Or did I not make one? Whichever it is. — Judaka

You really struggle with chronology.

We're long past the days where feminism referred solely to fighting for women's rights. — Judaka

No we're not. You're conflating critical theory with intersectional feminism, which is precisely the faulty logic I was talking about. Intersectional feminism is concerned with the experiences of women in a way that acknowledges the fact that, statistically, black women have a qualitatively different experience to both black men and the white women who were historically represented by feminism, a difference that yielded black feminism. Likewise that the experiences of queer women are significantly different to those of queer men and the straight women that feminism historically represented, hence queer feminism, and that the experiences of working class women significantly differ from those of working class men and the middle- to upper-class women that feminism historically represented, hence socialist feminism.

It incorporates e.g. critical race theory and queer theory and, in some guises, Marxism; it did not author them, and it does so for the empowerment and liberation of gay, black and working class women respectively, not for gay, black, and working class people generally.

I'm not playing a correlation game. — Judaka

That is precisely what your end of this argument is. Either that or you genuinely don't understand the terms you're employing.

I'm not bothered you think I'm an intersectional feminist btw. It's the dishonesty of how you got there that's of interest.

Is there an option to block threads akin to the one in which you can block members? @Baden @Michael @Benkei @StreetlightX @fdrake

No.

Thanks, I'll check it out

No we're not. You're conflating critical theory with intersectional feminism, which is precisely the faulty logic I was talking about. — Kenosha Kid

If I am wrong, that'd just be mislabeling, what logic is at play there? I don't study the terms, I just hear the terms being used, listen to people self-describe as feminists and in that context start to talk about issues regarding gender (more generally) and intersectional feminism (and talking about it more generally). If they speaking from the perspective from more than just feminism, I missed the nuance, nonetheless, my only error would be in a name.

That is precisely what your end of this argument is. Either that or you genuinely don't understand the terms you're employing.

I'm not bothered you think I'm an intersectional feminist btw. It's the dishonesty of how you got there that's of interest. — Kenosha Kid

What's the honest way?

what logic is at play there? — Judaka

The one I've described several times. "This is X. X is like Y. Therefore this is Y."

What's the honest way? — Judaka

For instance, if I had posted any feminist content on the site ever and either at the same time or elsewhere championed critical theory. It would be a reasonable to assume I was an intersectional feminist in that case. Basing a conclusion that I'm any kind of feminist on a sample of zero feminism comments is just pointless.

For the record, I'd say I'm intersectional feminism adjacent, largely because they won't have me. People like you call me a feminist. Feminists call me a misogynist, largely for the same reason. I don't know where I am until I'm accused of being something :D But obviously I'd rather be a feminist than a misogynist, so... thanks, I guess.

Maybe because "career women" can afford a shrink? — Benkei

When the issue is the empirical demonstration of a gender pay gap, our science guy is all about confounding variables. When it's about the empirical demonstration that women find their highest fulfillment in the kitchen, confounding variables aren't much of a concern anymore.

I remember watching a video of a debate between Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson's view on religion is pragmatic in a way because his entire argument was that religions have a positive impact on people and not that they're true. Somehow, for reasons that remain a mystery to me, Sam Harris was thrown off balance by that. I expected Sam Harris to simply get up and walk off the stage as there really was nothing to debate about with a person who thinks religions are more about utility than truth.

Does it make sense to endorse or promote for public consumption an outright lie because it gives people comfort or keeps them on the straight and narrow or the like? Isn't this paternalism?

1. Accuses people of being intersectional feminists based on no evidence. — Kenosha Kid

What's wrong with intersectional feminism anyway? The new anti-woke warriors have a beef with identity politics, as crudely defined by them. But there are few social-intellectual movements that represent greater challenges to crude forms of identity politics than intersectional feminism does (although Marxism may come close!)

https://plan-international.org/girls-get-equal/intersectional-feminism

Jordan Peterson's view on religion is pragmatic in a way because his entire argument was that religions have a positive impact on people and not that they're true. — TheMadFool

Of course, I think so too. (And not because JP said it, I figured that out on my own, living among Catholics.)

Does it make sense to endorse or promote for public consumption an outright lie because it gives people comfort or keeps them on the straight and narrow or the like? Isn't this paternalism?

In my experience, many religious people know that religion is not about truth and they don't look for comfort in it. Such people don't take it seriously. But what they do take seriously with great effort is keeping up the appearance of taking it seriously. This is the taboo, the public secret.

Yes, it's paternalism -- but so what? If one believes that it's dog eat dog world and that life is a struggle for survival and that winning is all that matters, then most truths are trivial.

intersectional feminist adjacent...? I could identify an intersectional feminist or whatever term think is best based on what I've written, by the fact that they self-identify as such or post explicitly related material. Yet I can also gauge a person's ideologies by how they speak on related topics, even without providing me with concrete proof, with some accuracy. I see the same pattern, I associate it with an ideology, that ideology I see as being based on or inspired by intersectional feminism. There's an imprecision in the naming, there always is, even with terms like alt-right or fascism. Call me lazy or inaccurate, if you want, maybe those don't make me look bad enough for your aggressive personality? I don't know, dishonest though? Lol.

You write people off with your labels and maybe you're just projecting? I don't actually know what argument you're talking about. You said you don't like JP, I said JP is criticising something like ideologies based around intersectional feminism, which I see you as a part of. Since then, all I've been doing is defending my actions and criticising yours. What higher stakes are there here? What argument am I making?

Jordan Peterson's take on religion won't go down well with the religious section of the population. It's as if he would let faithful believe in a lie just to keep them in line. What a condescending attitude! As if the only thing keeping believers from becoming q band of criminals is religion.

intersectional feminist adjacent...? — Judaka

I was being flippant. I understand the ideas behind intersectional feminism and see worth in them for feminist theory, but since I'm not a feminist, it's largely irrelevant to me. I.F. seems to me largely to be feminism getting it's own house in order, reconstructing its theoretical foundations.

Yet I can also gauge a person's ideologies by how they speak on related topics, even without providing me with concrete proof, with some accuracy. — Judaka

I beg to differ.

Call me lazy or inaccurate, if you want — Judaka

Thank you, but I don't believe that laziness is your problem. You put a lot of effort into an argument, just not useful things.

You write people off with your labels and maybe you're just projecting? — Judaka

What are we saying here, that if I criticise a racist it's really because I'm racist? Ha. Okay. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, there.

You said you don't like JP, I said JP is criticising something like ideologies based around intersectional feminism, which I see you as a part of. — Judaka

It's sort of weird that you own up to the possibility that your terminology is misguided, but merrily stand by it nonetheless. Sure, whatever man, racist intersectional feminist, go with that.

What the hell happened to Jordan Peterson?

Pity, rather than admiration.

Interesting. I wonder if it is the media, internet and social media which have created this environment or just the politicisation of everything? When you put it like that, I probably should have just avoided this thread altogether. — Judaka

Probably.

The headline was a give away, but then sometimes (if rarely) someone can make a genuine inquiry. (I just pity the philosophy beginner who has read Ayn Rand and then comes to the forum and asks what people think of her. For some reason, the Rand rant isn't viewed as misogynist even if otherwise sex, gender and race are so dear to many these times.)

Good luck trying to avoid this disease. Because it's coming to be present everywhere. I guess the next in line will be the STEM-fields.

Why bother to argue in detail about what people say when you have the easy tool of character assassination? Not worth even talking about then.

What are we saying here, that if I criticise a racist it's really because I'm racist? Ha. Okay. Scraping the bottom of the barrel, there. — Kenosha Kid

No... What I meant was the "effort to dismiss you by giving you this label".

There is a serious difference between the average anti-prejudice/discrimination thinker and you. Peterson is many things, there's a long list of ideas he has, which I do not agree with and there are many issues people can bring up with him, including things I do agree with and I can get it. You call him a sexist transphobe recycling nazi propaganda. Of course, it's not just that, you have used such terms in horrendously inappropriate ways, to people who didn't deserve them. Think you can defend your comments about JP? Obviously, you do but I've listened to the guy enough for what you're saying to be serious red flags, we do not have the same standards for what is sexist and transphobic. We don't have the same standards for what is racist, fascist, or any of that. Thus when we "agree" these things are bad and that we have a personal and collective responsibility to stand up and criticise those things when we see it, we're not actually talking about the same thing.

The "agreement" we make when we say we critique racism together is flawed. What I generally chalk up your behaviour to is a far-left, intersectional ideology that sees and condemns privilege and discrimination in nearly every social interaction. Now you can not be that ideology, I don't care, not far-left, not intersectional, not a feminist, whatever. I'm not condemning you for that, just the way you use terms is bullshit, the way you talk about race is a problem. The way you accused Garth of using "the logic of right-wing nutjob shock jocks" for a fairly apolitical critique of Antifa, that's a better example of the logic you're talking about, no?

Your logic is that of right-wing nutjob shock jocks. — Kenosha Kid

Look at your otherwise non-existent argument, that's it besides some other equally bigoted snarky remarks.

It's sort of weird that you own up to the possibility that your terminology is misguided, but merrily stand by it nonetheless. — Kenosha Kid

I will do my own research on that and decide whether my terminology is incorrect. It's intuitive that feminism doesn't include issues related to men but my experience led me to think that it did, at least when talking about issues to do with gender roles, discrimination, LGBT issues, that 4th wave feminism had taken on broader issues than just those to do with women alone. I've also never heard someone refer to themselves as an "intersectionalist" or really anything besides intersectional feminist when talking about intersectionality.

Does it make sense to endorse or promote for public consumption an outright lie because it gives people comfort or keeps them on the straight and narrow or the like? — TheMadFool

Plato would say yes emphatically.

Plato was wrong about most things.

Plato would say yes emphatically.

Plato was wrong about most things — Pfhorrest

Why is Plato wrong?

Why is Plato wrong? — TheMadFool

About "noble lies" in particular? Because a false reason to do something is a bad reason to do something. If the thing the noble lie gets people to do is actually good, then there is some true reason why it is good, which is the same as to say a true reason to do so. That true reason makes the noble lie unnecessary. If there is not known a true reason, then it is not known that the thing is good, and so the ends (the good thing) can't justify the means (the lie) even if ends could justify means in general, because the ends are not actually known to be good.

It's similar to the Euthyphro dilemma. If something is good only because the gods command it, then what is "good" is arbitrary and "good" doesn't really mean anything morally imperative. If on the other hand the gods command things because they are good, then there are independent reasons known to the gods for why those things are good, and those reasons should likewise suffice for human purposes; we don't need the gods to tell us to do things, the reasons the gods have for telling us to do them are good enough reasons for us to do them whether or not the gods command them.

About "noble lies" in particular? Because a false reason to do something is a bad reason to do something. If the thing the noble lie gets people to do is actually good, then there is some true reason why it is good, which is the same as to say a true reason to do so. That true reason makes the noble lie unnecessary. If there is not known a true reason, then it is not known that the thing is good, and so the ends (the good thing) can't justify the means (the lie) even if ends could justify means in general, because the ends are not actually known to be good. — Pfhorrest

Why do you think the ends don't justify the means?

Why do you think the ends don't justify the means? — TheMadFool

Well in this particular case it's enough that the ends simply aren't known to be good. If you don't know the ends are good, then they can't justify the means, even if ends could justify means generally.


As for why ends don't justify means generally...

It's like how a sound argument cannot merely be a valid argument, and cannot merely have true conclusions, but it must be valid – every step of the argument must be a justified inference from previous ones – and it must have a true conclusion, which requires also that it begin from true premises.

If a valid argument leads to a false conclusion, that tells you that the premises of the argument must have been false, because by definition valid inferences from true premises must lead to true conclusions; that's what makes them valid. If the premises were true and the inferences in the argument still lead to a false conclusion, that tells you that the inferences were not valid. But likewise, if an invalid argument happens to have a true conclusion, that's no credit to the argument; the conclusion is true, sure, but the argument is still a bad one, invalid.

I hold that a similar relationship holds between means and ends: means are like inferences, the steps you take to reach an end, which is like a conclusion. Just means must be "good-preserving" in the same way that valid inferences are truth-preserving: just means exercised out of good prior circumstances definitionally must lead to good consequences; just means must introduce no badness, or as Hippocrates wrote in his famous physicians' oath, they must "first, do no harm".

If something bad happens as a consequence of some means, then that tells you either that something about those means were unjust, or that there was something already bad in the prior circumstances that those means simply have not alleviated (which failure to alleviate does not make them therefore unjust). But likewise, if something good happens as a consequence of unjust means, that's no credit to those means; the consequences are good, sure, but the means are still bad ones, unjust.

Moral action requires using just means to achieve good ends, and if either of those is neglected, morality has been failed; bad consequences of genuinely just actions means some preexisting badness has still yet to be addressed (or else is a sign that the actions were not genuinely just), and good consequences of unjust actions do not thereby justify those actions.

Consequentialist models of normative ethics concern themselves primarily with defining what is a good state of affairs, and then say that bringing about those states of affairs is what defines a good action. Deontological models of normative ethics concern themselves primarily with defining what makes an action itself intrinsically good, or just, regardless of further consequences of the action.

I think that these are both important questions, and they are the moral analogues to questions about ontology and epistemology.

Jordan Peterson's take on religion won't go down well with the religious section of the population. — TheMadFool

I think that at least those religious people from cultures where their religion has been the majority religion for a long time are ambivalent toward him. On the one hand, they of course must be outraged at him for suggesting that truth is not that important in religion. On the other hand, they know that he's right and that he's just saying out loud what they themselves have known or suspected for a long time.

For example, I grew up in a Catholic country. The Catholics here go to great lenghts to publicly display a reverence for their religion, but in private, it's clear that they don't actually take it seriously. This duplicity is a public secret: everybody knows it but it's forbidden to talk about it and nobody will openly admit to it.

New religions and minority religions are different. In those, it seems that adherents do take them seriously and do in fact believe the religious tenets.

It's as if he would let faithful believe in a lie just to keep them in line. What a condescending attitude! As if the only thing keeping believers from becoming q band of criminals is religion.

But that condescending attitude is nothing new, religious people are used to it. You will have noticed that religious people from different religions have a kind of victim/martyr mentality in regard to outsiders anyway -- "Others are out to destroy us, humiliate us". And religious people tend to be condescending to outsiders to begin with. So it's all just business as usual.

What isn't business as usual seems to be that some religious people, esp. Christians at first took JP as someone who might be working for their cause, but who are disappointed that he refused to take a clear position on the matter for so long.

I also know some Buddhists who were sort of fans of his. One of them is an avowed vegan; I wonder what he'll say about JP's unraveling.

What the hell happened to Jordan Peterson?
Pity, rather than admiration. — Banno

Oy, vey iz him! Not to put too fine a point on schadenfreude, but I want to say "I told you so!"

I wonder how JP's unraveling will affect his fans. How will these people cope with this?

The idea that the ends justify the means is that anything and everything is permissible in order to achieve a goal, given that the goal in question is moral. If one buys into this idea then you'll have no qualms about acting immorally if the outcome, the end result, is moral. So, for instance, you'll be willing to kill to if the resulting death had good consequences whatever they may be.

On the other hand if one is opposed to the claim that the ends justify the means one would be unwilling to commit an immoral act even if it the consequences of such an act were themselves moral.

The possibilities/choices in re means, ends and morality that are available to us are the following:

1. Means are moral, Ends are moral
2. Means are moral, Ends are immoral
3. Means are immoral, Ends are moral
4. Means are immoral, Ends are immoral

If the ends justify the means, 3 is allowed. If not the case that the ends justify the means only 1 is acceptable. 4 are outside the scope of this discussion. BUT 2 is a different story. It's key to understanding whether it's true or false that the ends justify the means. If, for example, I wanted to harm a person X but I do that employing only good deeds, the good deeds are usually not part of the formula that determines my moral standing; in other words, if my behavior towards X matches 2 above, I'm considered a bad person.

If so, for the sake of consistency if nothing else, 3 should be treated likewise i.e. the immoral means should be ignored just as we ignored the moral means in deciding that 2 is, at the end of the day, immoral. That means 3 too is moral and...the ends do justify the means

Why bother to argue in detail about what people say when you have the easy tool of character assassination? — ssu

Like I already pointed out on another thread here:

Not all ad hominems are fallacious:


/.../
Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[30] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy

When it comes to people who promote particular theories of morality, ethics, it would be remiss not to look at their personal lives and whether they live up to what they preach.


If a mathematician was drunk when he developed a certain mathematical proof has no bearing on the validty of the proof, and it would be wrong to reject the proof based on the mathematician's intoxication.
But matters of morality, ethics are not like that.

If, for example, I wanted to harm a person X but I do that employing only good deeds, the good deeds are usually not part of the formula that determines my moral standing; in other words, if my behavior towards X matches 2 above, I'm considered a bad person. — TheMadFool

If your actions cause harm to a person, then those are not good deeds, at least not on my account.

It is still possible that you do only good deeds and yet that something bad nevertheless happens to someone. That is, I think the real "case 2" in your quadrilemma.

I say that that's akin to making a valid argument that nevertheless has a false conclusion.

What you can infer from getting a false conclusion from a valid argument is that the premises you started from were false, and need to be corrected in order to get true conclusions from valid arguments.

Similarly, bad things happening despite you doing only good deeds indicates that there was something already bad in the prior circumstances that needs to be fixed in order to get good ends by good means.

The idea that the ends justify the means is that anything and everything is permissible in order to achieve a goal, given that the goal in question is moral. If one buys into this idea then you'll have no qualms about acting immorally if the outcome, the end result, is moral. So, for instance, you'll be willing to kill to if the resulting death had good consequences whatever they may be. — TheMadFool

The idea "the end justifies the means" and its opposite "the end doesn't justify the means" are too simplistic, that's why they are problematic.

Whose end? Whose means? What end? What means?

The idea that the end justifies the means is, for one, really just a thinly veiled justification for one-upmanship, whether done by one person or many. It's a way of saying "I want things to be the way I want them, cost what may, and others are merely puppets in the process and should see themselves as such".

Secondly, whether an end justifies the means depends on the value system of the person making the claim. For example, does completing a marathon justify ending up with permanent damage to one's joints or dying from a heart attack? For a person obsessed with completing a marathon, it probably does. For everyone else, not so much.

The idea that the end doesn't justify the means is simplistic insofar it doesn't take into account the above two considerations.

On the other hand if one is opposed to the claim that the ends justify the means one would be unwilling to commit an immoral act even if it the consequences of such an act were themselves moral.

Can you give an example of where an immoral act has moral consequences?

Was the victory of the Allies in WWII "moral"? Was it "immoral" to kill the Nazis?


I can think of many examples where doing something immoral lead to some beneficial consequences for some people for some time (such as cheating on an exam), but I would not describe those consequences as either moral or immoral, but at most as beneficial, for a particular person for some time.

Jordan Peterson's take on religion won't go down well with the religious section of the population. It's as if he would let faithful believe in a lie just to keep them in line. What a condescending attitude! As if the only thing keeping believers from becoming q band of criminals is religion. — TheMadFool

Why do you think the ends don't justify the means? — TheMadFool

So you, too, don't believe that the end justifies the means?


For a more advanced example of the end justifying the means in religion, look at Mahayana Buddhism and their concept of upaya, "skillful means".

Think you can defend your comments about JP? — Judaka

Yes.

Obviously, you do but I've listened to the guy enough for what you're saying to be serious red flags, we do not have the same standards for what is sexist and transphobic. — Judaka

Almost certainly. So what, I have to lower my standards to yours for the sake of your bad politics? No.

JP explicitly champions a sexist social structure, a patriarchy. I don't expect you to see anything wrong with that, that would be asking a lot, but the opinions of others are not constrained by your willful myopia.

Sexism is rife through his writings and teachings. His view of relationships is in terms of utility *for* men, such as his bizarre notions of enforced monogamy to make teenaged boys less likely to shoot up their own school. Don't fancy that socially awkward, aggressive, racist guy in your class? Tough shit, JP says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves.

(On which, I can't think of a worse indictment of JP than his willful misrepresentation of one of the Columbine shooters as some existential hero, cherry-picking from his diary to avoid the vast quantity of typical violent alt-right-esque racism.)

One of his psychotherapy patients was an alcoholic woman who, in part on account of her alcoholism, had been raped five times. JP quite proudly dismisses her testimony as unreliable. He wasn't saying that men didn't pick her up when she was blotto, just suggests that that doesn't constitute rape. (He also has nothing to say about domestic violence and marital rape in these monogamous relationships he wants to enforce.) This is what I expect from a 'lad', some bloke in a group of blokes whose culture reduces women to posh wanks you can scrape off the nightclub floor. From a psychologist this is awfully misogynistic. For all his anti-pomo objectivism, he embraces the idea when it comes to women saying they are victims of men. There seems to be no difference in his view between not being told and being told when the speaker is a woman.

As for the idea of equality between women and men, JP is not on board:

it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake

No, you shouldn't have a life, you should make do with a hobby, woman. Be thankful for your gilded cage.

JP supports the patriarchy on the basis of superior male competence and, as with everything JP says, this isn't based on data but on his personal prejudices. He is a Messiah to the sexist, the misogynist, the incel because he exemplifies their beliefs: men are superior, men should be in charge, women should prioritise the needs of men and shut the fuck up.

The problem isn't that I fling names around. The problem is that a huge number of men, like you, see nothing wrong with his sexism, therefore cannot see it as sexism since sexism is bad so can't be this. Likewise with the few racists on this site who I've tussled with who insist on spouting racial propaganda like "blacks are intrinsically more criminal" who nonetheless object to being called racist because they've at least learned that racism is supposed to be bad, therefore can't be this.

I appreciate you're not explicitly pushing sexist or racist sentiments yourself, but your rush to defend sexists and racists rather than their victims speaks ill of you. You did it earlier and had to apologise, claiming ignorance of the topic of the conversation, which I didn't believe. Here you're claiming to be very familiar with JP's words so no such out. It is reasonable to assume that you're familiar with the kind of stuff I've mentioned and you defend his patriarchal, non-egalitarian, rape-dismissive, incel-esque views as perfectly fine and not deserving of the label 'sexist'. I appreciate that you've been gunning for me for a bit, but I think it's appropriate that you take a turn at defending your own statements.

Don't fancy that socially awkward, aggressive, racist guy in your class? Tough shit, JP says women should arrange themselves to benefit men so that men don't have to control themselves. — Kenosha Kid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn60-8Ql_44&ab_channel=DoseofTruth

(On which, I can't think of a worse indictment of JP than his willful misrepresentation of one of the Columbine shooters as some existential hero, cherry-picking from his diary to avoid the vast quantity of typical violent alt-right-esque racism.) — Kenosha Kid

lol, okay. I'm not checking the reasonableness of characterisations you made but after you decided Carlos is pro-fascist for not critiquing the groups as you'd like, you'll understand if my expectations here are low. If you give a short link to what you're talking about, I'll check it out.

One of his psychotherapy patients was an alcoholic woman who, in part on account of her alcoholism, had been raped five times. JP quite proudly dismisses her testimony as unreliable. He wasn't saying that men didn't pick her up when she was blotto, just suggests that that doesn't constitute rape. — Kenosha Kid

A link or source would be nice, I can't find it. I don't want to comment on this with so little information.

As for the idea of equality between women and men, JP is not on board: — Kenosha Kid

Okay...

No, you shouldn't have a life, you should make do with a hobby, woman. Be thankful for your gilded cage. — Kenosha Kid

What? Listen, I just have no idea what's even being talked about here. Peterson has talked about how important it is to have equality of opportunity, over and over again. I don't know the specific context of this statement but Peterson is not arguing that women should be forced to be housewives.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=852

He emphatically states the value of having women in the workforce, unimpeded, being able to do whatever they want to do. You are an incredibly untrustworthy narrator, if he's so bad, give me statements which show what you claimed about him to be true. Show me what convinced you rather than that you're convinced. If this was it, not good enough, this is far from good enough.

He is a Messiah to the sexist, the misogynist, the incel because he exemplifies their beliefs: men are superior, men should be in charge, women should prioritise the needs of men and shut the fuck up. — Kenosha Kid

You are just exhibiting more of the same behaviour I've been criticising.

You did it earlier and had to apologise, claiming ignorance of the topic of the conversation, which I didn't believe. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody forced me to apologise.

I'll check the link later.

I'm not checking the reasonableness of characterisations you made but after you decided Carlos is pro-fascist for not critiquing the groups as you'd like, you'll understand if my expectations here are low. — Judaka

Bitcoin "black people are just more criminal" Carlos? Yeah, perfect case in point, thanks for raising it. [EDIT: Actually, I think that was "The KKK is a non-violent organisation"]

A link or source would be nice, I can't find it. I don't want to comment on this with so little information. — Judaka

I thought you were familiar enough with JP to know when I'm misrepresenting him? It's in his book. Read it, don't read it, just drop the claim to expertise.

He emphatically states the value of having women in the workforce, unimpeded, being able to do whatever they want to do. You are an incredibly untrustworthy narrator, if he's so bad, give me statements which show what you claimed about him to be true. — Judaka

I just did. Are you claiming he didn't say:

it’s so whiny, it’s just enough to drive a modern person mad to listen to these suburban housewives from the late ’50s ensconced in their comfortable secure lives complaining about the fact that they’re bored because they don’t have enough opportunity. It’s like, Jesus get a hobby. For Christ’s sake — Kenosha Kid

? Or is this compatible with his claim to be egalitarian? How? Don't confuse JP being a charlatan with me being unreliable. If you have good reason to refute the wording or the meaning of the evidence, go ahead. Pointing elsewhere is a major copout.

Peterson is not arguing that women should be forced to be housewives. — Judaka

Peterson is describing housewives in the 50s who complained of domestic imprisonment of "whining". That's a "shut up" in my book. As I said, I don't expect you to see this sentiment as sexist -- that would be asking too much -- but I'm not going to pretend it isn't to meet your low standards.

You are just exhibiting more of the same behaviour I've been criticising. — Judaka

Yes, and I'm becoming increasingly aware that the behaviour in question is calling prejudiced people out on their prejudices. There's a logical conclusion.

Nobody forced me to apologise. — Judaka

This isn't the point. The point is that you're exhibiting a pattern of behaviour at losing your shit when a prejudiced person is called out on their prejudice then having to back down when you can't justify yourself. You're doing it again here, using your ignorance (or, more likely, blind eye) of JP's sexism as an excuse for defending it.