The Honesty of Transgender Identity

[JazzGal]

Why? If 7/10 is worth listening to, then 10/10 means you found your soulmate!

But the conversation will quickly become boring, unless one is the type that has no interest in learning anything more than what they already believe they know.

 

[DutchJazzer]

This is as good a thread as any.

Recently been listening to Jordan Peterson debates and open forums.

He seems quite intelligent and I find myself agreeing with him a lot.

What are people’s thoughts on him? Good, bad and what am I missing?

whatc out people will ccall you alt right and jordan peterson is 100% hate speech or so i have been told. yes i do listen to him quite a lot. read both his books also

 

[DutchJazzer]

battlefield v will fail.

because ea listened to the sjw's who literally are socialist and do buy things. adnd now people ar eboycotting battlefield v and sjw are not buycotting the game

 

[Stoked]

battlefield v will fail.

because ea listened to the sjw's who literally are socialist and do buy things. adnd now people ar eboycotting battlefield v and sjw are not buycotting the game

Over female characters?

Get over yourself. If someone doesn’t buy this game over female soldiers it’s because they’re a dumbass.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Over female characters?

Get over yourself. If someone doesn’t buy this game over female soldiers it’s because they’re a dumbass.

i never played battlefield i dont like it

gamers complained it is not historically accurate. then the headhonchos in charge of public relations told people are undecudated and dont buy the game. so now sales is down. basically it is trending to flop. usually it is not because of the whamen.

usually it is agenda pushing. like in star wars. mary sue has become a mary sue without training she stands her own, then without training she beats luke skywalker. it took luke lots of training and even losing his hand to beat vader and the emperor. yet he only wa sable to beat him by teaming up. so some chick comes in and beats him up and on top of that they had to tear him down. they made him drink ***** milk from lochness monster. throwing away his lightsaber. all because he was outshing the whamen in the clip. they killed off general akbar for a purple haired sjw WHAMEN. basically they nerf the men, and op the women. and the Asian chick is a sjw hating on "capitalism". same for solo a literal sjw robot. it is all because star wars fans hate whamen. princess leia was 1 of the strong female characters people loved her. but they did not had to nerf the man around her. han and her bickering some of great movies

all female reboots/movies failed. like ghost busters whamen edition, ocean 8 whamen edition! and now with the lame *** terminator movie all whamen edition. 1 even being genderless but played by a whaman see the pic

they forgo great/good storytelling for agenda pushing.

movies with strong women have done better. recently bad moms. growing up we had princess leia who stood her own in a bickering battle with solo. we had ripley from alien, we had sarah conor from terminator, hell even more recenlty kill bill .
hell some of the best games ever had female leads like tomb raider en resident evil.

but suddenly gamers and people in geek culture are racist?

what i am saying usually when they make a big deal out of putting women in games and movies, they are actually putting in WHAMEN. and the movie becomes a sjw agenda pushing hogwash. with no coherent universal story

dont tell me it is because we hate whamen. because we love WOMEN!

 

[DutchJazzer]

when we dont like something because it is agenda pushing. we are racist sexist bigotted homphobic. nazis or whatever.

those words are becoming meaningless! but people keep doubling down.

 

[Stoked]

TLDR

 

[Zombie]

TLDR TDDR

FTFY

 

[candrew]

Yes really. Some opinions are so ****ing terrible that I don't really care what else someone might have to offer.

I don't know what you're all bent out of shape over. Enforced monogamy is an anthropological term - it infers that the accepted social norms should lean towards people being in monogamous relationships; which supposedly leads to a more harmonious society. It doesn't mean forcing unattached women to attach themselves to unattached or undesirable men or blaming women because men who can't get laid can tend to become violent.

I disagree with Peterson because enforced monogamy could lead to a whole set of other unintended problems - unhappy marriages, divorce, depression, children in broken/stressful homes, financial strife. In short getting married at 22 because of societal norms or pressures is more of potential problem than a 40 year old virgin that can't get laid.

 

[Zombie]

I don't know what you're all bent out of shape over. Enforced monogamy is an anthropological term - it infers that the accepted social norms should lean towards people being in monogamous relationships; which supposedly leads to a more harmonious society. It doesn't mean forcing unattached women to attach themselves to unattached or undesirable men or blaming women because men who can't get laid can tend to become violent.

I disagree with Peterson because enforced monogamy could lead to a whole set of other unintended problems - unhappy marriages, divorce, depression, children in broken/stressful homes, financial strife. In short getting married at 22 because of societal norms or pressures is more of potential problem than a 40 year old virgin that can't get laid.

He brought it up in response to a question about the incel van driving murderer. He is advocating for the idea that the reason these men are driven to violence is due to their inability to find sexual partners, his solution to this problem isn't that these men need to improve themselves, rather that women need to stick with a single sexual partner so that these men have more opportunities in the sexual marketplace. Yeah, it's not as bad as rounding women up and handing them out ala Handmaids Tale, but it's still a pretty ****ed up and backward way of looking at things. And it reinforces in these young damaged minds that it's women who are to blame for their problems.

You are right though that the idea of 'enforced monogamy' alone is not the problem here. Looking at Petersons comments in context though, are plainly ****ed up.

I see a lot of people on the right complain about how often he is misinterpreted. (I think the guy is purposely vague for this very reason) Frankly, Peterson does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Take a look at the photo JimLes posted for a good example of why this is the case.

 

[DutchJazzer]

FTFY

He brought it up in response to a question about the incel van driving murderer. He is advocating for the idea that the reason these men are driven to violence is due to their inability to find sexual partners, his solution to this problem isn't that these men need to improve themselves, rather that women need to stick with a single sexual partner so that these men have more opportunities in the sexual marketplace. Yeah, it's not as bad as rounding women up and handing them out ala Handmaids Tale, but it's still a pretty ****ed up and backward way of looking at things. And it reinforces in these young damaged minds that it's women who are to blame for their problems.

You are right though that the idea of 'enforced monogamy' alone is not the problem here. Looking at Petersons comments in context though, are plainly ****ed up.

I see a lot of people on the right complain about how often he is misinterpreted. (I think the guy is purposely vague for this very reason) Frankly, Peterson does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Take a look at the photo JimLes posted for a good example of why this is the case.

you are too misinformed to undertsand jordan b peterson.

 

[candrew]

He brought it up in response to a question about the incel van driving murderer. He is advocating for the idea that the reason these men are driven to violence is due to their inability to find sexual partners, his solution to this problem isn't that these men need to improve themselves, rather that women need to stick with a single sexual partner so that these men have more opportunities in the sexual marketplace. Yeah, it's not as bad as rounding women up and handing them out ala Handmaids Tale, but it's still a pretty ****ed up and backward way of looking at things. And it reinforces in these young damaged minds that it's women who are to blame for their problems.

You are right though that the idea of 'enforced monogamy' alone is not the problem here. Looking at Petersons comments in context though, are plainly ****ed up.

I see a lot of people on the right complain about how often he is misinterpreted. (I think the guy is purposely vague for this very reason) Frankly, Peterson does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Take a look at the photo JimLes posted for a good example of why this is the case.

I imagine you're referring to his interview in the NY Times. I'll preface this by saying I've read the NY Times since I was in 6th grade - I also have an online subscription (ok, I use my Dad's login, lol)

I feel like you're interpreting Peterson's words though the filter of the person who interviewed him. Who, quite clearly either has no idea what forced monogamy is or knows what it is and decides to use that phrase as a springboard to tear him apart while assuming none of her readers knows what it means.

Here's the exchange from the interview:

Recently, a young man named Alek Minassian drove through Toronto trying to kill people with his van. Ten were killed, and he has been charged with first-degree murder for their deaths, and with attempted murder for 16 people who were injured. Mr. Minassian declared himself to be part of a misogynist group whose members call themselves incels. The term is short for “involuntary celibates,” though the group has evolved into a male supremacist movement made up of people — some celibate, some not — who believe that women should be treated as sexual objects with few rights. Some believe in forced “sexual redistribution,” in which a governing body would intervene in women’s lives to force them into sexual relationships.

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

“Half the men fail,” he says, meaning that they don’t procreate. “And no one cares about the men who fail.”

I laugh, because it is absurd.

Then the reporter goes on to say this.

But aside from interventions that would redistribute sex, Mr. Peterson is staunchly against what he calls “equality of outcomes,” or efforts to equalize society. He usually calls them pathological or evil.

This is classic bait and switch - Peterson doesn't even remotely say this. She takes something that some online group of **** heads (Incels) believes and then mixes it with a vague term that Peterson uses to create the impression that Peterson aligns with them. Complete hack job.

As I said earlier I enjoy reading up on Peterson because he challenges about 30% of what I believe and reinforces about 70% (including universal health care, equality of opportunity, encouraging legal immigration, etc). I can't spend my whole life listening to Rachel Maddow and reading Huff Post and Slate Magazine.