DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Again, you do a lot of reading in to things that aren't there. I never used the word "some", I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society. And I didn't say sexism doesn't happen, I implied that what you call sexism is often just a triviality or justifiable behaviour, and you certainly seem to be exaggerating its relevance to Uber, whose problems certainly seems to be the typical regulatory and "worker's rights" complaints.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society. But such things are ludicrous when you look at things impartialy. Women benefit inordinately more from wealth redistribution schemes, they benefit from progressive actions schemes, they get off much lighter for identical crimes as men, they disproportionately win family court cases and have higher attendance at universities and achieve higher grades than men, and they commit suicide around 4 times less often. And then, even though things like feminism and affirmative action have wide-spread institutional support, people attack Jordan Peterson having the temerity of being a role model for young men and standing up for their interests. No wonder!
I love how you start this post by countering my deliberately-charitable interpretation of your words with an even more batshit insane claim, lol. "Not some people with social justice leanings, but ALL of them"- you're hilarious!
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/13/1579 ... huffington
Having read personal accounts of women who have quit Uber I think it's a fair judgement to call their workplace culture sexist.
The word sexism itself is tied to the sjw ideology and theories of patriarchy and such that state that women are under widespread oppression in society
Just because critique of patriarchy exists that doesn't mean "sexism" automatically means that in all contexts. Aren't you someone who complains about sexism against men?
Also, you're very transparently taking this opportunity to rattle off a bunch of MRA propaganda/talking points when the conversation wasn't even about that. I said Uber had a sexist workplace and now you're veering off-topic to talk about overall suicide rates, like, what are you smoking..?
As for Jordan Peterson I think you're deliberately oversimplifying people's criticism. I know lots of people make fun of his "clean your room" advice, but it's undeniably good advice. Critique is more often given towards the fact that he uses these techniques to build an audience of lonely/despondent young men and then provides them a gateway into alt-right ideology with his grandiose anti-postmodernism ranting and such.
What self-respecting SJW could call xerself a SJW if xer didn't constantly rant about sexism and the patriarchy? It's a part of the definition of the label.
Sexist jokes in the workplace? Oh, the humanity! No wonder men don't want women in the workplace if they are writing up exposés every time someone makes a joke (and it's only jokes that are offensive in some way that are truly funny). Everyone has to experience unpleasant bosses, unpleasant coworkers, unpleasant workplace environments, and so on. What's worse than this "culture of sexism" is the culture of the the victim mentality and the culture of infantilisation and treating adults as if they are emotionally-fragile children. Adults shouldn't need the state to intervene to sort out problems like workplace bullies.
And sexism against men? Does such a thing really exist? Indeed, even most dictionaries seem to state that sexism is typically against women. but the word sexism is basically feminist jargon, so it's not like I'd ever actually use the word myself. I'm not against traditional gender roles, since their utility is rooted in biology, and I'm not against employers choosing whatever arbitrary grounds for employment that they want, as it's their money they're giving away, and I believe in freedom of association, and people should have the right to associate with whatever type, race or sex of people they choose to.
Things like toleration vs not tolerating things is inherently a balancing act; there are certain behaviors and people you shouldn't tolerate, and there are those you should, and you need to discern these things apart. For example, obviously if you're an employer you should discriminate against drug addicts. But as for women and non-whites, it depends. Some jobs may be inherently unsuitable for women, take combat roles in the army as I've mentioned in previous stories, and in that circumstance discriminating against men is unjust. If you had to choose between a white man and a black man given equal credentials and a finite amount of information, it'd be more prudent going with the white man since in most locations whites are less prone to criminality and therefore presumably more likely to be a better employee. Or take discrimination purely on the basis of race, maybe you inherently prefer being around people of your own race so actively discriminate so you don't have to associate with people of other races, that's a valid reason and not a faulty assumption, and although the other party would no doubt be upset, withholding services is within your rights.
Anyway, that's my perceptive is "discrimination", "sexism", "racism" and the like. It's nuanced and you can't oversimplify certain types of behaviours as always good or always bad. Also note that technically discrimination is defined as something that is always unjust and wrong, however I just define it as exclusion of a certain group, however just those reasons might be.
As for Jordan Peterson, saying he's some gateway drug to some extreme right-wing view is silly. Firstly, he's fundamentally an anti-totalitarian and that's quite a pervasive point in his works. He accurately points out the arrogance of ideologues, thinking they know everything about the world, which one would need to determine a few select things as the cause of all troubles, be it the Jews or Capitalism or the patriarchy. If anything he's far more likely to deradicalise young men already radicalised by one ideology to another, and his message boils down to "sort yourself out", "get a job, work to improve your life and the lives of those around you", which is as good advice you can give. His advice doesn't stem from a political inclination, but rather from psychology, philosophy and life experience, and he was never aiming at the male demographic (and indeed he has plenty of advice for women), it just so happened that men are the ones who need the advice at this point in time. I'd reference his book 12 Rules for Life which I bought and has a lot of interesting points and condenses a lot of his lectures, however I'm not at home at the moment. The criticism of Jordan Peterson are often nothing more than people upset because his conclusions go against their ideology and thus attack him by whatever means possible, when any sane person can tell that he is largely a beneficial influence whatever things they may be able to nitpick about him.
And concerning things like Post-modernism and cultural Marxism, they are real things and not some "right-wing conspiracy". Post-modernism, generally summarised as radical subjectivism, and the claim that there is no objective truth, and that truth is merely used as a means of power and control, is a real thing. And it's basically the philosophical backing behind many beliefs of progressives, such as the patriarchy, behind the ideals of radical equality and tolerance in which no culture, even radical Muslim fundamentalist cultures, are judged to be inferior or undesirable. And of course remember the term "racism = power + prejudice"? It's basically straight out of the post-modernist handbook. Cultural marxism is simply the modern culture of Marxism brought over from the 19th and 20th century, with many similarities minus the Bolshevism, which was finally and utterly discredited, despite the best efforts for Western Leftist intellectuals for decades to maintain its credibility. Just read some classic literature like Crime and Punishment which Peterson goes on about a lot, it was published in 1866 yet the socialist characters within it are remarkably similar to modern-day SJW. Of course it's hard to prove where the ideas originated, but the label of cultural Marxist with many ideas traditionally associated with Marxism is as good as any.
Momi wrote:
B1rd wrote:
I really have no idea what you're trying to say, but I think that calling someone batshit insane constitutes an attack. Furthermore, just look at the type of people who posted the Tweet.
his implication seems to be that the "wish for brutal male domination" comes from some assumed characteristic of "abusing women", assumed to be possessed by "muslims" and assumed to have a prevalence of 100%. the assumption makes no sense sadly, it's statistically wrong. if that is not the assumption and his assumption is closer to reality, then the "wish for brutal male domination" would be incompatibile with it.
example - i support the rights of black people not because of my wish for brutal crime, but because my brain is big enough to filter statistics, percentages, and understand words with more than 8 letters. sorry for an idiotic example.
Even groups where negative tendencies are directly implied and very significant, like "people who have a desire to kill someone" (isn't that very simple?) are simplifiable as a "higher percentage number on a chart" and have not done anything yet. Do you think thought crimes are a good idea? I'm not sure if you do but a tendency of a group is even weaker than a thought crime because not even a thought is guaranteed.
this can apply to any group, who knows - maybe gingers have a higher tendency of school shootings... i bet there are some interesting statistics and tendencies out there.
B1rd wrote:
I said your group, implying all people with social justice leanings, are defined in part by their exaggeration of sexism against females, both in its frequency, impact and relevancy to society.
as someone with social justice leanings, my observations lead me to think that sexism is experienced in more or less equal intensity by both genders. but it also presents itself in different ways for each, so if one only looks into certain types/sources of sexism, they might weirdly misinterpret it as [insert gender] experiencing ALL sexism more than the other.
imagine if MRAs and feminists united into one group, it would be pretty cool i promise
Are you okay, or are you just not good at formulating arguments? It's weird to use the words "assume" and "assumption" six times in one sentence. But as for the claim, it was never implied that 100% of Muslims were violent, but the fact that Muslims are in general much more violent and oppressive towards women than people in Western countries should be self-evident and is backed by statistics. The claim that women unconsciously wish for brutal male domination is harder to back up, but there have been studies for example that women often have rape fantasies and a lot of women orgasm during rape, so it's plausible enough. Certainly I've heard accounts of the former point by
supposed women.
Making judgement about demographics based on statistics though is definitely not the same as prosecuting someone for a thought crime. Of course statistics don't give you the right to prosecute someone who hasn't committed a crime, but you can of course choose whom to associate with based on that information. And people do it all the time. For example, you would be more likely to pick up a hitchhiker dressed in a suit and tie rather than a scraggly homeless man, or walk through a well-manicured upper-class suburb that a slum, and such decisions can basically be summed up as making judgement about statistics of which group of people are more likely to be a threat to you or commit some undesirable behaviour.
And it's a good observation to note that pretty much all demographics have their own problems, thus it's not good to focus on the problems of one group to the exclusion of all others, such as feminists making out women to always be the victims and men to be the aggressors. Such antagonism can only lead to mutual hostility and not any actual problem-solving. I remember hearing on a radio once going one about how some issue or another was still a "gendered issue" when the percentage of victims was something like 55% women.
Anyway, that's all for tonight.
