Originally posted by Robtard
Though admittedly, his ability to attract dudebro types is alarm raising. But I'm not judging the man solely on that as even sensible people can attract shitlords for all the wrong reasons.
If for the sake of argument his points are valid but it's "dudebros" backing him and your side hating him, that doesn't speak very well for your side's judgment.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you were totally forced and bound by duty to keep your scope and eye zero'd in on the goat f**king Afghanistan man. Totally. *wink* *wink*
Are you this stupid?
You’re giving a sector of fire. You’re job, is to scan that area non stop. It’s just so happens that there are two grown as man ****ing a goat at 12. You cannot just say **** it, am done.
I also like how you completely skip the part about court martial.
Originally posted by Robtard
Got it, you had to keep constant vigilance on the goat three-way, never pulling your scope and eyes away, just in case one of those guys pulled an AK out of the goat's butthole and tried something. You were ready.
Nice one.
Still can’t prove me wrong I see? That’s alright, continue living in you’re nice bubble.
Originally posted by Robtard
I admit, I laughed at the 'your side' implication. But the end part of what I said could explain the position you're taking. ie "for all the wrong reasons."
No, I was talking about the implications on "your side", not the implication on the "dudebros". Two separate things.
Originally posted by Surtur
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.
Originally posted by Beniboyblingyes he's quite insightful 😂
Nonetheless, here is the video it was taken from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blTglME9rvQ
knock yourself out 🙂
And I know this because the full conversation actually got released without the sneaky edits and jump-cuts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsz0DHwzAvc
And the full unedited clip actually substantiates the alternative interpretation of Peterson's statements I made in one of my previous quotes in this thread.
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.
So as snarky as that twitter leftie you were screenshotting was, yes, the clip was deceptively edited to make Peterson look bad. And as much as my plausible interpretation of what he meant by that statement got ridiculed in this thread, it is more reinforced by the full unedited clip than the worst possible interpretation you were running with.
How sad Beni, all that snark from you and the twitter dude, the scoffing at the possibility that the clip was deceptively edited, the scoffing at the alternative interpretation of what Peterson's stance actually was... all to be proven wrong on both accounts 🙁
Oh dear, I watched that full 17 minutes expecting to find something that supported you're reading and not only found nothing, but found it was even worse. 😆
My favourite part was the bit about negligee. facepalm
Now, let's review:
VICE: Do you feel like a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace that she is somewhat being hypocritical?JP: Yeah.
VICE: OK
JP: I do think that.
VICE: OK, let's move on.
JP: I don't see how you could not think that. It's like, makeup is sexual display. That's what its for.
Originally posted by |King Joker|👆
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.
no more excuses pls.
Dear lord you blithering idiot, he is not saying women shouldn't wear make-up you ****ing moron, and he's certainly not saying that women who wear make-up deserve to be raped or sexually assaulted, he made that much clear at the end of the video, and he certainly made it clear in the video that people have a responsibility to behave sexually in a way that isn't reprehensible and has in this interview and in other statements advised people to be more responsible sexually.
Like shit, he clarified that the overall he was making was that there should ideally be some allowed two-way sexual provocativeness and tension in the workplace to an extent that isn't reprehensible, while still maintaining the freedom of individuals within the workplace rather than completely restricting their style of dress and behavior. He also said that authoritarian rules in the work place like Maoist dress codes were a worse alternative than our current paradigm than where people can dress however they want.
That makes it pretty clear that the point he was making was that it's unreasonable to expect a completely sexually devoid work environment unless you're willing to completely restrict people from dressing in a provocative manner.
He was criticizing the "no hugging rule" one company had, the rule a company had that you have to report on your coworkers if they're in a romantic relationship, he said authoritarian dress codes were undesirable, and that he doesn't agree with the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to wear make-up. And at the end he very clearly agreed that provocative clothing was no excuse for sexual assault, so he's clearly not saying "it's okay to sexually assault someone based on what they're wearing."
He even said at the very end that he thinks a proper work environment would allow for people's freedom to dress how they want with people not behaving sexually in a reprehensible manner, so clearly he doesn't find the mutual existence of make-up/high heels and an environment where behavior that is sexually reprehensible by his standards is an unreasonable request, but he does find it unreasonable to wear make-up/high heels and have some puritanical expectation of no sexual tension or interaction in the workplace whatsoever. The former of those two proposals which is his stance is internally consistent, the latter of the two which is what his statements are clearly meant to criticize via the context Vice completely cut from the initial video is not internally consistent at all.
It's perfectly reasonable to expect no sexual assault or just blatantly abusive statements in the workplace regardless of what you're wearing, but if you are going to enforce a work environment where hugging, any form of flirtation, any consensual relationships between coworkers is considered inappropriate then it makes no sense to allow women to dress in a way that accentuates their sexual characteristics.
That's basically exactly in line with what I said:
Originally posted by Emperordmb
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.)
Like ****, you're taking a statement from the video where the context provided by the rest of his statements suggests that he was referring to women who consider any sexual atmosphere in the workplace to be sexual harassment. What you are taking away from that single part of the video you are obsessed with completely contradicts his statements earlier that sexual harassment is bad, rules like no hugging in the workplace are ridiculous, and that he's not saying women shouldn't wear make-up in the workplace, and contradicts his fleshed out and stated as his conclusive stance that there should be some element of sexual tension and liberty with clothing in the workplace with people relegating their sexual interaction with each other to being not reprehensible.
Like I suspected this before the full unedited video was released, but holy **** now that it is released it should be obvious that that short statement you keep referring to was a lack of precision in what he was saying, rather than what you're trying to take from it which would suggest Jordan Peterson doesn't actually believe what he ultimately concluded at the end of that discussion (which is that an element of sexual display/tension/interaction in the workplace is reasonable while expecting people not to behave in a reprehensible manner) or with the initial premise he held at the beginning of the discussion which was that companies are being too authoritarian with the ways they are regulating sexual behavior in the workplace.
Let me repeat, the discussion starts with Jordan Peterson saying companies are too authoritarian with these issues (such as banning hugging), and concludes that the most reasonable solution is a work environment with some sexuality where people restrain themselves from acting in a reprehensible manner. It's so obvious from all of the context that you seem content with ignoring that the entire point of the discussion is criticism of the notion of dressing in a way that accentuates sexual characteristics and expecting a workplace devoid of any sexual atmosphere, rather than criticizing the notion of dressing in such a way and expecting not to be inappropriately touched or groped or raped. And the next discussion they have is how people should exercise sexual responsibility even in consensual relationships when they're dating someone. The suggestion that he's saying it's justifiable to behave sexually in a reprehensible manner towards someone based on their clothing is incongruent with how he concluded the discussion, and the notion that he's saying men bare no ethical responsibility for their sexual behavior is completely at odds with how he concluded the discussion and with his stance in the next discussion.
You're acting like I'm pulling shit out of my ass to try and hear what I want to hear when I'm holistically looking at the context of the entire conversation (the initial premise that sparked the discussion and Peterson's own concluding statements on the matter of how to resolve the issue of sexual harassment), whereas you are obtusely ignoring literally everything else in the conversation that contradicts the point of view you are trying to paint Peterson with because you don't like him or me and want to extract the most damning perspective you possibly can on him. Well sorry, you're weighing your view on one statement (that could plausibly have been an error in precision with a much more innocent interpretation actually in line with everything else he said) against an orgy of evidence in the same video that contradicts the view you are trying to paint Peterson with.
I gave the benefit of the doubt because when only the edited video was present your view seemed plausible enough, but now that the full length video has been released with things that completely contradict your interpretation of his statement, this is just really sad, disingenuous and pathetic.
If you disagree that make-up and high-heels are sexually provocative then that's you're prerogative, I don't think thinking those things are sexually provocative is a particularly morally damning stance even if incorrect, but if you still think that Peterson is saying men can't and shouldn't be expected to control their sexual behavior (which not only contradicts the rest of this video, but literally every other statement Peterson has made in regards to sexuality and responsibility), and that clothing style is justification for reprehensible sexual behavior (which he said it wasn't at the end of the video), then you're either being deliberately obtuse or disingenuous.