Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

aMcjxSThD54

I mean this is just hilarious.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I mean this is just hilarious.
So you're saying men brutalizing women is hilarious?

So you're saying men should have the right to have sex with any women they can violently overpower?

So you're saying women are property that we can have sex with without their consent and sell and trade to other men, and that this is hilarious to you?

mmm

It was hilarious. She's half retarded. Why did the network even let this air?

"i have a phd, so my clinically marginal opinion and sweeping generalizations are fact"

have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"i have a phd, so my clinically marginal opinion and sweeping generalizations are fact"


Yeah, that's clearly an accurate representation of the debate, lol.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"i have a phd, so my clinically marginal opinion and sweeping generalizations are fact"

have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives. Holy shit you people really do exist.

yes i am an agent of all that ruined your life. it was meeeeeeeee

Bashy is a Fasci!!!!

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes i am an agent of all that ruined your life. it was meeeeeeeee

Much like Newman you give your side a horrible name by doing no research on the subject and then making zero-substance sh*tposts that insult humanity's millennia-long study of logical reasoning.

Would you like me to make your case for you? Because I could do it much better.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Yeah, that's clearly an accurate representation of the debate, lol.

I love seeing Jordan trigger people.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives.

^^Look how mad he is lol.

Does someone have a counter to the simple argument that differences in outcomes only prove differences in opportunity if you assume zero relevant biological differences between men and women, and that this is patently absurd? I'm honestly curious because Cathy didn't provide any but there are some smart people on these boards so I'd like to hear from them.

What I was fascinated by was the pity party they attempted to throw afterwards. Network said they needed to hire security because of "threats" against her.

The threats they listed were: people called her a b*tch, people called her an idiot, and people insulted her looks. None of those things are threats. Obviously they are not all the comments she received, but if you're going to go with the narrative people are threatening her, why didn't their examples include any?

But...she is an idiot.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives.
Clearly someone isn't familiar with the content of his work, or the responses he gets from people, because one of the main themes of his work is to not be a lonely angry ball of self-pity for the rest of your life, and based on the overwhelming responses he's gotten of people saying his work helped them overcome that, I'd say "this clown's dogshit" has the exact opposite of the effect Bashar would predict.

https://i.imgur.com/w3hUyFC.gif

That being said, full props to channel 4 for airing the whole debate unclipped instead of deceptively edited in Newman's favor.

Cathy strikes me as someone who has never read or studied a serious argument against her beliefs before. Not that I have anything against her personally because at least she hosted him.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Clearly someone isn't familiar with the content of his work, or the responses he gets from people, because one of the main themes of his work is to not be a lonely angry ball of self-pity for the rest of your life, and based on the overwhelming responses he's gotten of people saying his work helped them overcome that, I'd say "this clown's dogshit" has the exact opposite of the effect Bashar would predict.

https://i.imgur.com/w3hUyFC.gif

He reminds me of the morons who label Sargon alt right or Ben Shapiro a nazi.

I've seen the media label Sam Harris alt-right lmfao

Even if you're centerleft and not willing to go along with the progressive dogshit you get labeled Alt-right lmfao

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Even if you're centerleft and not willing to go along with the progressive dogshit you get labeled Alt-right lmfao

I remember one time asking why churches were allowed to give sanctuary to illegals. The response I got was "only a nazi would ask that".

Note this didn't happen here.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I've seen the media label Sam Harris alt-right lmfao
Oh jeez, that's just sad.

Ben Shapiro wears a yamaka(I know I spelled this wrong) everywhere and somehow he still ends up a nazi lol.

Lolw rong thread

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/591/928/94f.png

^^Triggered.

you, who re-replied to my post with yet a second hissy-hit, then edited it out, call me "triggered"

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you, who re-replied to my post with yet a second hissy-hit, then edited it out, call me "triggered"

Uh, I posted a reply for you in the wrong thread kiddo lol. Edited and posted it in the correct one.

Try again. Stop being so triggered.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lolw rong thread

should i post the screencap or will you spare yourself the agony and humiliation this time?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
should i post the screencap or will you spare yourself the agony and humiliation this time?

Humiliation of what? I posted the wrong reply to you lol. I edited and posted it in the other thread.

How sad are you? I'm literally admitting I posted in the wrong thread.

Originally posted by Surtur
Humiliation of what? I posted the wrong reply to you lol. I edited and posted it in the other thread.

How sad are you?

no you posted my quote from page one of this thread and gave a second angry retort to that post. shall i post the screencap or will you choose a more humane fate?

And if you have a screenshot, boom, here is what I first posted here, that I then put in the right thread:

Originally posted by Surtur
Not talking about anyone yelling to burn stuff. I am talking about them literally burning down their city, looting, and attacking people.

I am talking about the sister of a thug who got rightfully shot telling the crowd to go riot in the suburbs, and then CNN going and portraying it like she was calling for peace.

No, f*ck anyone who burns down a city.

Try harder.

that's not what you posted

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no you posted my quote from page one of this thread and gave a second angry retort to that post. shall i post the screencap or will you choose a more humane fate?

I quoted your post, and gave you a response meant for the other thread. Yes, post it. Make a fool of yourself. I have the other post in the other forum lol.

Go on, post it moron.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's not what you posted

Show it.

damnit fine it's been a while since you pulled this deception, and in my complacency i neglected to screencap you. you win this round, but i advise against pulling the same ruse any time soon.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
damnit fine it's been a while since you pulled this deception, and in my complacency i neglected to screencap you. you win this round, but i advise against pulling the same ruse any time soon.

LMFAO! Cowardly little boy.

how exactly does your good fortune denote cowardice from me or lend you any credibility? should i post the screencap of your previous edit-ruse?

ITT: Bashar demonstrating why people are turning away from his political spectrum. He can't be bothered to make a single substantive point, and despite being outclassed intellectually thinks himself "above" debate or reason because he just assumes his side is the right one despite not knowing anything about the arguments against it.

Now I'm sure he's going to quote me and then say something about me being triggered.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/591/928/94f.png

And don't forget to add Racist and Sexist....I mean just look at that pic He put up...


Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/591/928/94f.png


Bashy IS a Fasci!!!!!!!

Originally posted by The Ellimist
ITT: Bashar demonstrating why people are turning away from his political spectrum. He can't be bothered to make a single substantive point, and despite being outclassed intellectually thinks himself "above" debate or reason because he just assumes his side is the right one despite not knowing anything about the arguments against it.

Now I'm sure he's going to quote me and then say something about me being triggered.


https://i.imgur.com/3bewOnH.gif

This interview was the perfect example of an interviewer not doing their research and trying to wing it on the basis of the controversy that surrounds Peterson.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
ITT: Bashar demonstrating why people are turning away from his political spectrum. He can't be bothered to make a single substantive point, and despite being outclassed intellectually thinks himself "above" debate or reason because he just assumes his side is the right one despite not knowing anything about the arguments against it.

Now I'm sure he's going to quote me and then say something about me being triggered.

nah, i feel no need to state the obvious

That you have no idea what you're talking about? I don't think you have the self-awareness to recognize that, no.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah, i feel no need to state the obvious

What specifically has Peterson said you disagree with?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
That you have no idea what you're talking about? I don't think you have the self-awareness to recognize that, no.

Lol, missed that. Hilarious.

Earlier today I was reading some article from The Guardian about Peterson and they call him dangerous lol.

I have no idea who either of these people are.

Originally posted by jaden101
This interview was the perfect example of an interviewer not doing their research and trying to wing it on the basis of the controversy that surrounds Peterson.
Yeah, pretty much this.

Bash, could you make a serious counter. This is surt-tier nonsense from you.

>how dare you assign certain tendencies to women based on averages? every woman is different you old prune. also, women on average make 9% less money than men, so accept that they're all at a disadvantage in the workplace.

this debate in a nutshell

Speaking of the wage gap myth, a bunch of feminists are suing this company tescos... because warehouse workers who are mostly men make more money than attendants in stores or something who are mostly women...

They're literally pissed that people get paid differently for two different jobs and are trying to sue over it lol

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Bash, could you make a serious counter. This is surt-tier nonsense from you.

^^Love how I live inside this kids head.

https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*jcADP4VATtBi6VIVOVVyXA.png

I'm still waiting for anyone who disagrees with Jordan to actually post something he said they have a problem with. Or is this just standard SJW nonsense where you don't like him cuz he makes fools of leftist cucks?

It's the same reason, deep down, that some on the left hate Ben Shapiro. They can't out debate him, they know it, he knows it. So they call him a nazi.

Peterson makes Cathy, and others, look like damn fools. So of course now he's being portrayed by The Guardian as a dangerous man who isn't fully alt right, but who is flirting with it.

Remember the college where one of the people told a student that playing a clip of Peterson and being neutral is like neutrally showing a Hitler speech? Yeah, that's the level of idiocy we're dealing with.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Bash, could you make a serious counter. This is surt-tier nonsense from you.

i am under no obligation to counter anyone. i made an observation on page 1 that the clown was declaring himself an infallible authority based on a phd, who's every marginal hypothesis must be accepted. since when is it my responsibility to pay audience to everyone who got ass-blasted by my comment? also, think what you want of me bruh. i'm not here to impress you. *shrug*

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i am under no obligation to counter anyone. i made an observation on page 1 that the clown was declaring himself an infallible authority based on a phd, who's every marginal hypothesis must be accepted. since when is it my responsibility to pay audience to everyone who got ass-blasted by my comment? also, think what you want of me bruh. i'm not here to impress you. *shrug*

So you can't give us anything Peterson said you disagree with? Okie dokie.

let's also file that under "not my obligation".

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
let's also file that under "not my obligation".

I'm going to actually file it under "dude doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to save face".

i voiced a valid criticism concerning his absolute claim of authority on the matter, which he clearly suggested. i am not allowed to say that without then being obligated to dissect his entire dissertation?

oh well, i guess i'll just have to face the consequences. what are they? :O

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i voiced a valid criticism concerning his absolute claim of authority on the matter, which he clearly suggested. i am not allowed to say that without then being obligated to dissect his entire dissertation?

oh well, i guess i'll just have to face the consequences. what are they? :O

You didn't really voice a valid criticism. You repeated leftist cuck talking points.

Can you name anything this man has said you disagree with?

Peterson handled this interview well, but I still find his equivocation of Mao with trans-activists to be ridiculous.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Speaking of the wage gap myth, a bunch of feminists are suing this company tescos... because warehouse workers who are mostly men make more money than attendants in stores or something who are mostly women...

They're literally pissed that people get paid differently for two different jobs and are trying to sue over it lol I heard about that too. Stupid. Being a warehouse worker is obviously tougher than being an attendant, and I'd imagine that male attendants are also paid less than warehouse workers for that very reason. Unless the women can link the disparity in wages directly to gender, I don't see their case going very far.

Peterson isn't perfect this is true. Just nowhere near as delusional as his opponents.

And I honestly forget the context of the Mao thing, what was it he said?

Originally posted by Surtur
Peterson isn't perfect this is true.

you're going to be alone forever, sucking his nipple.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you're going to be alone forever, sucking his nipple.

Like I said: I love seeing Peterson trigger people like you

Originally posted by lazybones
Peterson handled this interview well, but I still find his equivocation of Mao with trans-activists to be ridiculous.
He specifically said he refers to the ideology that they share in common.

https://i.imgur.com/OnfAM4J.jpg

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol and I don't see how that is wrong at all to say. Seems like he is saying the shit we're seeing now is how it starts and it can lead us down an even darker path potentially. Because a trans-activist asking to be referred to by certain pronouns (and thus choose how they are defined), in no way puts them in the same ideological quadrant as Mao. It's an absurd exaggeration. And simply using different pronouns for a tiny slice of the population won't set us on the path of a Marxist police state seizing the means of production and agriculture.

Originally posted by Stigma
He specifically said he refers to the ideology that they share in common. Except that they don't share an ideology in common. The primary goal of trans-activists is to obtain equal rights and opportunities for trans-people and encourage the adoption of gender-neutral pronouns. Neither of those goals are inherently Marxist in nature. And although some trans-activists may be Marxists, that isn't justification for tarring all/most trans-activists with that label and lumping them in with Mao.

Originally posted by lazybones
Except that they don't share an ideology in common. The primary goal of trans-activists is to obtain equal rights and opportunities for trans-people and encourage the adoption of gender-neutral pronouns. Neither of those goals are inherently Marxist in nature. And although some trans-activists may be Marxists, that isn't justification for tarring all/most trans-activists with that label and lumping them in with Mao.
I am aware of what you're saying, but it does not negate his point (at least not entirely).

One may venture what percentage of those activists are adherents of Marxism (I'd guesstimate that a vast majority, if not virtually all of them, but it's just my hunch.)

TLDR: They share Marxism, a totalitarian ideology.

Originally posted by lazybones
Except that they don't share an ideology in common. The primary goal of trans-activists is to obtain equal rights and opportunities for trans-people and encourage the adoption of gender-neutral pronouns. Neither of those goals are inherently Marxist in nature. And although some trans-activists may be Marxists, that isn't justification for tarring all/most trans-activists with that label and lumping them in with Mao. Not "encourage," and not "obtain equal rights," in the case Peterson is referring to, they want the government to enforce the law that when speaking to a trans person, you state their pronoun of choice, or face legal and violent repercussions.

Suggesting that someone face criminal charges for not saying the specific words another person dictates to them is pure insanity, as I'm sure you can agree. It's against free speech and is tantamount to thought-policing.

Originally posted by lazybones
Because a trans-activist asking to be referred to by certain pronouns (and thus choose how they are defined), in no way puts them in the same ideological quadrant as Mao. It's an absurd exaggeration. And simply using different pronouns for a tiny slice of the population won't set us on the path of a Marxist police state seizing the means of production and agriculture.

Except that they don't share an ideology in common. The primary goal of trans-activists is to obtain equal rights and opportunities for trans-people and encourage the adoption of gender-neutral pronouns. Neither of those goals are inherently Marxist in nature. And although some trans-activists may be Marxists, that isn't justification for tarring all/most trans-activists with that label and lumping them in with Mao.

Originally posted by Stigma
I am aware of what you're saying, but it does not negate his point (at least not entirely).

One may venture what percentage of those activists are adherents of Marxism (I'd guesstimate that a vast majority, if not virtually all of them, but it's just my hunch.)

TLDR: They share Marxism, a totalitarian ideology.



I was agreeing with lazybones but I see your point, Stigma.


Dictating how others should speak is usually a bad idea. It should not be done from a governmental standpoint.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was agreeing with lazybones but I see your point, Stigma.


Dictating how others should speak is usually a bad idea. It should not be done from a governmental standpoint.

And also it's very true that it can also lead to a slippery slope that eventually leads to some truly horrible shit going down.

Its fun when Cartoons DEBUNK almost everything Real People say about this guy....Jordan Peterson that is....

imDa3WJDJog

Looks like some snowflakes got their Fee Fee's hurt... Lets see how long it lasts this time...


eLhfHPE5M4E

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Looks like some snowflakes got their Fee Fee's hurt... Lets see how long it lasts this time...


eLhfHPE5M4E

Hilarious, I love seeing people get triggered by him. Kinda like this article from The Guardian:

How dangerous is Jordan B Peterson, the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets' nest'?

How dangerous is he? The answer is: he's not dangerous at all.

The most hilarious part is them labeling him right wing.

He's not dangerous at all. He doesn't advocate for violence or harassment, and has publicly spoken out against it. He is quite vehement about his stances, such as his belief that equality of opportunity is a far better way to go than equality of outcome, and what he says about freedom of speech and how the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people what they can and can't say.

He made a show of Newman, though. It was crazy to the point where she actually started to agree with him and see his point.

I don't think a minority of his supporters sending her threats really helped though.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
I don't think a minority of his supporters sending her threats really helped though.
IIRC that's a claim that was never actually proven

And really, even if that did happen, he can't really be blamed for it unless he goaded them into doing it in some way. People with followings will always have dipshits doing stupid things in their names.

If we're going to hold Peterson responsible for his fans then Beyonce and Justin Bieber have some explaining to do, given the way their fans can be. They can be vicious, send death threats. Taylor Swift fans too.

Yeah and he even said that if anyone was doing it they should knock it off lol

And to those who didn't watch that "MIC vs Jordan Peterson" video, let me tell you about one thing from it to show you the kind of people on these leftist sites.

They make fun of Peterson for tearing up when talking about...the high amount of male suicide, especially in males under 45. Made fun of him for it.

Originally posted by Surtur
If we're going to hold Peterson responsible for his fans then Beyonce and Justin Bieber have some explaining to do, given the way their fans can be. They can be vicious, send death threats. Taylor Swift fans too.

And yet you regularly hold all "leftists" responsible for idiotic behaviour by individuals.

Originally posted by jaden101
And yet you regularly hold all "leftists" responsible for idiotic behaviour by individuals.

Those damn leftist cucks, amirite?

Originally posted by Surtur
Those damn leftist cucks, amirite?

Urnotrong

Don't forget progressive fascist snowflake muzzrats

I really hate progressive fascists. They're so bad.

Only thing worse is all those conservative communists.

the real hidden threat are the mormon anarchists. just wait until they mobilize.

Originally posted by BackFire
I really hate progressive fascists. They're so bad.

Only thing worse is all those conservative communists.

I hate the dipshits who claim they are against fascism and yet act like fascists.

Hey guys I'm anti racism! Oh, ignore my slaves. I said I'm anti racism, deal with it.

Well as long as they don't say "Trumper" it's all good.

surt's more of a house-trumper

So Bash feel free to post the specific things about Jordan you disagree with. Like what has he said you don't like?

same as a regular trumper, but bakes cookies for his bro wearing an apron

If Cathy wanted ammunition against Peterson on women she should have just brought up this:

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240

Originally posted by Beniboybling
If Cathy wanted ammunition against Peterson on women she should have just brought up this:

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240



Lol, show me the whole clip. It's 1:36 and trolls have taken him out. I realize the clever guy who posted this on twitter already mentioned it, but it doesn't negate anything.

Gimme entire clip.

Also, lets be brutally honest: if the clip is as is and Cathy showed it...Jordan would still make a fool of her over it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol, show me the whole clip. It's 1:36 and trolls have taken him out. I realize the clever guy who posted this on twitter already mentioned it, but it doesn't negate anything.

Gimme entire clip. https://i.imgur.com/hf5dfVH.png

yes he's quite insightful

Nonetheless, here is the video it was taken from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ

knock yourself out

Originally posted by Surtur
Also, lets be brutally honest: if the clip is as is and Cathy showed it...Jordan would still make a fool of her over it. Do you agree with what Jordie is saying?

I see what is going on, and this is typical leftist behavior, though not only done by them. So the guy whines about Jordan. Knows his argument is on shaky ground, and thinks he somehow negates any arguments against him by noting what he thinks those arguments will be or what they have been. As if the fact he got it right negates the argument. He doesn't actually respond to all of the arguments he says people will make.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Do you agree with what Jordie is saying?

Why don't you summarize to me what YOU feel he is saying. Because shit like "Sexual harassment in the work place is bad, but I don't see it going anywhere anytime soon" doesn't seem like it should be controversial. So what part of this irks you?

What grinds your gears about the clip? Makes you whine?

Originally posted by Surtur
I see what is going on, and this is typical leftist behavior, though not only done by them. So the guy whines about Jordan. Knows his argument is on shaky ground, and thinks he somehow negates any arguments against him by noting what he thinks those arguments will be or what they have been. As if the fact he got it right negates the argument. He doesn't actually respond to all of the arguments he says people will make.Sorry? At any point in this gibberish dump did you say something of note?

Wow, you are really trying hard to dodge and deflect here. What I feel is that the fact you ommitted the central points of what he said in that clip reveals that you find addressing it uncomfortable. hmm

I had no issues with anything he said. I'm asking what you're whining over, what set you off?

Is it his asking why women wear makeup to work? That what you're whining over? What is it that you have an issue with, explain yourself.

option two is my favourite, it's always very revealing

but no, people wear make up for the same reason anyone does anything to improve their appearance, to look presentable and feel good about themselves. I understand that certain people who don't understand those concepts might feel differently, but there it is.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
but no, people wear make up for the same reason anyone does anything to improve their appearance, to look presentable and feel good about themselves. I understand that certain people who don't understand those concepts might feel differently, but there it is.

Well gee, those 2 sentences sure proved Peterson wrong.

i'd say you're hiding behind his skirt, but peterson would never wear something so provactive.

There isn't any need to hide. Your two sentences actually didn't shut his arguments down.

Cathy the retard would hear what he said and go "So you're saying all women who wear makeup at work want to have sex with their co workers?"

okay surt. now do you have an actual response, or just more appeals to jordie's vast intellect?

A response to what lol. You still haven't told me what your issue is. Is it the makeup comments? What is your issue with what he said?

If you care to actually say what he said you take issue with, I'll be more than glad to respond. I mean, your original clip was less than 2 minutes long. Surely it's not that difficult for you to discuss what irked you.

Stop playing this stupid game. People are not mind readers, just say what you have to say so it can be discuss properly.

Women can and should be able to wear makeup for their own reasons, and any person who gives them unwanted sexual attention is 100% responsible for their own actions. It is on them.

Let's also acknowledge that even without makeup women are capable of being attractive and therefore sexually provocative. And what about t*ts and bums? Even somewhat form fitting clothing can make these more noticeable and therefore, provocative, as can anything that can be construed as making women look pretty.

The logical conclusion of Jordan's line of thinking is therefore obvious, all women should wear burqas.

all praise Ayatollah Peterson

Well I will admit that I do not know as much about makeup as you guys, I will defer to your greater knowledge on that.

It would seem Peterson still have some things to learn, like everybody else.

Well it depends on what he means by "women who don't want to be sexually harassed" because it's possible he could be referring to the modern definition of sexual harassment where HR forbids hugging (as was mentioned in the video), where some women consider any compliments to their appearance sexual harassment, or flirting sexual harassment, or being asked out sexual harassment.

Because in the exact same clip he both said that it would be desirable if there were no sexual harassment in the work place and that he specifically clarified that he wasn't saying women shouldn't wear make-up or that there shouldn't be any sexual displays in the workplace, both of which seem antithetical to what his later statement in the video is being interpreted as. And the idea that he's saying women shouldn't wear make up or make sexual displays in the workplace is contradicted both by his clarification that he wasn't asserting that make-up rule as his actual opinion, and that he found the no hugging rule absurd.

If he was referring in his last statement to women who hold the stance on sexual harassment that any comments on their appearance, any flirtation, being asked out, etc. sexual harassment, then the overall point he's making in the video is internally consistent: What he views as sexual harassment shouldn't be in the workplace and rules like no hugging are absurd, but it's hypocritical to draw attention to your appearance or make a sexual display in the workplace while having some puritanical expectations of men's interactions with you ie. no flirtation, no compliments on one's appearance, the no hugging rule from HR.

That would be more consistent than his overall work, and it would be the same position held by other people who have expressed similar displeasure with the modern sex culture, such as criticism of feminists who simultaneously hold the positions that women should be able to flaunt their sexuality however much they want, but then define any flirtatious romantic or sexual encounter that makes them uncomfortable as sexual harassment (flirtation, asking a woman at a bar if you can buy them a drink, telling a woman they look good, etc.)

He could've misworded what would otherwise be a very astute point that is consistent with what he said in the interview, consistent with his other work and statements, and consistent with what other people have said who agree that the modern sex culture and third feminists expectations of how men/women interactions should be are cancer, or he could be saying something at the end that completely contradicts everything else he said in the interview and contradicts a lot of other things he's said about male impulse control. If it's the former, I agree 100%, if it's the latter, then I condemn the statement and disagree with it. I'd like to see some clarification on this before jumping to an absolute conclusion.

That being said, even taken at the worst possibility, which is what is being presented by Joker and our resident soyboy Benjamina, it would be a bad statement but not one that discredits the merits of any of the many good points and impacts he's made throughout his vast body of work, ie. the individualist messages, the criticism of modern progressivism, the free speech activism, the countless citations his work has received within his field, the countless people he's pulled away from the alt-right or helped become more responsible people in their day to day lives.

And also, assuming the worst of the two interpretations, let's not conflate sexual harassment with sexual assault and suggest that he's "victim blaming" women who are groped or molested or raped or whatever.

same logic could be applied to body building. i'm not equating that with strength training and practical stuff like that, but rather targeting biceps/pecs/abs/etc, in order to look more attractively proportioned. mind you, i take no issue with the practice and it's really a cross-gender thing at this point anyway. however it is worth pointing out that these folks are putting lots of hours and energy into altering themselves, in order to look more attractive.

Yes because there is some utility beyond physical appearance to make-up and high heals.

I'm sure people use make-up and high heels with the intent of protecting their skin from the sun and getting things high up on shelves.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
but no, people wear make up for the same reason anyone does anything to improve their appearance, to look presentable and feel good about themselves. I understand that certain people who don't understand those concepts might feel differently, but there it is.

Interesting. Why do you think it is women wearing makeup on a vastly higher scale than men?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes because there is some utility beyond physical appearance to make-up and high heals.

I'm sure people use make-up and high heels with the intent of protecting their skin from the sun and getting things high up on shelves.

I'd also argue the amount of men who put hours and hours into body building isn't really proportional to the amount of women who wear some sort of makeup.

i've never seen anyone sculpt their body in 4 minutes while driving at 8:52 am, but okay sure why not.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well it depends on what he means by "women who don't want to be sexually harassed" because it's possible he could be referring to the modern definition of sexual harassment where HR forbids hugging (as was mentioned in the video), where some women consider any compliments to their appearance sexual harassment, or flirting sexual harassment, or being asked out sexual harassment.

Because in the exact same clip he both said that it would be desirable if there were no sexual harassment in the work place and that he specifically clarified that he wasn't saying women shouldn't wear make-up or that there shouldn't be any sexual displays in the workplace, both of which seem antithetical to what his later statement in the video is being interpreted as. And the idea that he's saying women shouldn't wear make up or make sexual displays in the workplace is contradicted both by his clarification that he wasn't asserting that make-up rule as his actual opinion, and that he found the no hugging rule absurd.

If he was referring in his last statement to women who hold the stance on sexual harassment that any comments on their appearance, any flirtation, being asked out, etc. sexual harassment, then the overall point he's making in the video is internally consistent: What he views as sexual harassment shouldn't be in the workplace and rules like no hugging are absurd, but it's hypocritical to draw attention to your appearance or make a sexual display in the workplace while having some puritanical expectations of men's interactions with you ie. no flirtation, no compliments on one's appearance, the no hugging rule from HR.

That would be more consistent than his overall work, and it would be the same position held by other people who have expressed similar displeasure with the modern sex culture, such as criticism of feminists who simultaneously hold the positions that women should be able to flaunt their sexuality however much they want, but then define any flirtatious romantic or sexual encounter that makes them uncomfortable as sexual harassment (flirtation, asking a woman at a bar if you can buy them a drink, telling a woman they look good, etc.)

He could've misworded what would otherwise be a very astute point that is consistent with what he said in the interview, consistent with his other work and statements, and consistent with what other people have said who agree that the modern sex culture and third feminists expectations of how men/women interactions should be are cancer, or he could be saying something at the end that completely contradicts everything else he said in the interview and contradicts a lot of other things he's said about male impulse control. If it's the former, I agree 100%, if it's the latter, then I condemn the statement and disagree with it. I'd like to see some clarification on this before jumping to an absolute conclusion.

That being said, even taken at the worst possibility, which is what is being presented by Joker and our resident soyboy Benjamina, it would be a bad statement but not one that discredits the merits of any of the many good points and impacts he's made throughout his vast body of work, ie. the individualist messages, the criticism of modern progressivism, the free speech activism, the countless citations his work has received within his field, the countless people he's pulled away from the alt-right or helped become more responsible people in their day to day lives.

And also, assuming the worst of the two interpretations, let's not conflate sexual harassment with sexual assault and suggest that he's "victim blaming" women who are groped or molested or raped or whatever.

Bingo. If anyone thought it somehow negated any of the many good points Peterson has made...they are hilariously wrong.

Or we could dispense with the mental gymnastics and assume Jordan meant what he said.

Do you think every behavioral difference has to be because of societal norms because you seriously think the Science supports that, or because you think it is more ideologically convenient?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Do you think every behavioral difference has to be because of societal norms because you seriously think the Science supports that, or because you think it is more ideologically convenient? you sound mad.

But no, not interested in answering your loaded question.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
you sound mad.

But no, not interested in answering your loaded question.

:translation: He can't answer the question.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
aMcjxSThD54

I mean this is just hilarious.

Almost every single time - minus 2 specific examples - she reframed his statements with either a strawman or something not even close to what he said.

At about 15 minutes in, I wish he would have said, "How about stop trying to reword what I said and just stick to my actual words? You're most certainly never getting right."

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"i have a phd, so my clinically marginal opinion and sweeping generalizations are fact"

have fun buying into this clown's dogshit and being a lonely angry ball of self pity for the rest of your lives.


I just noticed this post...


It seems like you're projecting. A lot.


And I read the subsequent arguments against you and your position, as well: you refused to be specific at all about what you're referring, too, here. You quite obviously don't want to take a position because he didn't misspeak and the points he made that were backed by actual research are rather ubiquitous at this point (at least in socio-political academia).


Instead of being a coward and dodging people asking you to clarify your vitriolic and inflammatory post, perhaps you could actually clarify which of his points were sweeping generalizations and not fact? It should not be very difficult or time consuming at all to pick just one and cite a credible study if his points are so obviously rubbish to you.

Originally posted by The Ellimist
...Does someone have a counter to the simple argument that differences in outcomes only prove differences in opportunity if you assume zero relevant biological differences between men and women, and that this is patently absurd? I'm honestly curious because Cathy didn't provide any but there are some smart people on these boards so I'd like to hear from them.

No, it is just not the case when the population is viewed as a whole.

There are clearly specific examples but they are rather rare. One such example ended up becoming law in 2009 and it is called Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 specifically for a gender-pay issue she experienced at work (this law allows people like her to bring up equal pay lawsuits more readily...sounds simple but it's not. Just look it up if you're interested...you might enjoy it).

But the situation she (Kathy) tried to imply really does not exist for the extreme majority of the population in most Western Countries.



Research has been done on poorer countries and outcomes DO exist that directly relate to gender. When you have the option to get an education in Nursing instead of having to walk 50km to get clean, drinkable water (potable) for your family, then you can understand why there are significant differences in poorer countries compared to their Western counterparts.

aww more hurt feefees?

He said that?

And I thought religion was the only thing he was a nut about.

don't forget the covert neo-marxists taking over our universities

Oh those are pure on LEFTIST FASCISTS at this point.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
you sound mad.

But no, not interested in answering your loaded question.

Damn, we were so close to getting you to actually make a point about something.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
don't forget the covert neo-marxists taking over our universities
quote?

Originally posted by The Ellimist
Damn, we were so close to getting you to actually make a point about something. i did make a point darling, but you chose to ignore it because you find the implications upsetting.

DVF810zFtqE

^^Relevant cuz Peterson is shown a few times. Lol.

Side note: does Megan McCain hate herself? Why would she want to be on this show?

I watched a segment about him on Vice news. He randomly brought up the make up thing in the segment during the interview they were doing with him and it was as stupid as was hinted at here in this thread. It was straight up juvenile and was some r/iamverysmart material. Some people are saying they think the interview was edited to make his point weaker, but the statement on its face is so laughable that it's hard to imagine a strong argument in favor of it.

The interviewer does mention and ask him about how he walks people who are on the fence of the far right back, which if true, good on him.

The Vice piece on him was mostly horseshit. And why won't they release the full interview?

Also lol@ the video getting 6k upvotes and twenty five thousand downvotes. Will Vice take the hint?

Best thing about Jordan is the people who despise him are the ones who created him. SJW's did this. Their hysteria did this. They made him rich and famous, lmao!!

Originally posted by BackFire
I watched a segment about him on Vice news.


Well....I've come to discover that Vice is extremely liberal. While some things are quite interesting that they put out, I approach their content with caution especially when it is directly or indirectly related to political or socio-political topics.

Originally posted by BackFire
He randomly brought up the make up thing in the segment during the interview they were doing with him and it was as stupid as was hinted at here in this thread. It was straight up juvenile and was some r/iamverysmart material. Some people are saying they think the interview was edited to make his point weaker, but the statement on its face is so laughable that it's hard to imagine a strong argument in favor of it.

The interviewer does mention and ask him about how he walks people who are on the fence of the far right back, which if true, good on him.

I'll take a look.

Vice gets a Red Pill from Jordan Peterson.

WfpOEV26sXM

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Vice gets a Red Pill from Jordan Peterson.

WfpOEV26sXM

While this video is very good about breaking down the Vice interview...



No one (for the most part) is going to watch it that needs to watch it. And only those (for the most part) who already believed the Vice interview was not genuine or honest, are going to watch this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
While this video is very good about breaking down the Vice interview...



No one (for the most part) is going to watch it that needs to watch it. And only those (for the most part) who already believed the Vice interview was not genuine or honest, are going to watch this.

True, but surely the people here who are against JP can spare 12 minutes to watch it. Especially those who foolishly used this interview to go after him.