Jordan Peterson

[Farm Boy]

Spoiler A-hah! :

 

[Sommerswerd]

The game is afoot!

 

[Broken_Erika]

The game is afoot!

 

[stinkubus]

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.

Women are certainly targeted for harassment. In the states this is mostly sexual in nature, but in more backwards societies like Saudi Arabia its done for things like not wearing a veil or speaking to men who aren't their husband.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Women are not "targeted for extermination

Well... that depends on how you look at it I guess...

Female infanticide in China

Female infanticide in India

 

[stinkubus]

Super-logician TheMeInTeam once again resorts to dishonesty to make a point and then accuses others of being sloppy in their reasoning, SAD!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Women are certainly targeted for harassment. In the states this is mostly sexual in nature, but in more backwards societies like Saudi Arabia its done for things like not wearing a veil or speaking to men who aren't their husband.

Moving the goalposts a bit already. People are targeted for extermination for quite a number of reasons in some countries. Yet strangely, reaction even in that case is asymmetric depending on reason for doing so. This reality does not exactly help your case.

Another interesting tidbit: if we completely ignored gender and used only the 2%/in figures Bootstoots mentioned, you would expect a 10% greater wage for men than women based on "heightist" discrimination alone. In most countries, men are on average ~5 inches taller. As was pointed out before, height is a genetic property outside of peoples' control and not predictive of performance in most vocations.

How universally does that height wage differential hold? No idea, but to ignore it/not consider it a big deal and then consider other aspects of discrimination to be unfair is nonsense, especially in what is an obvious correlation scenario.

And what about attractiveness? That's only controllable to a degree, and discrimination based on this metric is also flagrant. They're not the only two examples.

Picking and focusing only on arbitrary unfair discrimination practices is irresponsible and a great way to push unfair policy, but not a viable way to demonstrate coherent reasoning for policy that actually follows the purported ethical goal of being "fair".

Well... that depends on how you look at it I guess...

Yes, I was not under the impression that we were considering all countries in the world. You can find some pretty brutal stuff if you do that...however these countries openly accept even racial discrimination at social levels, the kind of stuff that gets you in serious trouble elsewhere.

 

[inthesomeday]

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

Your views aren't exactly majoritary, are they.

I mean social justice is a pretty unambiguous phrase I think. Social means relating to human societies and justice means righting wrongs and achieving fairness, yeah?

 

[luiz]

I mean social justice is a pretty unambiguous phrase I think. Social means relating to human societies and justice means righting wrongs and achieving fairness, yeah?

I am genuinely puzzled. Are you really that unsophisticated?

The definition of "justice" has been a hot topic since at least Plato. And his definition of justice certainly would no please you. So no, it's not really straightforward. What is a wrong to you might not be a wrong to me. And vice versa. I feel stupid having to spell this out.

 

[Ryika]

I mean social justice is a pretty unambiguous phrase I think. Social means relating to human societies and justice means righting wrongs and achieving fairness, yeah?

I mean national socialism is a pretty unambiguous phrase I think. National means relating to the nation, and socialism is the political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. Moderator Action: Icon removed. --LM

 

[inthesomeday]

Ah, so ultimately we arrive again at moral relativism which essentially makes all conversations moot. Nothing is real and everything is subjective. And at the end of the day it pleases my ego to dismantle masculinity at the expense of yours. Oh well

 

[Hygro]

We shouldn't let the fact that Jordan Peterson likes them obscure the fact that lobsters are badass, though. C'mon lobsty....

Spoiler :

The thing is, JP is right. I've been taking serotonin boosters for a while now and I've become one dominant lobster.

 

[Hygro]

@Lexicus meant to get back to your request I respond to this:

So this is maybe relevant,

I'm a college philosophy professor. Jordan Peterson is making my job impossible.

expletives removed, censored rather than deleted to preserve sentence structure

Any thoughts?

Kids be tripping. But anyone who wants to "dismantle masculinity" certainly isn't trying to maintain all the existing pillars of civilization so you can see why someone as triggered as Jordan Peterson is to the totalist language of some left-wingers as authoritarian, and how Jordan's trigger might trigger some kids further. What's important about any of this other than a renewed interest in philosophy from any angle is more good than bad?

Or, for example, the house fire that burnt 70% of your skin off.

My uncle had that happen. Had lots of sex.

This discourse is radicalizing me towards misandry.

Each post Mouthwash posts pushes me further towards the castration of ugly men.

I see your support for existing dominance hierarchies.

 

[luiz]

Ah, so ultimately we arrive again at moral relativism which essentially makes all conversations moot. Nothing is real and everything is subjective. And at the end of the day it pleases my ego to dismantle masculinity at the expense of yours. Oh well

Indeed it's impossible to "prove" moral relativism wrong, so we should always be cautious in our claims of representing absolute morality. But note that between absolute moral relativism and your social justice jihadism there are many approaches to justice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Indeed it's impossible to "prove" moral relativism wrong, so we should always be cautious in our claims of representing absolute morality. But note that between absolute moral relativism and your social justice jihadism there are many approaches to morality.

Plus enough justifications for moving away rather than approaching, eh?

 

[luiz]

Plus enough justifications for moving away rather than approaching, eh?

Moving away from one approach might be moving towards another one.

Look, SJWs of today are just another version of the Maoists (or Randroids) of yore. They think that through flawless and irrefutable logic they have found the Truth and anyone who sees things otherwise is either stupid or evil.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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

Or, you know... by removing the draft requirement. Like I said (in as many words), if I have loose floorboard I could fix it by rebuilding my entire house. To claim that this is the only way to fix it however, would be insane.

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

What, you mean like happened in the UK for example (and presumably other countries)? You think radically restructuring civilisation is easier than that?

Ah, so ultimately we arrive again at moral relativism which essentially makes all conversations moot. Nothing is real and everything is subjective. And at the end of the day it pleases my ego to dismantle masculinity at the expense of yours. Oh well

That's a very weasly way to sidestep criticism of supporting some rather unjust things in the name of "justice".

 

[Миханя]

Still, though, his memo is mostly factually accurate. Men and women do have substantial average differences in personality traits. Studies which give men and women the most commonly used personality test in psychology, the five-factor model (aka Big Five personality traits), typically find differences in two of these traits - namely agreeableness (tendency to cooperate rather than compete) and neuroticism (susceptibility to negative emotions like anxiety and depression). Women have higher averages in both traits, by around 0.5 standard deviations; the former is a partial explanation for the wage gap, while the latter is evident in higher rates of depression and anxiety among women. Another trait, openness to new experiences, has a similar average but shows differences when you examine it more closely: men have higher curiosity/openness towards things and abstract concepts, women towards people and their experiences.

I am not exactly sure what you are implying here with these biological differences when we are talking about ontologically subjects to begin with. For example, people in Russia speak mostly Russian, and not many people speak English. Can we conclude from this that Russians are simply biologically predisposed to speaking Russian? Can we also conclude from this that Russians are not biologically suited for speaking English? Because that is how your passage reads.

All of these are well supported in the psychological literature - as well supported as anything is in psychology. Whether they're biological or cultural is open to debate, but most do appear to some extent or another across cultures. Average personality differences likely are part of the reason for the underrepresentation of women in computing and engineering, along with the overrepresentation of women in the social sciences and increasingly biology and several fields of medicine. And, to Damore's credit, he does suggest ways to increase the number of women and improve their working conditions.

Psychology as a field is itself a Western and fairly recent invention. I can assure you that in other cultures people aren't as obsessed with five-factor models, personality tests, and other ways to box and label people as if they were inanimate objects.

And using your logic from the previous paragraph, can we conclude that Westerners are biologically inclined to take personality tests?

But yeah, trying to criticize diversity initiatives is just a stupid idea. And Google's race and sex ratios are skewed more than we would expect, so it's quite reasonable for them to try to reduce this skew any way they can. I don't think having some sort of affirmative action should be considered discrimination the way Damore does.

I don't understand the idea of "diversity initiative". Diversity is not some kind of policy—it is simply a fact of life. People migrate between cities, countries, continents all the time. There were travelers and traders and immigrants and slaves and prisoners of war and all sorts of people even in ancient times, and all of them diversified the cultures they appeared in. In today's connected world people are moving around even more than ever. You can't somehow affect the inexorable march of history with some "diversity initiatives".

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Moving away from one approach might be moving towards another one.

Clearly you didn't get that, but it's probably just as well.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ah, so ultimately we arrive again at moral relativism which essentially makes all conversations moot. Nothing is real and everything is subjective. And at the end of the day it pleases my ego to dismantle masculinity at the expense of yours. Oh well

No, moral relativism does not allow us to make the leap to "nothing is real". You still have to pick actions/policy and they still have to be justified based on some criteria if a society is to enforce them reasonably.

I am not exactly sure what you are implying here with these biological differences when we are talking about ontologically subjects to begin with. For example, people in Russia speak mostly Russian, and not many people speak English. Can we conclude from this that Russians are simply biologically predisposed to speaking Russian? Can we also conclude from this that Russians are not biologically suited for speaking English? Because that is how your passage reads.

That's not a viable analogy. If we had a world where Russians who attempted to learn English disproportionately couldn't by a wide margin for some reason, we might suspect some physical reason that is the case. However, that's not consistent with our reality. Russians do learn English when they try, and about as effectively as anybody else in similar scenarios.

Such is a different scenario from what Bootstoots references. Men and women have disparate results on these tests across cultures/languages/environments, even very disparate ones.

And using your logic from the previous paragraph

You're not.