Russell said – The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Now they all have a platform too.

I agree with some of JP’s stuff I disagree with other stuff isn’t that completely normal?

A bigot is someone who is intolerant of people who hold views different to their own.

The flaw in your logic here is implying that all views are of equal merit.  I’m intolerant of people who hold racist views, does that make me a bigot?

I’m intolerant of people who hold racist views, does that make me a bigot?

Depends on how you prosecute that intolerance and in reaction to what provocation.

If as a result of an otherwise civil conversation with someone, they expressed a view that might reasonably be regarded as racist, you elected to wage a campaign of hate against them in public or on social media, then yes, I think that would make you a bigot.

<EDIT>

If you elected to try and point out why you found their opinion to be offensive in a civil way and persuade them to an alternative but in doing so found them unwilling to change their view and subsequently severed all ties with them, then no. That’s precisely what I would do (and have done).

Well I think in the last few pages plenty has been posted questioning JP’s statements, pointing out where he deviates from evidence to unsupported conclusions and where his views offend people. As it seems we always deviate from the topic when real questions are raised.

Office of national statistics says otherwise, stating the gap is small but is still there.

These stats from ONS show something different. I’ve actually contacted the ONS to see if they can explain why there is a discrepancy between the data sets they publish but I never heard back. It might be related to overtime pay but I cannot be sure. The link is here:

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ons.gov.uk%2Ffile%3Furi%3D%252Femploymentandlabourmarket%252Fpeopleinwork%252Fearningsandworkinghours%252Fadhocs%252F006411annualsurveyofhoursandearningsasheestimatesofthegenderpaygapformediangrosshourlyearningsexcludingovertimebyageukapril2015to2016%252Fgpgbyage20002016.xls&h=ATMEoZVJod7CoJFO3s2IKNwlGfLLyArxV-Obfl4ZN03nPB1Q7rXH-BYuIIxarBE3wlz43x0ylGWOQBoJeBga9Ugvju-SwLR8HquudY4OWC4

It’s largely irrelevant though since all the data I can find shows that when in like for like roles, men and women are paid the same and the gap that emerges is the result of choice rather than bias. If you look at the data from the Scandinavian countries you can see that trend.

gender pay gap looks pretty real here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43668187

^That’s not worth the paper it’s written on really.

gender pay gap looks pretty real here

Yes that’s because it looks at all age groups rather than the age sub groups of the data I posted. When you account for age (which is just one variable that the above set doesn’t account for) the gap disappears in those under 40 (in fact there are some age groups in some years where the vairance is in favour of women) but rises to about 14% in those over 40.

But it makes no difference anyway because all this data relates to all men and all women and does not show any disparity or bias between men and women in the workplace in the same roles; it simply reflects decisions that they make in the workplace (and largerly decisions that men and women make after the age of 40).

This all goes back to the difference between equality of opportunity not being the same thing as equality of outcome. The former is somethign we should absolutely aim for because it benefits everyone. The latter is undesirable because it would require social engineering that it ineffecient and not for the common good.

it simply reflects decisions that they make in the workplace (and largerly decisions that men and women make after the age of 40).

This seems rather unsubstansiated to me, please elaborate

But also women should not be disadvantaged in terms of pensions etc. by raising children, this is a serious issue for a lot of women now. We are also in a big state of change which is moving in the right direction.

The latter is undesirable because it would require social engineering that it ineffecient and not for the common good.

The world has been socially engineered into the way it is now, only recently did the concept of parental leave appear, flexible working for men, help with childcare to help women back to work. Prior to that the society was structured to keep men on top which is shown by the drop off in women in senior roles. It’s a culture that is locked in and needs broken.

This seems rather unsubstansiated to me, please elaborate

I grant you it’s a hypothesis but consider this:

The supposition is that the paygap can only be explained by bia, but the data doesn’t support that when you do multi-variate factor analysis, including accounting for age.

If the work place does not lead to gross differences in earnings between men and women under 40, what else explains the disparity after that age?

We know that men and women in the same role earn the same amount. That’s been proven many times in many different studies. So the difference in earnings in the over 40s has to be based on people’s career paths.

There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40 (and the jump is huge; it goes from zero to 14%).

Jordan Peterson cites work he did with a group of the biggest Canadian law firms who were desperately trying to hold onto their senior female assocaites and promote them to partner but were finding they just couldn’t do it. Huge numbers of them were taking a step back and not wanting partner when the firms desperately wanted to promote them.

It’s a hypothesis I grant you, but it makes sense to me that the answer is this –

why would anyone want a job in a senior leadership position in a ftse 100 company? It makes no sense.You have to work 70 hours a week, take a whole lot of crap and stress and you’ll never see your kids (assuming you have them).

Why would you do that when you can earn £100k a year for a job that still lets you also have a life? My own wife is a great example. She got promoted to captain at British Airways precisely so that she can go 75% and still earn more money than as a fullt time FO.

I think women are in tune with the sensible and more fulfilling options in life to be frank, so I think the more relevant question isn’t ‘why aren’t women earning more’ but ‘why are so many men willing to sacrifice the best part of their lives for position, power and status?’

There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40 (and the jump is huge; it goes from zero to 14%).

Jordan Peterson cites work he did with a group of the biggest Canadian law firms who were desperately trying to hold onto their senior female assocaites and promote them to partner but were finding they just couldn’t do it. Huge numbers of them were taking a step back and not wanting partner when the firms desperately wanted to promote them.

In a system where these women probably have a husband who is successful and stigmatised if he sits  back and looks after the kids etc so the role defaults to the woman who feels she has no choice in that?

I’m certainly not aware of everything geetee has posted on here, but from what I have read I don’t sense any negativity against women from him.

He has a very strange agenda.

Posts about being “threatened” by 2 or 3 middle aged women at a fairground and how he felt physically at risk.

Put up his post about the “abusive” relationship he was in when younger and how bad he felt. He was banging the office bike behind her boyfriends back and she was a bit of a Louise.

That strange tale of the bullying he suffered at the hands of an older female.

He seems to go from one negative “female” experience to another.

TBH I don’t believe half of the things he posts, there is a least a little poetic license in his tales.

Always harping on about stepping back so his Mrs could have a career and how much he loves being a father. So not really sure what his problem is.

Wish I could sit back and send the Mrs out to the graft and get the main income.

In a system where these women probably have a husband who is successful and stigmatised if he sits back and looks after the kids etc so the role defaults to the woman who feels she has no choice in that?

I100% agree, and even more of an issue, I think both parties end up feeling they have no choice; the role of fathers is marginalised in society (by which I mean it’s not seen or rewarded as being as important) and so the opportunity for men to gain a sense of value, purpose and satisfaction from being a father is severely (though not entirely) restricted.

This is why equality of opportunity is so important; we have to create a situation where the cultural barriers are removed for both men and women – men to be recognised as having an important role to play in the family and women as having an important role to play in business. I’ve never argued that this is not the case and neither has Jordan Peterson, which is why it always surprises me that people react so badly to him.

I think we’re getting there (towards a more equal opportunity basis) but we run the risk of making a false step if we only ever interpret a lack of euiality of outcome as eveidence of inequal opportunities. The evidence from Scandinavia, where they’ve gone further than anyone to create a more equal (opportunity) society is that you see the same polarisation of choices.

And this is JP’s point. If you deliberately try to engineer equality of outcome, apart from having the impossibly difficult decision as to just how many factors are you looking to equalise (because it’s way more complex than just gender, sexuality, ethnicity etc), you also have to address whether this is what people actually want. Will it make us happier?

He has a very strange agenda.

I think anyone reading my posts and yours are going to be left in no doubt as to who is the better balanced human being buddy.

I think anyone reading my posts and yours are going to be left in no doubt as to who is the better balanced human being buddy.

Balanced????

Are you going to start quoting you and your best mates IQ’s again? 🙂

I think you are at the very least deluded, if not an outright fantasist, with the crap that you spout.

I think you are at the very least deluded, if not an outright fanatist, with the crap that you spout.

Thanks for sharing your opinion buddy.

Geetee wrote,

There is unequivocal evidence that women are not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership within organisations. You could try to argue that this itself is because of bias, but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40

I’d expect that people under 40 are also not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership- how much of the “bias suddenly emerging as a factor” is an artifact caused by the age of senior leaders?

mikewsmith

Well I think in the last few pages plenty has been posted questioning JP’s statements, pointing out where he deviates from evidence to unsupported conclusions and where his views offend people. As it seems we always deviate from the topic when real questions are raised.

Yes, like the brilliantly clear definition of white privilege you gave. Seems perfectly justifiable to call someone a racist because they disagree with your definition of something you can’t quantify or describe.

🙁   Hebrews 13:8 Shakes head, walks back away from thread.

I’d expect that people under 40 are also not as equally represented in the higher levels of leadership- how much of the “bias suddenly emerging as a factor” is an artifact caused by the age of senior leaders?

Well it’s true that seniority is still a (relative) product of age; obviously there’s a strong correlation though it’s not causal and the age legislation makes it illegal to use age as a determining factor in that way. But clearly the amount of experience you have is a relevant factor in your candidacy for senior leadership positions and the longer you’ve been around the more of that you’ll have. Plus people are almost never promoted to a level higher than the one they currently occupy.
But I’m not sure I fully understand your point.
Are you suggesting that bias might exist in the more senior ranks because they are older and therefore more likely to suffer from the legacy of the past? That could be a variable I guess, and since the more senior the promotion, the more senior the people making the decion might well be. But it feels unlikely.
To be clear on my position, I don’t think that bias is the determining factor. Undoubtedly bias exists as it always will but it exists along many more lines than simply just gender and I don’t think it accounts for much of the variance we see in earnings in the population. I have read elsewhere that it accounts for about 10% of the variance.

Me: Do you have any clear evidence/links to Minassian’s character/motivation/background that we could possibly use as a starting point to discuss Peterson’s flat assertion about the reason/s for his crime?

geetee: I don’t see what that has to do about anything?

To my way of thinking it has to do with quite a lot. Because in order to determine what to do about it (and address both immediate and long term threats of it happening again) one needs to understand the killer. In order to understand what might have motivated the individual to mow down people in the street, one would assumedly require reliable information including (and not limited to) the suspect’s background, associations, mental health history, behaviours, writings, radicalisation?, internet activity, testimony of family/friends etc.

geetee: I didn’t really read much about the specific incident and have no interest in doing so.

Neither has JP as far as we know. But he claims to know not only why the killer did it (‘angry at God’ etc, no evidence given) but how best we prevent it happening again (‘enforce monogamy’)

geetee: If someone is so angry (sic) that they drive a car into a crowd of peopel to kill or maim then, you don’t need much more evidence to conclude that this is both horribly wrong and the product of a derrainged mind.

Really? Somehow I’m not convinced that the gathering of evidence and background on a suspect is a process performed simply in order to satisfy the public that killing a crowd of people is ‘horribly wrong’.

What if Minassian has been radicalised by, say, Islamist literature, or, say, an ultra-misogynist interwebs cult? Are there others waiting in the wings? Thankfully at present we are not able to halt the criminal investigation simply because Peterson’s one-size-fits all presupposition that he was ‘angry at God/lack of success with women’.

geetee: I’m more interested in explaining your misunderstanding of what Peterson was saying when he tried to explain why someone like Minassian might have acted the way they did.

Confusing. On the one hand you claim to be ‘not interested’ in what motivated Minassian to kill. Yet on the other hand you are interested in explaining to me why he killed?

I’m all ears. But there is a problem – you don’t seem to have understood my questions. That could be my poor writing, I’d not be surprised at that. But when JP specifically stated that Minassian was ‘angry at God etc’ he is not presenting it as a general line of ‘inquiry’. He doesn’t ‘TRY to explain why’. He TELLS the world why. From the pulpit, so to speak. So there, at least, I see no misunderstanding on my part. He simply stated that Minassian was ‘angry at God for ‘. No inquiry. No case evidence provided. For all we know Minassian ‘may’ have been angry at ‘God’, or The West, or Canada, or women, some **** up polarised view of politics/society, or cyclists, existential angst, a man named Fred, or Tim Burton’s ‘Charlie and The Chocolate Factory’, ‘gay’ Spongebob cartoons or Fox News. That’s my point. Without the evidence, we don’t know.

My ‘misunderstanding’, (as I’ve stated a number of times) is with the following:

1. Why JP gives no case evidence yet reaches a conclusion about Minassian?
and
2. What he means by ‘he was angry at God’?

Neither are ‘clear’ or ‘objective’ to my mind. Certainly nowhere near enough to address a recent mass killing about which there is little evidence/background available.

geetee: in the same way that a lot of time is being invested in trying to understand the process of radicalisation among Muslims.

Not at all the same way. Unless you think ‘a lot of time invested in trying to understand’ = proclaiming that a Muslim van driver killed people ‘because he was angry at God?’ How, without clear and objective evidence, is that remotely ‘trying to understand’ what and/or who motivated a killer to do what he did? Whether he was a Muslim or a Misogynist, Misandrist or Meninist, a thotough investigative process and profiling needs to be conducted before we just say ‘oh, he was a lonely man, just provide him with a wife and this will go away’

If another (man?) mows down people in a van we should just save public funds (and the questions of the victims and their families) by sacking the criminal investigation team? Instead deferring to the ‘prophet’ Jordan Peterson who will sternly proclaim that the only thing we need know is the killer (being a young man) was ‘angry at God’ (interpretation unclear) for his lack of success with the ladies (poor social skills?) and therefore we all need more monogamy? Via a thorough criminal investigation of the motives/background there may be uncovered other radicalised individuals stating that they are waiting their turn to ‘punish’ random innocents.

*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:

“wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says’

Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I’ve seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I’m neither an ‘atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ otherwise I’d be out murdering, raping and building something called a ‘gulag’).

Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I’m agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won’t accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted

Enough of that, I thankfully found some thoughtful and comedic relief on the subject of the Great Prophessor.  Sharesies:

I haven’t worked for 16 years, Madame seems happy with the arrangement, I’m not complaining. Junior has left home so I could go back to work if I felt like it now but… . She’s a teacher, one of the rare jobs where pay is truly equal in the early years but once teachers reach the age where some are selected as heads of department or headmasters, or inspectors or go on to senior posts in administration men start to dominate. There are zero women in the highest echelons of the education system Madame is a part of.

<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

geetee1972 wrote,

But I’m not sure I fully understand your point.

OK, you wrote, “but then you have to explain why bias suddenly emerges as a factor only when the person is older than 40” and what I’m suggesting is that it doesn’t. Rather, that the bias could be present earlier, but lost in the statistics because of the relatively small number of senior managers. It wouldn’t be surprising for the bias to become obvious as you reach an age group where there are more senior managers.

</div>

Malvern –

that’s a long and considered post and there’s not malice in whar you’re saying, you’re simply engaging in a debate. I just wanted to acknowledge that and say I respect it.

I’ll be hoest and confess I’m really not sure what we’re now trying to resolve as a difference of opinion.

If JP genuinely thinks he can explain exactly why this chap Minassian did what he did, then I think he’s wrong to make that assertion. He can speculate at most and that’s it.

But I think that’s what he was doing – I think he has developed an idea about the process of radicalisation that Minassian clearly underwent (though not religious radicalisation but radicalisation nevertheless) and is offering into the general discourse for consideration.

It looked like people were deriding him for doing this; as if the ideas he’s presenting are preposterous. Clearly they aren’t preposterous because Minassian did what he did and there is innevitably some degree of explanation that runs the gamut of cause and effect.

Where I think he failed in commiunicating to the masses was to offer this explanation at too abstract a level that meant he lost people and they concluded he must be crazy.