|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 12, 2020 1:45:43 GMT
I've heard Peterson talk a lot and I don't think I've ever heard him qualify any of his speech on this subject with the facts I've given above, even when had plenty of time to do so. There's fringe lunatics on both the radical left and right, with plenty of fanatical hatred and delusion. I don't see a huge distinction there. The issue is what constitutes "radical" and what constitutes "radical fringe lunatics" and what constitutes more normal left/right and moderates. There are a ton of people on both sides who love to hold up the lunatic fringe as being the radicals, and hold up moderates as being radicals--basically, they perceive the other side as being more towards the extremes than they actually are. Of course they do this because it makes it much easier to argue against strawmans rather than more reasonable positions. I'm suggesting that what Peterson presents in that video is closer to a strawman, that even if there are some on the left that believe that, they are likely not the majority. "Intellectualizing" and "semantics" is part of the job of science and philosophy. I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's how it is. It's stupid to have two terms to refer to the same thing. We need a means of talking about both biology and sociology and how they affect other in terms of sex and our concepts of masculine/feminine. I also think you got it backwards; the brain is more largely responsible for what signals the body receives, not the other way around. We also have to realize that brain is biology as much as body is. Just because we see a body and our experience of a mind is how someone acts doesn't make the latter any less biological. Your last question is a good one, and it's one that we need to carefully answer going forward with people who feel they're transgender, especially kids. From what little I know of the transition process, it's a long one that includes many incremental changes and often years of tests (many psychological) and persistence. So generally by the time someone has transitioned it's something they've wanted for a long time without having changed their mind. Can we KNOW they'll be happy once they transition? No, but we also know many people are miserable in the body they were born in, so sometimes the devil you know isn't necessarily better than the one you don't. It is just compounding the issue, by compartmentalizing the spectrum of the far reaching ideals of either partisan stance. So yes, semantics and intellectualizing something that doesn't need to be, is creating more confusion. They are either common sense issues or not and these appear to exist toward the center, or in the middle. Peterson didn't even comment on the "majority" of radical lefties, he just just claimed "radical". This is perhaps a more appropriate and professional term, than just claiming them as 'fundie', or 'extremist'. He didn't negate science either in his talk. Peterson appears to talk in a manner that is not going to go above the head of most, nor is he trying to impress with rhetoric and terms of intellectual snobbery, that is esoteric knowledge. That is wise.
Depending on where the trauma is in the body, the nerve endings will then send a signal to the brain that something is not quite right. Well, it all works in with each other, but the brain is not going to respond to a signal from the body that has not been triggered, unless it is head\brain trauma. If you stub your toe, the toe will be the first receptor, not the brain.
It is just psychological conditioning that is confusing kids. They need to be allowed to be who they are, in terms of tastes and what they like and are drawn to without being told they are wrong, but when we pander to something that is going to have detrimental effects in the long run, kids also need to learn there are consequences for every action. Some things may not be easily undone, or perhaps never undone. And while we like it or not, life is also a game and there is an expectation of attitude and behavior. The gender flux issue, is just going to make things worse, if they can't function and accept the biology they are born with. That can't be wholly reversed, no matter what is attempted.
The body is not permanent and there are more serious physical disabilities and maladies that humans can suffer, than some spoiled brat who wants attention, because they were born with a dork and not a huhu. If they have full functional use of all their limbs, their hearing and sight and the rest of their body is functional normal, TG psychological issues can take a backseat as far as I'm concerned. It is not relevant to the bigger picture.
Semantics and intellectualizing absolutely "needs to be," because otherwise you have people using words vaguely and stupidly. Science and good philosophy works because of semantic precision and intellectual rigor. "Common sense" is colored by millions of humans biases, which is further colored by limited human experiences and perceptions. Neither are reliable in correctly understanding complex issues, and sometimes even simple issues. Peterson is on a cable channel that loves to present inaccurate pictures of the left typically by presenting fringe/extreme cases as the norm and he's doing the same thing, and he's misrepresenting the science on the matter while doing so. Whether he's doing this intentionally or ignorantly only he knows, I'm not going to make any accusations on this front; I'm just pointing out his mistakes. You can accept them or not. Peterson is not a perfect thinker; no intellectual is. I think you misunderstood about my brain sending signals to the body. I'm obviously not denying pain works like you describe, but that's not what I was talking about; but it's not really important. I don't disagree with your third paragraph in the abstract, but that's the problem; it's rather abstract. How do you eliminate "conditioning" from society? How do we determine what will have detrimental effects in the long run with any given issue? You can't stop typical males/females from exhibiting typical male/female traits, and you can't stop transgender people from perceiving those traits and recognizing the difference between those people and themselves; and then how are you going to stop them from feeling that they're in the wrong body, or tell them they shouldn't change themselves? It's much easier for the small number of transgender people to change their bodies than for all of society to stop showing typically masculine/feminine traits and pressuring others to conform. We're social animals; it's what we do. Of course, it's easy for you to say "TG/psychological issues can take a backseat" when they don't affect you. Typical complete lack of sympathy/empathy and telling others what they should/shouldn't be concerned about. Hopefully you'll never have to deal with any traumatic psychological issues and have others tell you you shouldn't be concerned about them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 8:05:59 GMT
It is just compounding the issue, by compartmentalizing the spectrum of the far reaching ideals of either partisan stance. So yes, semantics and intellectualizing something that doesn't need to be, is creating more confusion. They are either common sense issues or not and these appear to exist toward the center, or in the middle. Peterson didn't even comment on the "majority" of radical lefties, he just just claimed "radical". This is perhaps a more appropriate and professional term, than just claiming them as 'fundie', or 'extremist'. He didn't negate science either in his talk. Peterson appears to talk in a manner that is not going to go above the head of most, nor is he trying to impress with rhetoric and terms of intellectual snobbery, that is esoteric knowledge. That is wise.
Depending on where the trauma is in the body, the nerve endings will then send a signal to the brain that something is not quite right. Well, it all works in with each other, but the brain is not going to respond to a signal from the body that has not been triggered, unless it is head\brain trauma. If you stub your toe, the toe will be the first receptor, not the brain.
It is just psychological conditioning that is confusing kids. They need to be allowed to be who they are, in terms of tastes and what they like and are drawn to without being told they are wrong, but when we pander to something that is going to have detrimental effects in the long run, kids also need to learn there are consequences for every action. Some things may not be easily undone, or perhaps never undone. And while we like it or not, life is also a game and there is an expectation of attitude and behavior. The gender flux issue, is just going to make things worse, if they can't function and accept the biology they are born with. That can't be wholly reversed, no matter what is attempted.
The body is not permanent and there are more serious physical disabilities and maladies that humans can suffer, than some spoiled brat who wants attention, because they were born with a dork and not a huhu. If they have full functional use of all their limbs, their hearing and sight and the rest of their body is functional normal, TG psychological issues can take a backseat as far as I'm concerned. It is not relevant to the bigger picture.
Semantics and intellectualizing absolutely "needs to be," because otherwise you have people using words vaguely and stupidly. Science and good philosophy works because of semantic precision and intellectual rigor. "Common sense" is colored by millions of humans biases, which is further colored by limited human experiences and perceptions. Neither are reliable in correctly understanding complex issues, and sometimes even simple issues. Peterson is on a cable channel that loves to present inaccurate pictures of the left typically by presenting fringe/extreme cases as the norm and he's doing the same thing, and he's misrepresenting the science on the matter while doing so. Whether he's doing this intentionally or ignorantly only he knows, I'm not going to make any accusations on this front; I'm just pointing out his mistakes. You can accept them or not. Peterson is not a perfect thinker; no intellectual is. I think you misunderstood about my brain sending signals to the body. I'm obviously not denying pain works like you describe, but that's not what I was talking about; but it's not really important. I don't disagree with your third paragraph in the abstract, but that's the problem; it's rather abstract. How do you eliminate "conditioning" from society? How do we determine what will have detrimental effects in the long run with any given issue? You can't stop typical males/females from exhibiting typical male/female traits, and you can't stop transgender people from perceiving those traits and recognizing the difference between those people and themselves; and then how are you going to stop them from feeling that they're in the wrong body, or tell them they shouldn't change themselves? It's much easier for the small number of transgender people to change their bodies than for all of society to stop showing typically masculine/feminine traits and pressuring others to conform. We're social animals; it's what we do. Of course, it's easy for you to say "TG/psychological issues can take a backseat" when they don't affect you. Typical complete lack of sympathy/empathy and telling others what they should/shouldn't be concerned about. Hopefully you'll never have to deal with any traumatic psychological issues and have others tell you you shouldn't be concerned about them. It is what I was talking about though, in response to you suggesting I had it backwards. I haven't argued with you that brain isn't biology and have always stated it is organ and that mind is more and beyond brain.
Common sense is what is rational mind in terms of thinking and action. It can't be anything but and perception and insight also work in with this. Terms can be important, but there are so many of similar meaning in the English language, that it is anything but precise and never often is. Sometimes though, yes, sharpness can shine through. That is up to each person though to make that connection.
Science, as a complex and complicated study, is something that most people, regardless of how intelligent they are, is ever going to be something that most will fully comprehend. Any scientific claims made can also appear meaningless, as it will only connect with those in a specialized field and even then, it can be conjecture and speculation. Like psychology and philosophy, it in itself can also be abstract. For Peterson, he will take what is researched largely through his own field of study to make analysis and comprehension out of his findings. As a professional, that is all that can be asked of him and the manner of delivery of the message is key. I will need to source more interviews with him though, especially regarding his own sense of science to make up my own mind here.
I am not going to waste my time on phony sentimentality, sympathy and preciousness of others, when they are all caught up in the image of "self" and connect with the body as the be all end all of everything. You do realize this is arrogance of thought and mind? I will reserve my empathy and compassion for what I feel is more relevant and worthy, and I already gave you an example of how I put these TG psychological issues into perspective.
You know nothing about me, or what I have experienced in my life, nor I you. You have no business to claim what I should or shouldn't be concerned about. Are you suggesting that I should be concerned about what you believe is important? That can only make one look selfish and conceited and not to mention hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 12, 2020 21:36:40 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
That lady is an irritating asshole. She misinterprets everything and twist things around. Peterson spends half his time straightening out each question. Everybody else understood his book. She acts like she was more confused after reading his book. Same with his answers and statements. She keeps responding, "So, you're saying . . . " and Peterson almost always responds, "No. I'm not saying that at all." His answer/statement was completely clear. Why didn't you understand you dumb bitch? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 12, 2020 21:43:01 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
In the beginning, she ask him, "Why do you think men need to grow up? She follows his answer with, "So, what's gone wrong?" Peterson responds, "Well many things." In my opinion, many men today don't feel a need to "grow up". Women now go to college, get degrees, get jobs and make lots of money. Men today can "get laid" with a snap of a finger.
Why should they "grow up"? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 12, 2020 22:12:20 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
One point he made perfectly clear --- WHICH SHE NEVER UNDERSTOOD --- was men and women want different things. Most women don't want to dedicate their lives to be highly paid CEO's. What an irritating idiot that woman was. |
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Feb 12, 2020 22:18:56 GMT
That is where they want us. It is about top end white collar vocations that feminists focus on. They are not interested in equality within the trades and construction and heavy duty labour roles. This is the domain where women are not largely interested. Even many males do not want to do these jobs. It is about having men serve the system and being dominated over. Feminists want equality of outcome manipulated on their own selective terms. Equality is just a ruse. It can’t and won’t ever exist in this world. Too many differences dictate. Actually I don't want to sound like the proverbial "angry white male" because I'm not. White males are the most privileged human beings on earth. But what annoys me is that white females from privileged middle class backgrounds have manipulated affirmative action. No one helps the working class white male. Women are now almost 60% of college graduates and are dominating new management positions. Working class males are digging ditches and working construction. How many women do you see doing construction or highway maintenance? Zero. If the working class white male would admit he needs help from a failing economy for all workers and lay the blame on where it belongs instead of whining that it’s Libs, it’s the women, it’s the affirmative action, it’s anything but the vestiges of Reaganomics, then his plight will improve. But the working class white male would rather rip the whole bar apart than admit he’s as vulnerable as any other minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 12, 2020 22:20:52 GMT
Most women don't want to dedicate their lives to be highly paid CEO's. Of course, you didn't pull this claim out of your ass and based it on solidly established scientific data, right?
Next question: let's say this were true. Why the fuck would it even matter? What mileage are you trying to get out of it? What interesting points follow logically from it? Did it ever occur to you to think that, even if true, this was something purely cultural that could change or maybe even should change?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 12, 2020 22:35:47 GMT
Most women don't want to dedicate their lives to be highly paid CEO's. Of course, you didn't pull this claim out of your ass and based it on solidly established scientific data, right?
Next question: let's say this were true. Why the fuck would it even matter? What mileage are you trying to get out of it? What interesting points follow logically from it? Did it ever occur to you to think that, even if true, this was something purely cultural that could change or maybe even should change?
First of all, my post you are quoting says that was a statement made by Peterson that that lady couldn't understand. I never said it was true, I agreed, or it was scientifically proven. Secondly, what's your point? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 23:33:39 GMT
Not a bad interview—is 30 mins—and I don't mind watching Cathy Newman, but she does tend to ask black and white questions when rattled, as though it can then be answered as an absolute when there are other factors at play that make up the entire equation. That is her way of trying to get one-upmanship on someone who is smarter than her. She also got rattled and lost for words when she was processing something Jordan said about causing offense when they were discussing transgender issues. The truth in this instance is what he said, the truth. You can't argue with an absolute and she was literally choking to respond.
Peterson knows his stuff and for the most part remains very conducted and calm. He speaks things for what they are, not for what they get painted out to be and are supposed to represent. The gender pay gap has always been a contentious issue, but is always easy to debunk, but some people, feminists mostly, just cling to it as though it is what they hang their entire movement onto to make their phony claims look credible.
Equality of opportunity, nice for those that wish to pursue certain careers that are highly driven, but equality of outcome is a fallacy. The opportunity is never going to determine the consequence of outcome which is and always has a capricious and unpredictable nature. It is about wanting to control the outcome, when it will become what it is. This is really about some feminists saying we want this as a given because of our gender, not because of cutting the mustard and willingness to play the game.
Expecting men to be more like women to even the playing field, is because they aren't prepared to be more like men, because of the differences in gender dynamic. It is absurd to think that men are going to change to become something women think they should be due to some sort of arrogant entitlement.
That lady is an irritating asshole. She misinterprets everything and twist things around. Peterson spends half his time straightening out each question. Everybody else understood his book. She acts like she was more confused after reading his book. Same with his answers and statements. She keeps responding, "So, you're saying . . . " and Peterson almost always responds, "No. I'm not saying that at all." His answer/statement was completely clear. Why didn't you understand you dumb bitch? Well, I don't mind Newman as an interviewer, but she had her own cards she wanted to play. She just got hustled. She wanted to take his argument and catch him out by thinking she was cleverer than Peterson was. She is a smart lady, with a typical distorted feminist agenda and cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 12, 2020 23:39:43 GMT
That lady is an irritating asshole. She misinterprets everything and twist things around. Peterson spends half his time straightening out each question. Everybody else understood his book. She acts like she was more confused after reading his book. Same with his answers and statements. She keeps responding, "So, you're saying . . . " and Peterson almost always responds, "No. I'm not saying that at all." His answer/statement was completely clear. Why didn't you understand you dumb bitch? Well, I don't mind Newman as an interviewer, but she had her own cards she wanted to play. She just got hustled. She wanted to take his argument and catch him out by thinking she was cleverer than Peterson was. She is a smart lady, with a typical distorted feminist agenda and cause. If so, he wiped the floor with her. She did her feminist agenda a disservice by acting like mysogynists say women are --- too stupid to run a company, argumentative, unable to understand simple statements/commands, unable to work with others, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 23:42:04 GMT
Actually I don't want to sound like the proverbial "angry white male" because I'm not. White males are the most privileged human beings on earth. But what annoys me is that white females from privileged middle class backgrounds have manipulated affirmative action. No one helps the working class white male. Women are now almost 60% of college graduates and are dominating new management positions. Working class males are digging ditches and working construction. How many women do you see doing construction or highway maintenance? Zero. If the working class white male would admit he needs help from a failing economy for all workers and lay the blame on where it belongs instead of whining that it’s Libs, it’s the women, it’s the affirmative action, it’s anything but the vestiges of Reaganomics, then his plight will improve. But the working class white male would rather rip the whole bar apart than admit he’s as vulnerable as any other minority. Is the working class white male a minority though? Are working class white women a minority? Working class, regardless of what creed, have always been kept down by a minority of the ruling establishment. That is what revolutions have been about. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 23:44:56 GMT
Well, I don't mind Newman as an interviewer, but she had her own cards she wanted to play. She just got hustled. She wanted to take his argument and catch him out by thinking she was cleverer than Peterson was. She is a smart lady, with a typical distorted feminist agenda and cause. If so, he wiped the floor with her. She did her feminist agenda a disservice by acting like mysogynists say women are --- too stupid to run a company, argumentative, unable to understand simple statements/commands, unable to work with others, etc. I get the impression, that what is being promoted by society currently, is that males are not allowed to empower themselves over and above females, because of just how awful they have been in the past. That sounds more like revenge than resolve to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Feb 12, 2020 23:51:24 GMT
No one helps the working class white male. If the working class white male would admit he needs help from a failing economy for all workers and lay the blame on where it belongs instead of whining that it’s Libs, it’s the women, it’s the affirmative action, it’s anything but the vestiges of Reaganomics, then his plight will improve. But the working class white male would rather rip the whole bar apart than admit he’s as vulnerable as any other minority. Is the working class white male a minority though? Are working class white women a minority? Working class, regardless of what creed, have always been kept down by a minority of the ruling establishment. That is what revolutions have been about. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.
Yes. He is. Everyone is a minority now if you break the white male demographic from the female. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.Few conventional wars have been about this. Even the American Revolution was about freehold landowners wanting to break free from the Prince, not the workers. And while the establishment is also a minority, that does not affect their status or advantage wealth affords them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 12, 2020 23:58:14 GMT
Is the working class white male a minority though? Are working class white women a minority? Working class, regardless of what creed, have always been kept down by a minority of the ruling establishment. That is what revolutions have been about. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.
Yes. He is. Everyone is a minority now if you break the white male demographic from the female. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.Few conventional wars have been about this. Even the American Revolution was about freehold landowners wanting to break free from the Prince, not the workers. And while the establishment is also a minority, that does not affect their status or advantage wealth affords them. A minority compared to what?
Using the workers to get what they wanted, because of their status and wealth. WWI, the ruling class and royals were fearing a working class revolution, so created a war and masked it as patriotism\nationalistic pride. They wanted the herd to fight each other, it helped retain and even boost their own status and wealth by pitting them against each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Feb 13, 2020 0:15:08 GMT
Is the working class white male a minority though?
Yes. He is. Everyone is a minority now if you break the white male demographic from the female. This is part of the reason wars have been instigated.Few conventional wars have been about this. Even the American Revolution was about freehold landowners wanting to break free from the Prince, not the workers. And while the establishment is also a minority, that does not affect their status or advantage wealth affords them. A minority compared to what?
Using the workers to get what they wanted, because of their status and wealth. WWI, the ruling class and royals were fearing a working class revolution, so created a war and masked it as patriotism\nationalistic pride. They wanted the herd to fight each other, it helped retain and even boost their own status and wealth by pitting them against each other.
To all the other minorities or non-white people and white women. And being a minority is not just about population size, but the group’s power relative to the establishment. White working class males only enjoyed their power at the largess of the White establishment. That’s eroded away in recent decades. Especially in the South. If you lump all white men (and I’m talking about American men) they are not a minority, but you specified white working class men. Go to any factory and count the whites males vs the minorities. I know in transportation, there is now more total non-white men than white. As such these white guys have less chance for advancement because there is a bigger pool of people who happen to be non-white and white female and who are just as qualified to advance. It’s interesting that you’re taken aback by this.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 13, 2020 0:20:04 GMT
If so, he wiped the floor with her. She did her feminist agenda a disservice by acting like mysogynists say women are --- too stupid to run a company, argumentative, unable to understand simple statements/commands, unable to work with others, etc. I get the impression, that what is being promoted by society currently, is that males are not allowed to empower themselves over and above females, because of just how awful they have been in the past. That sounds more like revenge than resolve to me. I've had lots of jobs in my life. The best boss I ever had was a woman. And she was nothing like that chick. I think woman GENERALLY are better suited for management positions than men. Men want to be bosses. Their mantra is "Do what I say. I don't pay you to think. I don't care what you think. Do what I say or quit. Or you will be fired." Women GENERALLY care about their subordinates. And treat them with respect. They want to manage. Not boss. Those are general statements. Everybody is different. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 13, 2020 0:41:42 GMT
A minority compared to what?
Using the workers to get what they wanted, because of their status and wealth. WWI, the ruling class and royals were fearing a working class revolution, so created a war and masked it as patriotism\nationalistic pride. They wanted the herd to fight each other, it helped retain and even boost their own status and wealth by pitting them against each other.
To all the other minorities or non-white people and white women. And being a minority is not just about population size, but the group’s power relative to the establishment. White working class males only enjoyed their power at the largess of the White establishment. That’s eroded away in recent decades. Especially in the South. If you lump all white men (and I’m talking about American men) they are not a minority, but you specified white working class men. Go to any factory and count the whites males vs the minorities. I know in transportation, there is now more total non-white men than white. As such these white guys have less chance for advancement because there is a bigger pool of people who happen to be non-white and white female and who are just as qualified to advance. It’s interesting that you’re taken aback by this. I am not taken aback by anything yet. I wanted you to clarify and expand on your point because I wasn't quite clear on what you meant by "minority". I was looking at it as numbers, not so much the community of dominance which is a good point and where white working class males have reigned in the past. I don't always rely on stats, these are not quite expressive of the entire picture and can be anecdotal, but do give an indication of trends. That is why there is so much contention regarding migration and part of the reason the UK have this Brexit debacle. Political shortsightedness of how it's own people were feeling.
I don't live in the US, so I can only go by what I have experienced and perceive, but the US has a population bursting at the seams and the diversity will be so much more apparent. It still boils down to exploitation by the ruling establishment, just at the expense of those from migrant and\or ethnic backgrounds are being herded into these labor roles. Cheap labor!
As for females, equality is only being gained in certain (smaller pockets) sectors which does not include the more physically demanding, construction, trade and infrastructure roles which working class males of many creeds do dominate. Soon to be ruled over by female bosses, because they have become pussy assed... 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 13, 2020 0:51:29 GMT
I get the impression, that what is being promoted by society currently, is that males are not allowed to empower themselves over and above females, because of just how awful they have been in the past. That sounds more like revenge than resolve to me. I've had lots of jobs in my life. The best boss I ever had was a woman. And she was nothing like that chick. I think woman GENERALLY are better suited for management positions than men. Men want to be bosses. Their mantra is "Do what I say. I don't pay you to think. I don't care what you think. Do what I say or quit. Or you will be fired." Women GENERALLY care about their subordinates. And treat them with respect. They want to manage. Not boss. Those are general statements. Everybody is different. I think it depends on the quality and professionalism of the person and not what is between their legs. I have had both male and female bosses. Where I work at present, is largely female dominated, but that is only a sub-sector of a bigger whole. Previous jobs, the corporate management appeared to be dominated by arrogant and douchy white males, but this was over 10yrs ago.
I just think females can be more sentimental than males and that might not always be the best trait either, especially if a job needs to get done and males do tend to have a different dynamic and energy when working together, than females would. In some instances I do see women looking out for other women, as I have also seen men looking out for own brethren. That is just the nature of the gender beast. Thing is, I feel some women want to change men into being like them, as though it will make it easier for them to understand, or even control them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Feb 13, 2020 0:53:41 GMT
A minority compared to what?
To all the other minorities or non-white people and white women. And being a minority is not just about population size, but the group’s power relative to the establishment. White working class males only enjoyed their power at the largess of the White establishment. That’s eroded away in recent decades. Especially in the South. If you lump all white men (and I’m talking about American men) they are not a minority, but you specified white working class men. Go to any factory and count the whites males vs the minorities. I know in transportation, there is now more total non-white men than white. As such these white guys have less chance for advancement because there is a bigger pool of people who happen to be non-white and white female and who are just as qualified to advance. It’s interesting that you’re taken aback by this. I am not taken aback by anything yet. I wanted you to clarify and expand on your point because I wasn't quite clear on what you meant by "minority". I was looking at it as numbers, not so much the community of dominance which is a good point and where white working class males have reigned in the past. I don't always rely on stats, these are not quite expressive of the entire picture and can be anecdotal, but do give an indication of trends. That is why there is so much contention regarding migration and part of the reason the UK have this Brexit debacle. Political shortsightedness of how it's own people were feeling.
I don't live in the US, so I can only go by what I have experienced and perceive, but the US has a population bursting at the seams and the diversity will be so much more apparent. It still boils down to exploitation by the ruling establishment, just at the expense of those from migrant and\or ethnic backgrounds are being herded into these labor roles. Cheap labor!
As for females, equality is only being gained in certain (smaller pockets) sectors which does not include the more physically demanding, construction, trade and infrastructure roles which working class males of many creeds do dominate. Soon to be ruled over by female bosses, because they have become pussy assed...
More like heavy lifting is no longer as necessary as it once was. Women can load a truck as well as a man, because they can drive forklifts too. All working class are becoming subordinate to automation. And the old “head of the household” excuse to pay men more than women no longer applies since women are just as likely to head families. The working class white male is blaming the people once “below” him for stuff being done above him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 13, 2020 1:07:31 GMT
Semantics and intellectualizing absolutely "needs to be," because otherwise you have people using words vaguely and stupidly. Science and good philosophy works because of semantic precision and intellectual rigor. "Common sense" is colored by millions of humans biases, which is further colored by limited human experiences and perceptions. Neither are reliable in correctly understanding complex issues, and sometimes even simple issues. Peterson is on a cable channel that loves to present inaccurate pictures of the left typically by presenting fringe/extreme cases as the norm and he's doing the same thing, and he's misrepresenting the science on the matter while doing so. Whether he's doing this intentionally or ignorantly only he knows, I'm not going to make any accusations on this front; I'm just pointing out his mistakes. You can accept them or not. Peterson is not a perfect thinker; no intellectual is. I think you misunderstood about my brain sending signals to the body. I'm obviously not denying pain works like you describe, but that's not what I was talking about; but it's not really important. I don't disagree with your third paragraph in the abstract, but that's the problem; it's rather abstract. How do you eliminate "conditioning" from society? How do we determine what will have detrimental effects in the long run with any given issue? You can't stop typical males/females from exhibiting typical male/female traits, and you can't stop transgender people from perceiving those traits and recognizing the difference between those people and themselves; and then how are you going to stop them from feeling that they're in the wrong body, or tell them they shouldn't change themselves? It's much easier for the small number of transgender people to change their bodies than for all of society to stop showing typically masculine/feminine traits and pressuring others to conform. We're social animals; it's what we do. Of course, it's easy for you to say "TG/psychological issues can take a backseat" when they don't affect you. Typical complete lack of sympathy/empathy and telling others what they should/shouldn't be concerned about. Hopefully you'll never have to deal with any traumatic psychological issues and have others tell you you shouldn't be concerned about them. It is what I was talking about though, in response to you suggesting I had it backwards. I haven't argued with you that brain isn't biology and have always stated it is organ and that mind is more and beyond brain.
Common sense is what is rational mind in terms of thinking and action. It can't be anything but and perception and insight also work in with this. Terms can be important, but there are so many of similar meaning in the English language, that it is anything but precise and never often is. Sometimes though, yes, sharpness can shine through. That is up to each person though to make that connection.
Science, as a complex and complicated study, is something that most people, regardless of how intelligent they are, is ever going to be something that most will fully comprehend. Any scientific claims made can also appear meaningless, as it will only connect with those in a specialized field and even then, it can be conjecture and speculation. Like psychology and philosophy, it in itself can also be abstract. For Peterson, he will take what is researched largely through his own field of study to make analysis and comprehension out of his findings. As a professional, that is all that can be asked of him and the manner of delivery of the message is key. I will need to source more interviews with him though, especially regarding his own sense of science to make up my own mind here.
I am not going to waste my time on phony sentimentality, sympathy and preciousness of others, when they are all caught up in the image of "self" and connect with the body as the be all end all of everything. You do realize this is arrogance of thought and mind? I will reserve my empathy and compassion for what I feel is more relevant and worthy, and I already gave you an example of how I put these TG psychological issues into perspective.
You know nothing about me, or what I have experienced in my life, nor I you. You have no business to claim what I should or shouldn't be concerned about. Are you suggesting that I should be concerned about what you believe is important? That can only make one look selfish and conceited and not to mention hypocritical.
Common sense and rationality are two completely different things. Common sense are adaptive biases applied to everyday circumstances; rationality is the study of what forms of reasoning reliably map reality. Sometimes those two things overlap, but just as often they do not. Common sense tells us not to walk off a cliff, but rationality helps us to explain gravity. You can't use common sense to explain gravity, but without common sense we probably wouldn't have survived to be able to. Yes, many scientific fields are large and complex; this hardly prevents us from learning many things from them. There are many popular science magazines that even report findings to general audiences with the technical jargon removed. Yes, some science is also only of interest to those in specific fields, but when we're talking facts of human psychology, like now as it relates to sex and gender, then the science on the issue surely isn't only a specialized interest. Yet there are plenty of people making all kinds of claims about this stuff without knowing a lick of the science, and that's disturbing. I'm sure Peterson is reasoning from what research he knows, but that hardly means he knows all of the relevant research. This isn't a knock against him because, as the saying goes, "art is long, and life is short," and we are finite beings who can only know so much; but it's a reminder to not take his word as Gospel. In fact, don't take any intellectual's word as Gospel. Listen to many, keep an open mind, and try to separate the good from the bad. There needn't be anything phony about sympathy unless you're a sociopath with no conscience. We all suffer for a variety of reasons, so it's not unreasonable to have some respect for that suffering and try to ease and heal, rather than harm, regardless of the source. It's human nature to worry about our "self image" as it affects how we interact with others and vice versa. Saying "don't worry about it" might work if we were all loners and hermits, but it's not as easy in mutually dependent societies. This is nothing to do with arrogance. The desire to be accepted by others is not arrogance in the slightest. If anything, arrogance is the opposite, the belief that you're perfect and don't need to change anything because others and what they think don't matter. Arrogance takes confidence and adds that "lack of conscience," sociopathic element. I didn't claim to know anything about you. I said that I hope you don't face any kind of mental trauma only to have people tell you what you feel is trivial and unimportant, as you're doing with transgender people. We should all be concerned with human suffering in whatever form it takes. If you aren't, then fine, I can't make you. But you'll get what you give in life. Personally, I've suffered extreme physical and mental anguish in my life; one is not worse than the other, they can both be absolutely crippling. Would I have had it "easier" if I was transgender? I can't say, but nobody can, and that's the point. You're trying to minimize a mental trauma you know nothing about. It's like people telling victims of depression to just "get over it" without understanding a lick about depression works biologically. I don't know how you can say that the brain is an organ, but that people who are suffering because something's "wrong" in that organ should just "get over it," as if we all have the ability to fix things that go wrong with our brains. Might as well as tell gunshot victims to "get over it." What we, as a society, really need to get over is this delusion that the brain is fundamentally different than the body, that we can fix anything mental as long as we're strong enough. That's a big, fat lie and a big reason why mental healthcare in the US is so appalling.
|
|
