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.
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?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Last edited by Surtur on Feb 10th, 2018 at 03:48 PM
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.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
One point he brought up was the make up bit. He’s right, it’s been proven make up has been us since it was first created as a way to attract the opposite sex.
Another point was the NBC mandatory hugs. Forcing something like that on people is not progressive, it actually hurts people on the long run.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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?"
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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?
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
The problem with what Peterson is saying is that he’s shifting the blame from men to women in regards to sexual harassment. Claiming that women who wear makeup are somehow hypocritical if they don’t want to be sexually harassed is an almost incomprehensibly draconian way of thinking. Women should be able to beautify themselves without any fear of being labeled as someone who ‘asked for it’ (which is what many people say due to Peterson’s line of thinking).
The bottom line: makeup is not an indication of sexual availability. At all. I’m even surprised that more men aren’t insulted themselves from what Peterson said; he’s making men seem like some ravenous animals with no impulse control.
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.
__________________
Last edited by Beniboybling on Feb 10th, 2018 at 06:27 PM
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.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
KMC Community Forums
Feb 10th, 2018 03:33 PM
