Jordan Peterson

[Ryika]

Even the most vicious SJWs actually do fight for men’s rights and white people’s rights when it actually makes sense. The common perception otherwise tends to come from right-wing outrage that oppressed people also have a voice now.

No they don't, the "most vicious SJWs" will tell you that men's problems/white people's rights should not be talked about until the bigger problems that minority groups face, are solved. The "most vicious SJWs" see the world as a zero-sum game and they do whatever they feel they need to do to get ahead in the fight for attention.

There are many people who fight for Social Justice and don't act like that at all, and it's really unfair to judge everybody who is pro Social Justice by the extremists, but let's also not pretend like the extremists don't exist.

@thread:
The discussion has already moved on from that topic, but I'm glad people have come to the conclusion that the idea that genetics have almost no influence on how well you do in sports is pretty silly!

 

[BenitoChavez]

It's interesting that the triad of race, gender, and sexuality get most of the attention spilled on identity issues. Some lip service is paid to socioeconomic class, but in my experience most people who think of themselves as left-wing in the US don't care as much about it (with a few stellar exceptions). Cognition, height, appearance in general, and so on don't receive much attention at all.

Where is the outcry over heightists, from the same groups that decry discrimination in general?

If I were to hazard a guess, is that it's because historically, the worst consequences of racism, sexism, and homophobia were decreased political status, slavery, jail, or death. Whereas heightism the worst consequences are social status and unequal pay. While heightism is bad, the others are worse.

I never get why people would even want to be taller. To me it always seemed to mean added discomfort.

As a 6'4" person myself traveling coach in an airplane is not fun. Also tall people have a shorter life expectancy.

 

[stinkubus]

LOL at "heightists". This isn't some logic game with no consequences to real people. Politics is played for keeps, and the stakes are life and death for millions. Trying to cast shade on those who call out racists because they aren't equally vocal about those who discriminate against the short is offensive, callous, and stupid. The day short men are targeted for extermination or police harassment because of their height I will gladly retract that statement.

 

[Broken_Erika]

LOL at "heightists". This isn't some logic game with no consequences to real people. Politics is played for keeps, and the stakes are life and death for millions. Trying to cast shade on those who call out racists because they aren't equally vocal about those who discriminate against the short is offensive, callous, and stupid. The day short men are targeted for extermination or police harassment because of their height I will gladly retract that statement.

You have been Targeted by the Dwarven Supremacy Army. All people over 4 feet tall must be EXTERMINATED!

 

[inthesomeday]

No they don't, the "most vicious SJWs" will tell you that men's problems/white people's rights should not be talked about until the bigger problems that minority groups face, are solved.

Which is true. But instead recognize that men and white people face no problems due to their sex/race that will not be solved alongside the liberation of men and people of color.

The "most vicious SJWs" see the world as a zero-sum game and they do whatever they feel they need to do to get ahead in the fight for attention.

What the hell are you talking about?

There are many people who fight for Social Justice and don't act like that at all, and it's really unfair to judge everybody who is pro Social Justice by the extremists, but let's also not pretend like the extremists don't exist.

Extremists for social justice. Imagine telling someone without an ideological stake in this fight that this phrase was a negative.

 

[Berzerker]

Also tall people have a shorter life expectancy.

I thought that too, but aren't Scandinavians both tall and long-lived?

It does make sense though, the heart has to work harder to pump blood in tall people... I think

 

[BenitoChavez]

I thought that too, but aren't Scandinavians both tall and long-lived?

It does make sense though, the heart has to work harder to pump blood in tall people... I think

There are many factors that go into life expectancy and height is only one of them. I'd wager that Scandinavian countries being wealthy and having good health care probably outweighs being tall.

 

[Ryika]

Which is true. But instead recognize that men and white people face no problems due to their sex/race that will not be solved alongside the liberation of men and people of color.

You probably meant "liberation of women and people of color" and if that's right, then I disagree with that statement. There are clearly problems that mostly or only affect men that will not just magically go away if women are liberated but instead need activism of their own. Conscription laws are one obvious example for that. ("But that's because women are not seen as capable!"-deflection incoming?)

Not sure if that's true for "white men" <> "people of color", at least I can't think of anything where that would be the case (as long as we're talking about the white-dominated, western world at least), but it certainly is true for men in general.

Extremists for social justice. Imagine telling someone without an ideological stake in this fight that this phrase was a negative.

I'm pretty sure "Extremist" is inherently understood as a negative thing, a person who, even if they're fighting for a cause that is generally seen as something good, acts in a way that is seen as bad, or takes the ideas of that ideology to an extreme extend where it just doesn't make any sense anymore.

A person who is a "Social Justice Extremist" might, for example, hold the position that consensual sex can retroactively be classified as rape if the women changes her mind even days after the intercourse took place, even if no deception or similar things took place.

 

[inthesomeday]

You probably meant "liberation of women and people of color" and if that's right, then I disagree with that statement. There are clearly problems that mostly or only affect men that will not just magically go away if women are liberated but instead need activism of their own. Conscription laws are one obvious example for that. ("But that's because women are not seen as capable!"-deflection incoming?)

Ah yes we leftists sure love the draft. Seriously, do you think it’s like a man’s issue or something? The only reason it’s been historically restricted to men is because that’s the role that has developed for them— something “SJWs” most definitely fight against. In fact just about every problem MRA fascists have with the world would be solved by deconstructing masculinity or dissolving the state. This is a really weak example because every leftist movement in history has fought against the draft.

Not sure if that's true for "white men" <> "people of color", at least I can't think of anything where that would be the case (as long as we're talking about the white-dominated, western world at least), but it certainly is true for men in general.

I mean there’s almost no real claims “white rights” activists have other than like complaining about affirmative action— which would go away by dismantling race and white supremacy because it would become obsolete.

Seriously, name one issue men or white people face that wouldn’t be solved by dismantling masculinity or white supremacy. I am waiting.

I'm pretty sure "Extremist" is inherently understood as a negative thing, a person who, even if they're fighting for a cause that is generally seen as something good, acts in a way that is seen as bad, or takes the ideas of that ideology to an extreme extend where it just doesn't make any sense anymore.

Do you need someone to post that Martin Luther King quote? This idea is frankly absurd as it ultimately judges all actual change as like violent or something.

A person who is a "Social Justice Extremist" might, for example, hold the position that consensual sex can retroactively be classified as rape if the women changes her mind even days after the intercourse took place, even if no deception or similar things took place.

I think this is basically an imaginary position that is warped from real concerns about the nature of consent and weaponized by MRA fascists. Give me some specific examples, and we’ll deconstruct them together.

 

[tjs282]

I have read my Vonnegut - not quite sure what point you're making though. Vonnegut, like most leftists who came of age before the rise of the New Left, did indeed care about social class. Player Piano keeps coming truer and truer, except that the computers are better (albeit less centralized). We've lately been seeing the rise of the inchoate anger that happens when people figure out that they're considered useless and obsolete. It's only just beginning.

I believe MH might rather have been referencing the story 'Harrison Bergeron', in which 'equality of outcome' is violently enforced at the individual level by the national 'Handicapper General': i.e. rather than trying to encourage 'naturally' stupid/weak people to become smarter/stronger, the HG instead deliberately focusses on dumbing-down/weakening the smarter/stronger people.

It ends with the hero and his lover being gunned down on live television during an unfettered dance performance, for the crime of refusing to allow themselves to be Handicapped. The rest of the watching population (represented by Bergeron's parents) all go 'Oh, that was so sad,' — and then stop thinking about it, because of the distracting buzzing in their ears.

Nearly 30 years after I first read it, though, I'm honestly still trying to figure out what point KV was trying to make with that story. If he was indeed a leftie (which the rest of his work seems to suggest), I guess "It's better to lift people up, than to drag them down" (and I'd agree with that sentiment, but YMMV). But equally, I would guess that a Randroid might equally see it as an endorsement of their views, e.g. a horror of unfettered state power, and the perception that 'society' hates tall poppies and will always try to cut them down.

 

[Ryika]

Ah yes we leftists sure love the draft. Seriously, do you think it’s like a man’s issue or something? The only reason it’s been historically restricted to men is because that’s the role that has developed for them— something “SJWs” most definitely fight against. In fact just about every problem MRA fascists have with the world would be solved by deconstructing masculinity or dissolving the state. This is a really weak example because every leftist movement in history has fought against the draft.

What does that have to do with anything? Your claim was that there is not a single issue that affects men that will not be solved by the "emancipation" of women, I provided one to you. The fact that there are indeed leftists who are against the draft, and even leftists who are in favor of the draft but see that it's unfair and want to expand it to include women (as some countries have done) does not change anything about it, quite the opposite, it shows that the problem is real.

And I'm not sure what MRAs have to do with anything I said.

I mean there’s almost no real claims “white rights” activists have other than like complaining about affirmative action— which would go away by dismantling race and white supremacy because it would become obsolete.

Seriously, name one issue men or white people face that wouldn’t be solved by dismantling masculinity or white supremacy. I am waiting.

Let's stick with conscription. Even if we "dismantle masculinity", whatever that's supposed to mean, most people who will be forced into military service will still be men, as they're the ones who are much more likely to pass the requirements for the army.

Do you need someone to post that Martin Luther King quote? This idea is frankly absurd as it ultimately judges all actual change as like violent or something.

It's not unsurprising that an Extremist would not see 'Extremist' as a bad word.

extremist

noun
derogatory
noun: extremist; plural noun: extremists
a person who holds extreme political or religious views, especially one who advocates illegal, violent, or other extreme action.

I think this is basically an imaginary position that is warped from real concerns about the nature of consent and weaponized by MRA fascists. Give me some specific examples, and we’ll deconstruct them together.

Fine, that sounds like fun. I do however suspect that this discussion will mostly be you trying to reframe and rephrase things to make it seem like the people did not actually say what they said. But still, let's begin with this article.

This part in particular is what I was referring to in my previous post:

How does our relationship to consent change if we think of “consent” as a real experience people have of feeling that what happened to them was okay, and “violation” as more nuanced than simply committing an un-permitted action?

In such a model, if Bob and Andy have sex, and Andy says, “Yes,” “Sure,” “Okay, fine, whatever,” or even, “Ooh baby, do it to me!” but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped. Conversely, if Andy and Francois have a steamy make-out session in which no words are exchanged but they both go home feeling great about it, and they keep feeling great about it, that experience was consensual.

If our concern is with not violating a person, rather than not violating a rule, then “a violation” is defined by what happens when a person processes and continually re-processes their feelings about an experience. Likewise, if our concern is about behaving ethically and with integrity, rather than making sure we are not held accountable for coercive actions, then we should respect consent as an experience people have, not a commitment people make.

The bold part is highlighted just so we're clear that they're not talking about some nebulous idea of consent as a "feeling that is something specific to that person" but actual rape. We are talking about a change in the legal system here, as later parts of the article go into more detail on.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

LOL at "heightists". This isn't some logic game with no consequences to real people. Politics is played for keeps, and the stakes are life and death for millions. Trying to cast shade on those who call out racists because they aren't equally vocal about those who discriminate against the short is offensive, callous, and stupid. The day short men are targeted for extermination or police harassment because of their height I will gladly retract that statement.

Women are not "targeted for extermination or police harassment" for being women either.

Nobody said it was a game, but there is certainly logic, and a viable argumentative position needs to have it. The apparent conclusion is that the motivation for "those who call out racists" (many of whom are themselves racists) is not some ethical idea of equal opportunity or fairness, but rather tribal affiliation behavior and political power.

Immediately resorting to name-calling does not lend much credibility that a position is logically sound.

 

[luiz]

Ah yes we leftists sure love the draft. Seriously, do you think it’s like a man’s issue or something? The only reason it’s been historically restricted to men is because that’s the role that has developed for them— something “SJWs” most definitely fight against. In fact just about every problem MRA fascists have with the world would be solved by deconstructing masculinity or dissolving the state. This is a really weak example because every leftist movement in history has fought against the draft.



I mean there’s almost no real claims “white rights” activists have other than like complaining about affirmative action— which would go away by dismantling race and white supremacy because it would become obsolete.

Seriously, name one issue men or white people face that wouldn’t be solved by dismantling masculinity or white supremacy. I am waiting.



Do you need someone to post that Martin Luther King quote? This idea is frankly absurd as it ultimately judges all actual change as like violent or something.



I think this is basically an imaginary position that is warped from real concerns about the nature of consent and weaponized by MRA fascists. Give me some specific examples, and we’ll deconstruct them together.

The problem with your logic (and extremist logic in general) is that you believe your position is not only correct (everyone believes that after all), but also that anyone who looks into the world without malice will necessarily reach the same conclusions as you. You think being an extremist for justice can never be a bad thing, but if someone disagrees with your definition of justice (and believe me, many people do), then your extremism in its pursue is quite negative for them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In fact just about every problem MRA fascists have with the world would be solved by deconstructing masculinity or dissolving the state.

I mean... did you ever think that maybe some men would perhaps just like to not be forced to sign up for the draft, without also having to redefine their entire self-identity and radically restructure their entire civilisation?! That maybe they might see that as overkill? That's a bit like saying "just about every health problem a human can face would be solved with a bullet to the head". It's possible (and often desirable) to tackle individual problems on a targeted basis sometimes. Not every problem requires or justifies the complete restructuring of society to solve. Even if you personally think that needs doing, it's not reasonable to expect everyone else to back such extreme measures.

 

[Berzerker]

There are many factors that go into life expectancy and height is only one of them. I'd wager that Scandinavian countries being wealthy and having good health care probably outweighs being tall.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_clear_being_tall_is_hazardous_to_your.html

yikes... not just heart disease but cancer. The argument: more cells = more mutations and more cancer. Better to be a short Scandinavian.

Last week, a team of researchers led by Geoffrey Kabat of Albert Einstein College of Medicine published a study showing that each additional 4 inches of height increases the risk of all types of cancer by 13 percent among post-menopausal women.

 

[inthesomeday]

What does that have to do with anything? Your claim was that there is not a single issue that affects men that will not be solved by the "emancipation" of women, I provided one to you. The fact that there are indeed leftists who are against the draft, and even leftists who are in favor of the draft but see that it's unfair and want to expand it to include women (as some countries have done) does not change anything about it, quite the opposite, it shows that the problem is real.

And what is the problem exactly? The problem is that men are more commonly the target of the state for sacrifice. The reason this problem exists is twofold— the presence of the state and the persistent stereotype of male aggression and strength. Dissolving either dissolves the problem.

Expanding draft eligibility doesn’t solve the problem either. Men stay sacrificed. Only by deconstructing masculinity or disempowering the state are men spared.

It's not unsurprising that an Extremist would not see 'Extremist' as a bad word.

Those darn extremists always getting things done

Fine, that sounds like fun. I do however suspect that this discussion will mostly be you trying to reframe and rephrase things to make it seem like the people did not actually say what they said. But still, let's begin with this article.

This part in particular is what I was referring to in my previous post:



The bold part is highlighted just so we're clear that they're not talking about some nebulous idea of consent as a "feeling that is something specific to that person" but actual rape. We are talking about a change in the legal system here, as later parts of the article go into more detail on.

I’m not talking about legal systems at all. Rape is definitely personal, and so is the function of consent.

The problem with your logic (and extremist logic in general) is that you believe your position is not only correct (everyone believes that after all), but also that anyone who looks into the world without malice will necessarily reach the same conclusions as you. You think being an extremist for justice can never be a bad thing, but if someone disagrees with your definition of justice (and believe me, many people do), then your extremism in its pursue is quite negative for them.

Social justice— the worst evil on earth

I mean... did you ever think that maybe some men would perhaps just like to not be forced to sign up for the draft, without also having to redefine their entire self-identity and radically restructure their entire civilisation?! That maybe they might see that as overkill? That's a bit like saying "just about every health problem a human can face would be solved with a bullet to the head". It's possible (and often desirable) to tackle individual problems on a targeted basis sometimes. Not every problem requires or justifies the complete restructuring of society to solve. Even if you personally think that needs doing, it's not reasonable to expect everyone else to back such extreme measures.

Good luck making the state give up its power to draft without radically restructuring civilization

 

[Traitorfish]

Nearly 30 years after I first read it, though, I'm honestly still trying to figure out what point KV was trying to make with that story. If he was indeed a leftie (which the rest of his work seems to suggest), I guess "It's better to lift people up, than to drag them down" (and I'd agree with that sentiment, but YMMV). But equally, I would guess that a Randroid might equally see it as an endorsement of their views, e.g. a horror of unfettered state power, and the perception that 'society' hates tall poppies and will always try to cut them down.

Vonnegut, being a leftie, would probably have expected his audience to consider who is doing the down-cutting, and to what ends. A nation of dull-eyed mediocrities serves right-wing ends altogether more effectively than left-wing.

 

[Chose]

Social justice— the worst evil on earth

 

[luiz]

Social justice— the worst evil on earth

I meant that different people have different notions of what is social justice, Einstein.

Your views aren't exactly majoritary, are they.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I meant that different people have different notions of what is social justice, Einstein.

Your views aren't exactly majoritary, are they.

LOLs... for a minute I thought that said "Moriarty" as in genius level evil.