Jump to content

Booing your own players.. Political


WV
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 22/10/2021 at 19:35, Valiant62 said:

That was the very smart black woman’s starting point. I find Peterson someone I possibly disagree with more often than not but when he’s involved in a collegiate discussion or debate with someone smart I find it a very useful way of examining my own echo chamber to be honest. I’m not a fan of some of his lecture tour stuff where he can lapse into narcicisstic tribal language about “the radical left”, all the same he usually challenges me and makes me think which I like. Not that I’d classify this particular clip as a debate really.

No two ways about it Jordan Peterson is a very smart man.  I appreciate the fact that he is open to having a nuanced debate with people that he does not  agree with.  Nuanced debate is something that has gone out of the window lately and Jordan Peterson has been demonised as being "right wing" even though his views are not right wing.  

I agree with him that identity politics is extremely divisive.  Twitter is a prime example of how bad humanity can get, everyone just screaming at anyone with an opposing view and nobody listening.  When we are defined by a group identity it can make it very difficult to make progress as it rapidly becomes a zero sum game.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/10/2021 at 19:09, WV said:

Just look around you 

or actually, yes you are correct, the world is completely fair for black people in America. Whats all the fuss about? 

I've looked around me and cannot see any examples - does this mean that they don't exist or would you care to actually provide one cast iron undeniable example for us?

 

How are you defining "fair"?

 

I mean life isn't fair. Inequality is an inevitable side effect of freedom. I strongly believe that the more free a society is, the more fair a society is, but total "fairness" cannot be achieved without removing freedom. It's a paradox. The removal of freedom will almost certainly HAVE to include racism. State sponsored and mandated racism.

 

And the above does not mean we have to accept or condone racism. It's the direct opposite. That's why I'm asking you for examples of it, so that we can fight it together. 

 

 

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Quebec_Valiant said:

No two ways about it Jordan Peterson is a very smart man.  I appreciate the fact that he is open to having a nuanced debate with people that he does not  agree with.  Nuanced debate is something that has gone out of the window lately and Jordan Peterson has been demonised as being "right wing" even though his views are not right wing.  

I agree with him that identity politics is extremely divisive.  Twitter is a prime example of how bad humanity can get, everyone just screaming at anyone with an opposing view and nobody listening.  When we are defined by a group identity it can make it very difficult to make progress as it rapidly becomes a zero sum game.

Jordan Peterson argues that it is still unclear whether women and men can share a workplace, and that women who wear makeup in the workplace are sexualising themselves.

He also said this:

When asked if he believes wearing makeup or high heels “contributes to sexual harassment in the work place” and renders sexual harassment “more likely,” Peterson responds: “Sure it contributes” (though, when later asked once again if these things “contribute to sexual harassment in the work place,” Peterson replied “I don’t know”). The interviewer then asks Peterson if he felt that “a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the work place…[but] “who wears makeup …is being somewhat hypocritical?” Peterson’s response is blunt. “Yeah, I do think that. I don’t see how you could not think that. It’s like, makeup is sexual display. That’s what it’s for!”

The man talks absolute nonsense and uses massive words/over-elaborate concepts to cover up both basic advice (make your bed! take your medicine!) alongside highly conservative views.

When you argue that wearing makeup and not wanting to be sexually harassed are hypocritical standpoints, you deserve lambasting. 

The interview itself is his one with Vice, and watching it in full doesn't make his points any better in context. He says exactly what I've put above.

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe B said:

Jordan Peterson argues that it is still unclear whether women and men can share a workplace, and that women who wear makeup in the workplace are sexualising themselves.

He also said this:

When asked if he believes wearing makeup or high heels “contributes to sexual harassment in the work place” and renders sexual harassment “more likely,” Peterson responds: “Sure it contributes” (though, when later asked once again if these things “contribute to sexual harassment in the work place,” Peterson replied “I don’t know”). The interviewer then asks Peterson if he felt that “a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the work place…[but] “who wears makeup …is being somewhat hypocritical?” Peterson’s response is blunt. “Yeah, I do think that. I don’t see how you could not think that. It’s like, makeup is sexual display. That’s what it’s for!”

The man talks absolute nonsense and uses massive words/over-elaborate concepts to cover up both basic advice (make your bed! take your medicine!) alongside highly conservative views.

When you argue that wearing makeup and not wanting to be sexually harassed are hypocritical standpoints, you deserve lambasting. 

The interview itself is his one with Vice, and watching it in full doesn't make his points any better in context. He says exactly what I've put above.

What does "highly conservative views" actually mean though? 

 

 

He definitely is conservative, I agree, just interested why it needed extending to highly?

 

Also, the views above look quite shocking but then again he is a clinical psychologist, so there is some context there. This is one of those times when one of these experts that we are supposed to trust, cannot be trusted, because he says something we disagree with. Also, do you have a link for these quotes? I don't really trust the media to accurately report on this kind of stuff now, so I'd be interested to see the full context of that conversation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

What does "highly conservative views" actually mean though? 

 

 

He definitely is conservative, I agree, just interested why it needed extending to highly?

 

Also, the views above look quite shocking but then again he is a clinical psychologist, so there is some context there. This is one of those times when one of these experts that we are supposed to trust, cannot be trusted, because he says something we disagree with. Also, do you have a link for these quotes? I don't really trust the media to accurately report on this kind of stuff now, so I'd be interested to see the full context of that conversation.

 

 

I think his views expressed above are on the far side of the conservative spectrum.

I wouldn't want to tarnish mates I have, who lean conservative, with such abhorrent views.

Soon as I get free and can listen to the video to isolate the exchange, I will, but it's his interview with Vice in about being 'Canada's most infamous intellectual'. I assure you, and I'll send the exchange later, what he says doesn't get any better in context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I just found it: 

 

Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual | VICE News Full Interview (HBO) - YouTube

 

He's playing devils advocate for most of the quotes you post above. And as I suspected, he's talking from a point of view of a clinical psychologists...he says that he doesn't know if men and women can work together [without there being sexual harassment] and even outright says that it would be a good thing if there was none.

 

I think the reaction of the interviewer is very telling. He reels back, appalled that someone can say that make up is successful because it mimics the natural reactions during sex, but he can't actually articulate why it is shocking or how he disagrees with that, in fact he actually says "i don't know why women wear make up".

 

I watch that...as a none psychologist...and think, here is a clinical psychologist talking about the psychology behind make up, and then whether that contributes to sexual harassment in the work place. It's quite a bad faith interpretation to see it as a political attack on the rights of women. 

 

The only bit of political opinion he puts in there is when he answers that he believes it's hypocritical for serious women in the workplace to wear make up and not expect sexual harassment. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I was writing the above post when I started to think how dodgy it was that Peterson would just say "yes" that it's hypocritical of a woman who wears make up in the work place to not expect sexual harassment. Unfortunately the forum crashed so I couldn't post it yesterday.

 

I spent 30 seconds googling it and found a more complete version of the interview: 

 

 

The Vice published one takes a lot out of context and tries to steer the viewer into believing that Peterson is talking from a conservative view, when in reality he is talking from a psychological view, and the example of make up is him playing devils advocate, testing the assertions of the interviewer who really does struggle to keep up with him.

 

It's not abhorrent in the slightest. In fact, It's pretty abhorrent from Vice to basically deceive their viewers into believing that Peterson would hold such views, when the raw footage actually shows him twice saying quite clearly that he doesn't agree with or hold those views.

 

Great example of how the corporate media is lying in favour of a radical left wing agenda. They don't even try to cover it up, that's the scariest part. They put the edited video out knowing that people would have access to the raw footage. Unfortunately their viewership don't want to know, or simply don't know what is being done to them.

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a conversation he had with Russell Brand, Brand quoted some who said “tyranny is the deliberate absence of nuance”. Wearing make up is an attempt to appear more attractive but it doesn’t justify harrassment or abuse. The nuanced bit is in the middle there where flirting and humour cross over into a deliberate or otherwise imposition of discomfort, the later being best judged in my view by the object of the attention. Of course, it’s all complicated by the question of whether said reaction is a game or a manipulation in some way which, again is nuanced and judged on a case by case basis, rarely by a totally objective observer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Regal Beagle said:

Interestingly, I was writing the above post when I started to think how dodgy it was that Peterson would just say "yes" that it's hypocritical of a woman who wears make up in the work place to not expect sexual harassment. Unfortunately the forum crashed so I couldn't post it yesterday.

 

I spent 30 seconds googling it and found a more complete version of the interview: 

 

 

The Vice published one takes a lot out of context and tries to steer the viewer into believing that Peterson is talking from a conservative view, when in reality he is talking from a psychological view, and the example of make up is him playing devils advocate, testing the assertions of the interviewer who really does struggle to keep up with him.

 

It's not abhorrent in the slightest. In fact, It's pretty abhorrent from Vice to basically deceive their viewers into believing that Peterson would hold such views, when the raw footage actually shows him twice saying quite clearly that he doesn't agree with or hold those views.

 

Great example of how the corporate media is lying in favour of a radical left wing agenda. They don't even try to cover it up, that's the scariest part. They put the edited video out knowing that people would have access to the raw footage. Unfortunately their viewership don't want to know, or simply don't know what is being done to them.

Interesting you directly link to his backpedalling and not this very clear, yes or no question, in which he says wearing makeup "(sure it) contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace." Or this abhorrent take:

He explicitly says that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace is hypocritical if she chooses to wear makeup to work as 'makeup is a sexual display'. and 'how can you not think that (its hypocritical). It's absolutely disgusting.

You can cover it up by pointing to his psychological perspective but its an awful view and he clearly recognises it in the backpedalling you link to.

He has horrible views at times.

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe B said:

Interesting you directly link to his backpedalling and not this very clear, yes or no question, in which he says wearing makeup "(sure it) contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace." Or this abhorrent take:

He explicitly says that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace is hypocritical if she chooses to wear makeup to work as 'makeup is a sexual display'. and 'how can you not think that (its hypocritical). It's absolutely disgusting.

You can cover it up by pointing to his psychological perspective but its an awful view and he clearly recognises it in the backpedalling you link to.

He has horrible views at times.

right wing poster defends abhorrent views by saying he was playing devils advocate and the views he expressed were not his own views. I might use that next time I say something out of line. I will just say they were not my actual views, just my words which do not reflect my views. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joe B said:

Interesting you directly link to his backpedalling and not this very clear, yes or no question, in which he says wearing makeup "(sure it) contributes to sexual harassment in the workplace." Or this abhorrent take:

He explicitly says that a woman who doesn't want to be sexually harassed in the workplace is hypocritical if she chooses to wear makeup to work as 'makeup is a sexual display'. and 'how can you not think that (its hypocritical). It's absolutely disgusting.

You can cover it up by pointing to his psychological perspective but its an awful view and he clearly recognises it in the backpedalling you link to.

He has horrible views at times.

Interesting that you've ignored my entire post where I describe how Vice have selectively quoted Peterson, removing context, to make their viewers believe that he's saying something that actually he isn't saying. And your response is to ignore the full interview, selectively quote him and remove the context to tell me what vice are telling you to say?

 

I don't understand how you can do that in any good faith whatsoever?

 

I've not covered anything up, I'm the one who has posted both of the videos, and I'm the one that is saying the longer version shows the points at which he....quite clearly is pro choice when it comes to make up, and says it is favourable to any alternatives. It's clearly a hypothetical argument and you have to deliberately ignore 99% of it in order to be offended by something that he didn't actually say?

 

This is some weird projection. You see him as a "hard" right figure and therefore you interpret his words in a way in which you think is a "hard conservative" view point. It's not even a political conversation, he's talking about the psychology of wearing make up. It's obvious, overt, he says it multiple times. I think you have to be incredibly dishonest to double down on that.

 

Can you actually explain how what he said is abhorrent? rather than just assert that it is? Or is that purely predicated on ignoring the entirety of the conversation other than about 10 words?

 

 

Edited by Regal Beagle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WV said:

right wing poster defends abhorrent views by saying he was playing devils advocate and the views he expressed were not his own views. I might use that next time I say something out of line. I will just say they were not my actual views, just my words which do not reflect my views. 

 

You shouldn't really have posted without watching the longer video. It's quite a silly thing to say otherwise and I think it shows the leftist mentality of just being desperate to smear people so that you can dismiss them.

 

You can't engage with my points, that's why Peterson has to be abhorrent and any defence him can be dismissed by using right wing as a pejorative. It comes across as quite bigoted.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Interesting that you've ignored my entire post where I describe how Vice have selectively quoted Peterson, removing context, to make their viewers believe that he's saying something that actually he isn't saying. And your response is to ignore the full interview, selectively quote him and remove the context to tell me what vice are telling you to say?

 

I don't understand how you can do that in any good faith whatsoever?

 

I've not covered anything up, I'm the one who has posted both of the videos, and I'm the one that is saying the longer version shows the points at which he....quite clearly is pro choice when it comes to make up, and says it is favourable to any alternatives. It's clearly a hypothetical argument and you have to deliberately ignore 99% of it in order to be offended by something that he didn't actually say?

 

This is some weird projection. You see him as a "hard" right figure and therefore you interpret his words in a way in which you think is a "hard conservative" view point. It's not even a political conversation, he's talking about the psychology of wearing make up. It's obvious, overt, he says it multiple times. I think you have to be incredibly dishonest to double down on that.

 

Can you actually explain how what he said is abhorrent? rather than just assert that it is? Or is that purely predicated on ignoring the entirety of the conversation other than about 10 words?

 

 

He says that women who wear makeup to work are hypocritical if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. I'm not sure what context you're referring to is supposed to make this sound better? I can't think of any context which makes this a viable viewpoint. Women should be able to wear makeup and also not be deemed hypocrites if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. He disagrees. 

Either way, this isn't a hill to die on mate.

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Joe B said:

He says that women who wear makeup to work are hypocritical if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. I'm not sure what context you're referring to is supposed to make this sound better? I can't think of any context which makes this a viable viewpoint. Women should be able to wear makeup and also not be deemed hypocrites if they don't want to be sexually assaulted at work. He disagrees. 

Either way, this isn't a hill to die on mate.

Come on stop it now.

 

You even acknowledged the time stamp of where the video I posted starts. You know the context. You have admitted to ignoring it twice now. 

 

I can't do any more than that. 

 

This type of ideological behaviour is why I cannot stand this form of leftism. It's SO incredibly dishonest. The only concern is to try and smear the threat so that you can not have to engage with their arguments. It's so obvious. It doesn't matter what he says, why he says it, if he "backpeddles" seconds later. You need him to be seen as abhorrent because it's the only way you can defeat his argument. In my opinion of course. But backed up by the fact that I've literally posted the edited video, and the full video, which I only found because I knew that this is the kind of stuff Vice and others like them, would do.

 

The sniff test works wonders again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Regal Beagle said:

Come on stop it now.

 

You even acknowledged the time stamp of where the video I posted starts. You know the context. You have admitted to ignoring it twice now. 

 

I can't do any more than that. 

 

This type of ideological behaviour is why I cannot stand this form of leftism. It's SO incredibly dishonest. The only concern is to try and smear the threat so that you can not have to engage with their arguments. It's so obvious. It doesn't matter what he says, why he says it, if he "backpeddles" seconds later. You need him to be seen as abhorrent because it's the only way you can defeat his argument. In my opinion of course. But backed up by the fact that I've literally posted the edited video, and the full video, which I only found because I knew that this is the kind of stuff Vice and others like them, would do.

 

The sniff test works wonders again.

Ok, I'll stop. We won't agree.

I will say though, mate, that your complete and total hatred of 'The Left' as a homogenous, evil entity, and some of the theories you come out with recently are a bit concerning. I'm not saying you're wrong with everything, and I enjoy debate, but there has been an increasing tendency in your posts to display absolute vitriol to the left and make a few references/terms/theories that I know are from certain online figures and forums (I had a friend go down the same rabbit hole). This thread alone is full of them.

Would recommend you take a step back from the content you consume and see if your views soften. Your political views are up to you but I don't think your current worldview is a massively healthy one. 

Edited by Joe B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF




×
×
  • Create New...