Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Fricken Hamster, Jan 24, 2018.
Why you sad pepe? Jordan Peterson's here and he wants you to go defeat chaos!
Rule 1 has something to do with lobsters...
Rules 2-12 are embrace Pepe
this a jordan peterson topic? theres lots of videos of him making himself look like an idiot but heres a current one about workplace harassment: https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/961461529555210240
he loves pepe cause hes a kermit the frog sounding motherfucker
He makes himself look like an idiot?
Like, did we watch the same video?
Its scary how two people can now watch the same video and see completely different things - and how successful George Soros has been at dismantling society and turning people against each other.
"women and men have only been working together for 40 years" ahh yess ignoring the other millions of years
"men are groping and raping women in the workplace because they dont know the rules"
NO MAKEUP. MAKEUP AND HIGH HEELS GETS ME ALL HARD
heavily implying makeup is the reason why women are harassed (hes just asking questions though!)
implying that women should forever leave workplaces and go become homemakers for men, which fits great with his dumbass traditionalist christian ideology
i watched the full interview and that clip in the tweet is like the only thing of substance that is actually said in the entire interview. everything else is like semantic bs saying nothing
also this guy's whole thing is whining about CREEPING MARXISM. for a guy whining about "readymade ideological solutions" his whole belief structure is just whatever the boilerplate right wing christian position is
arent you offended by jordan peterson's implication that men are inherently rapists and need to be separate from women at all times?
or do you believe him, and thus should we go about covering women up in cloth, to mitigate the threat of them being raped?
we must stay at home and let the whamen work so we can't rape them. ez fix
Everyone quickly read this guide:
" ahh yess ignoring the other millions of years" - um... no. For the last 300 years men and women have mainly worked apart. Pre-industrialisation they might have worked together - but that was within family / small social units.
"NO MAKEUP. MAKEUP AND HIGH HEELS GETS ME ALL HARD" - I mean... other than concealer, that is actually its stated purpose. Its not a conspiracy. Up until recently, lipstick was only worn by prostitutes. I'm not saying that if you dress up as a priest that people should be allowed to forcibly make you conduct sermons - but you can't be surprised or offended when people adopt a more confessional tone around you.
"his whole belief structure is just whatever the boilerplate right wing christian position is " well, there's a lot of European classicism too. You're right, at a time when society is being dismantled how dare he seek solace or inspiration in the received wisdom of happier times...
ranger, ddd, and mcgyver need to stop trolling jordan b peterson
i would argue hunter-gatherer societies. the group people lived in would be the overall "workplace." in that workplace and they would have different jobs within that workplace. i also dont know if you are arguing that men are destined to always harass women (or at least for a very long time)?
makeup is used to make people more presentable and confident about their appearence. no, lipstick was not "only worn by prostitutes up until recently." it was created and much much later became a symbol of prostitution. However it was always popular, and if it was always popular it wasnt only worn by prostitutes. come on man.
i wonder what the rape/murder/crime rates were in the glory days of european classicism... (is the longing for european classicism the new "i wish i was born in the 80s"?)
I guess Peterson is saying that we always have the chance to choose what kind of society we want. His point was that the addition of female population to the workforce had unforeseen consequences that may need to be regulated depending on the standards we want to stand by and he's noting that we don't know anything for sure and must think and study carefully to shape the community with the standards we want to live in. The alterations are not bad but may have caused complications on various levels of human society that perhaps we still do not understand. After-all all, there is no absolute truth and absolute righteousness. It is clear, however that we wish to take the path of equality and justice according to our current western laws and culture, so it is good we all partly share the same vision and we're not in a chaotic state. He wasn't saying whamen shouldn't wear high heels at or make up at work because penis. It was an example of unforeseen changes to the workplaces environment after a few decades of the women's rights. It's not a bad thing. Keep in mind that nowadays, many can't cope with the rhythm of change, I am 22 and I can't believe how different behavior 18 year-olds have now, including my cousins and their social groups.
I don't think Peterson meant to say whamen should watch out how they wear because men are inherently rapists. That's an argument that only an idiot would use. In fact, some extremist feminists have expressed the belief that men should be trained at school to not rape women. The whole idea is crazy and notice how I said "train" and not "teach".
I don't want to defend him cause I don't know him in person, but I want to believe that an educated person (such as a psychologist or whatever he is) would know better than to make such claims and accusations.
What I gather from what he's saying is that we're oblivious to reality sometimes and just rush to make decisions. He took in from an intellectual's perspective and said "you know what, whamen are provocative with their skirts and make up at the workplace" (the opposite of what we want to hear). What is the efficiency of mixed gender workplace environments in comparison to single-gender ones, if all the workers have the same skill? I don't know the answer to that because I have not seen any statistics and he's right that from a business stand point it may be more efficient to have male only or gender only, compartments in industry. That doesn't mean we want that, or that he wants that. That is an issue that old-school men face and in the future the question may not even need to be asked. They had no time to accustom to the changes, or the chance in fact.
To make my point, I wouldn't use examples like the above. For me it would be better to directly ignore the problem, and solve in indirectly in time. To reduce rape, murder and other crimes I would focus on improving education standards. I wouldn't start a campaign to make women look like cute defenseless kittens and basically force-respec. Hitting hard only leads to a harder response. It's pointless, not efficient and a waste of money. BUT HEY, that's just a politics theory for you. Also complaining about all these things while American primary and secondary education only help those who git gud.
Things like that require time. New generations bring the change, often even without doing anything. I have always worked well with whamen. In fact I've done a bunch of group-projects at my university with only whamen. By that, I don't mean to say "ah I'm so cooperative and progressive and very nice", I mean after elementary school I stopped seeing any difference between gender intellectual abilities (dat boiz vs girls thing).
Idk why people don't want to grow thicc skin anymore. Like I'm not saying we should be brutes and curse at each other for no reason because we are thicc-skinned. We are going for a gentle society that takes care of its people, that doesn't mean we should be weaker as people - we will defend those who are indeed weak, no probs, but not become weak... LIKE IMAGINE IN A THOUSAND YEARS WE MEET THESE RUDE ALIEN PEOPLE WHO CALL US UGLY... wat... Will we force "touchy plz-respec and no h8 propaganda" on those as well, or will we grow some thicc skin?
Also, a full dope Christian society would have some differences with an atheist, agnostic state or something, neutral in general, idk. This ties in with "We shape the standards for our societies" etc.
Sorry for repeating a few things and for the not well structured essay, no particular coherence between the paragraphs etc. ask away. if u disagree with something I probs wrote it wrong
#respecwhamen #peace #piss #ranger2020 #plznoh8 #touchythings #peaonia
sorry it took so long to respond. long week. first off, special thank you to ddd for ignoring my post and instead just liking ranger's. a real hero.
Thank you for making a longer post.
First paragraph: You are putting your own views into his mouth. He never said anything like that. He said its not easy to solve and then when pressured, provided his idea of a solution(no makeup)
second: I have never heard anything about training, only TEACH, and even that word is faced with some resistance. I've taken many classes adjecent to this social justice stuff and never heard the word train. You are in a filter bubble of SJW-hate videos. Training is never a word I've heard in classes or in academic papers.
third: education has nothing to do with intelligence. there are many professors who know nothing and there are some that only know their own field and nothing else
fourth: he never said anything about efficiency in that interview, you are putting your own views on him again. the fact is that women arent provocateurs with what they wear. they are provocateurs just by being women. I can be taking public transit and think a girl in full winter garb is hot just because her hair is in a certain way. thats not on her, its on me. if a guy goes to the gym and spends time styling his hair to look good it doesnt mean hes looking to provoke women or men.
fifth: so would most people. no one is starting a campaign to make women look defenseless.
i mean, congrats on working well with women, but most issues facing women these days isnt regarding men thinking they're dumber, its them harassing them. like what we've been talking about.
having thick skin is great but why cant we just teach people not be pieces of shit to each other instead? or as you've heard: train them
First and Fourth paragraph. Yes I put my own views into his mouth, because that's what he made me think of with his words and I did say "The way I see it" and the like. As BlueSky said, we see different things in the same video. Also, take note that Peterson is a faithful Cristian, which I'm not, so clearly views and intentions of each point made are probably different anyway. Also yes, what you say, being men's fault to think that's they're hot etc, it's the most obvious conclusion. As an objective observer, by using a controversial statement or question such as "No make up at work" or "Are women provocateurs?" you could bring up the real issues behind the problem, which I thought was what he was trying to do. Everything leads to education and character development eventually, even you use the "by nature" card and say "eIyH wHaMen aRe MeNt tO bE pRovOcaTiVe BeCaUsE suBcOnsCious rEproduCtion mEchAniSmS sO mEn HaVe lEveRage if something wrong happens because it's in their nAtuRe tO resPond to seXual pRovOcations" (Caps imply stupid voice). The argument is not wrong, or at least not entirely wrong, OR AT LEAST for most mammals, perhaps humans don't need that mechanism, since sex is enjoyable, so that'd be a reason good enough to have an intercourse and reproduce - going out off topic.
Second Paragraph. I think it was in last's summer news. "Boys in Kenya are trained to not rape" Some said the rest of the world should take note. I just found the choice of words poor. I think the initiative itself was good, teaching self defense to girls and training boys how to respec whamen. It does seem kinda unfair, as in"only girls are taught martial arts and not boys" but I guess Kenya has too many sexual assaults.
Third Paragraph. Yes, I agree only partly with you. All kinds intelligence are not dependent on education, but education can teach how to reason, and amplify one's intellect in various ways. And then there's the teachings of religion that can have some people want to errr... cover women up and things like that, like Peterson suggested I guess.
Fifth. no one is starting a campaign to make women look defenseless. No, they only make them sometimes look defenseless in discussions and advertisements to increase government funding and donations. I think the cause is not funded enough but it's still wrong to use such methods to raise money imo. The problem with this is that leads to anti-men movements and consequentially to anti-women/anti-bitch/anti-feminist/anti-whatever. People who disagree with certain things are automatically thrown to one of those categories, just like the Men's Rights movement in murca is seen by many, even if it has nothing to do with Woman's Rights, it is seen as an extremist fascist misogynist organization which btw has little to none government funding (in murica) (possibly because it has no political use) There's no denying there's no extremists. I'm not saying feminists are evil and men are evil, I'm saying there's no equality and this won't change at this pace (in murica).
Sixth. Feminism doesn't focus solely on rape, but also on issues like wage gap, "speech" and stuff, that's why I said that. I also implied that there's no looking down on them, verbally harassing them (unless it's done in way that you'd do to a friend of course), or even throwing sexual innuendos aka "microassault". Also another point I wanted to make with my personal experience was that all these social problems USA has, do not apply to most of Europe. I have never witnessed or even heard anything in my social groups, in a university of 15.000 students. If something happened there would be so much shit thrown at the aggressor, I mean, there's not enough rape m8 to be even considered. When something is heard about a single rapist the media go crazy and everyone is on alert. Last time it happened was last year, first time I remember but I know cases from the past, turns out he was insane.
Well, I guess in the end the point was that I'm glad I'm not in America to face this issue and hope the situation will improve everywhere. So I won. +1 point for greece! grekland: 1 - usa: 99
Seventh. My point was to be both thicc and well mannered/educated w/e. I think it was clear enough, I said "I'm not saying we should be brutes and curse at each other for no reason because we are thicc-skinned. We are going for a gentle society that takes care of its people, that doesn't mean we should be weaker as people - we will defend those who are indeed weak"
Separate names with a comma.