I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation. — jamalrob

No, the passage demonstrates a profound ignorance of female sexuality, given the importance of clitoral stimulation for most women during sex. Not sure how familiar people generally were with this in 1986, but it also substitutes communication between partners (e.g. "how do I make sex great for you") with unilateral disgust.

No it's just an exceptionally stupid sexist statement he made.

He's talking about masturbation

Just learned that this is an actual quote from Roger Scruton in his 1986 book, Sexual Desire

Consider the woman who plays with her clitoris during the act of coition. Such a person affronts her lover with the obscene display of her body, and, in perceiving her thus, the lover perceives his own irrelevance. She becomes disgusting to him, and his desire may be extinguished. The woman’s desire is satisfied at the expense of her lover’s, and no real union can be achieved between them

damn this guy's a loser

Just a reminder that fishfry nearly a year ago wrote that Trump "made peace with North Korea", and so we shouldn't take him seriously.

Yeah I'm typically condescending when people don't read and don't know jackshit about what they are talking about and are overall just not intelligent.

I swear most people on this earth are simply missing half their brains.

Yeah when Marx wrote about how Capitalists, having bought the labor power from a wage-laborer, will aim to maximize the time used for that labor, that has absolutely no relevancy for the 21st Century.

Marx spoke to and corresponded with factory inspectors and traveled to factories when writing Capital. He was originally a journalist. He wrote in detail how the production process worked in specific factories, the raw material used etc. To be fair, he dealt more or less exclusively with England factories, although mid-19th century England has arguably been the purest expression of Capitalism in its history. You literally just haven't read Marx.

Ok so you haven't read Marx got it, this is great discourse

Then it's just a waste of time. It's just some random ancient dude spouting nonsense about why he hates capitalism. But if he has no alternative, why bother with his nonsense? — YuZhonglu

Have you read Marx outside of the Manifesto (assuming you've read that)?

I think Warren will do better in the polls as the debates occur

Marxism doesn't have much, if really anything, in the ways of a "governing ideology". That's why it's helpful to actually read Marx.

Is Peterson actually thinking about Marxism, or is he thinking about a shallow idea of Marxism formulated by reading, per his own admission, only one de-contextualized agitprop piece written by a young Marx?

Capital In the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty

House of Reps should move forward with impeachment. The report clearly demonstrated that Trump's behavior was unacceptable, and he doesn't belong in the White House. The Senate will very unlikely vote for impeachment, but the process itself has to be carried through, as we cannot sit by and accept that this is OK behavior for a sitting President.

Again, not denying that there was rigging involved, but you can't hand-wave the fact that there was strong (and a majority) support for Clinton.

And this faith in your two party system upholds the corrupt two party system.

Philosophically it's interesting, this utter lack of trust in the democratic process. Basically it feels like God has given you two parties, and there is no other way. You cannot do anything about it. So pin your hopes on the "primary" elections and that you can change this corrupt parties to your liking.

It's really something that people think before they notice just how easily voters can change the political environment and they don't have to vote for the old parties. — ssu

Not denying that a movement towards a third party isn't possible or isn't desirable. It's just not viable at this current time and you're naive to think otherwise. The 2018 midterm election alone has enabled national conversation around progressive ideas thanks to notable progressives winning primaries against establishment Democrats. If progressive want to enact immediate political change, and shift the overton window leftward, the most practical way of doing so is through the established organon of the Democratic Party. There is also the danger of fragmenting the liberal/Left voting bloc, and enabling a united Right voting bloc to win elections.

I'm no Republican by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't know how anyone could support the democratic party after it sabotaged its popular candidate in the last presidential race. Can anyone explain that too me? — Merkwurdichliebe

I strongly supported Bernie over Hillary, and while the Democratic establishment clearly favored Clinton it shouldn't be discounted that Hillary received over 3 million more votes (+28% more votes) than Bernie. There is plenty to be pissed about regarding the Democratic Party, but they are the only viably electable party to vote in progressive candidate to enact real change.

have no argument, only the opinion that the state has a deeper agenda that is not available to the populace, and that agenda seems to be unimpeded regardless of who occupies the office — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what these means when you abstract "the state" outside of the representatives who are elected who form part of it, but I also don't know what that has to do with your original comment below:

The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney). — Merkwurdichliebe

Sure, and Obama was a disappointment to the Left as I pointed out in the previous page, but regardless you're original comment only mentioned the left during the Bush years and during Trump's presidency, so I'm not really sure what your argument is any more.

Yeah that requires political power transformed into political action, and it's only been two years since Trump was elected. What were the Dems doing that was "hardcore" to stop the surveillance state and war machine during the Bush years? Clearly nothing. It should also be pointed out that Sanders recently lead an effort to stop the war in Yemen, along with Mike Lee (a Republican no less), which managed to pass through a GOP controlled Senate (Trump of course vetoed it).

Well the Dems didn't gain seats in the 2004 House elections, and gained 31 seats in 2006. They gained 41 seats in the house in 2018, which was the highest Dem gain since 1974, so that doesn't seem to indicate that they "want things done for them". As I pointed out earlier in this thread, Bernie Sanders is far and away the leading contender for the democratic nomination, and is doing an excellent job articulating solutions to major problems that the Left is focused on, such as Medicare for All, Green New Deal in fighting climate change, and the growing inequality of wealth. Elizabeth Warren has also been second to none in detailing policy solutions to curb Capitalism's excesses. They have both been able to do largely while treating Trump himself as a peripheral issue, while not considering Mueller as some sort of savior as other liberal types have done.

I guess you missed the PEW article I posted earlier.

The opposition to Bush was hardcore. The opposition to Trump is quite lame (toothless and whiney). — Merkwurdichliebe

How did opposition to Bush manifest itself, and why was it "hardcore", and what is the opposition to Trump and why is it "lame"?

And who's to say that reproductive rights is a uniquely female issue? What about men forced to pay child support for children conceived without their knowledge, because a woman lied about being on birth control? — Not Steve

lol this is extremely rare, might as well make lightening strikes an "issue". That you manage to attempt to twist reproductive rights into a men's issue too demonstrates a profound thoughtlessness.

Several of the issues I listed are exclusive to men, and all affect men disproportionately. Being coerced into military service only happens to men; women may join, but there has never been pressure for them to do so. Women are never discouraged from seeking emotional support; they're expected to seek it, and that support is almost always available to them. This should not be a competition for which sex has it worse. — Not Steve

Literally none of those issues listed are exclusive to men. Conscription ended in the US in 1973 and I can't think of a single developed country that requires compulsory conscription outside of Israel, which requires both men and women to serve anyway.

Interesting to end the conversation and then continue. — ssu

Yeah super interesting

Except none of those examples listed are unique issues for men, as I explained, in the same way as, for example, reproductive rights are a unique issue for women.

poor fella, can't read past three paragraphs

Sounds about right for you

Global trends are distinct from local trends.

She may know that men are the majority of suicides, the majority of work related deaths, the majority of combat deaths, the majority of alcoholics, et cetera et cetera — Not Steve

None of these are outside of the realm of Feminist issues. Feminists are typically anti-gun in part because guns are commonly used for suicide, as well as domestic violence and homicide. Feminists are also pro-access to healthcare and therapeutic care, and other avenues that can greatly curb suicide. Women are also pro-workplace regulation, which would curb work related deaths, and anti-war which would obviously limit combat deaths. Issues that feminists fight for would benefit men, unless you think that men should have some sort of social-political superiority over women, which of course is nonsense.

It also shouldn't be understated how major events can shape generations. For Millennials, the numerous catastrophes of the Bush administration, particularly the economic recession in 2007, the disappointment of the Obama administration, and the failure of the Democratic establishment to stop the election of Trump is seared into the collective consciousness of that age group. For Gen Z, the disasters of Trump and his administration and an increasingly inequitable economy will continue to mold their political views.

Not really. Leftist Baby Boomers were a minority. An extremely vocal one at times, but a minority all the same. There may be some evidence to suggest that as people get older they become more conservative, but the transformation is generally slight. Usually people retain the political affiliations and beliefs they develop in their twenties throughout their lives.

But no, you are willing to go with sentence that Scruton is a right-wing racist anti-semite islamophobe, which is so obvious to you that you want to stop the conversation now. — ssu

Interesting how much mental gymnastics @ssu is willing to do to deny that Scruton's comments are problematic, yet he'll repeatedly accuse me of painting Scruton as an outright anti-semite, which, as I've argued, is demonstrably untrue.

According to the latest Emerson Polling, Bernie Sanders is the Democratic front runner, ahead of Biden by 5% (29% and 24% respectively). Harris and O'Rourke are only at 8%. I still think it's odd that Biden, who has not announced his candidacy, is still featured in surveys. It obscures the fact that Sanders is by far the leader of those who have actually announced.

When the interviewer literally celebrates with drinking champagne that the "right-wing racist homophobe" he interviewed is fired from a position thanks to his interview, I think the objectives for the interview are quite evident. — ssu

I don't know who George Eaton is; never heard of him prior to this, but damn he must be an extremely talented interviewer to get Scruton, a public servant in a country with nearly three million Muslims to say things like, "The Hungarians were extremely alarmed by the sudden invasion of huge tribes of Muslims from the Middle East," or that Islamophobia was “invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in order to stop discussion of a major issue” or that many Jewish-Hungarian intellectuals form networks around a "Soros Empire". Crazy!

Well, I assume that the whole response that people give to something should be considered. You don't think so: uttering the J-Word means you are a bigot. As I've already said, the alt-right does indeed talk of a Soros empire. Just how you talk about it is important. But if Scruton mentions Soros, is obviously he is part of the alt-right, not the traditional right. — ssu

Insofar as you're, once again, unwilling to directly confront Scruton's remarks that I've highlighted and the loaded antisemitism that they contain, I consider this conversation over.

No one makes these hilariously straw-man claims

From Slavery to the Cooperative Commonwealth: Labor and Republican Liberty in the Nineteenth Century by Alex Gourevitch

As younger generations of Democrats/leftists are gaining political clout viz., Millennials or are finding their political voice viz., Gen Z, both of which lean far more left on key issues than older generations, the older/more moderate members of Democratic party will have to contend with two generations worth of voters who are increasingly exasperated by the many failings of the party from the last 40 years (the symptom of which has culminated in Trump) and are demanding (and will vote for) seismic changes.

Oh I'm dodging now comments? — ssu

God damn, can you please read what I actually write? I said you dodged the "issue" i.e. the content of the antisemitic comments, not that you dodged the comments themselves. Congrats, ssu, you "quoted" them, but you didn't actually directly explain why his comments weren't actually antisemitic canards, you had merely tried to highlight the quotes around them in order to excuse them. As I pointed out, they don't.

You simply have to give the example, not just say the interpretation of what he had in mind is obvious. — ssu

I literally posted a very good article in the previous page explaining how Soros has come to embody the centuries old archetype of the "manipulative Jew". Here is a salient point:

Matthew Lyons, a researcher and the author of several books on rightwing populism and far-right ideology, said that commonly circulated narratives about George Soros resonate with a long history of antisemitic myths and stereotypes.

“One of the central antisemitic themes for a thousand years, at least, has been the notion that Jews represent this evil, super-powerful group that operates behind the scenes,” Lyons said.

“Often, anti-Jewish conspiracy theories don’t explicitly talk about Jews or ‘the Jews’ as a group. There’s some kind of code word or symbol that’s used in place.”

Here is another good article on how Soros has become a boogeyman for right-wing conspiracies, and which discusses Hungary at length. Here is another salient point:

The Hungarian prime minister, on course for re-election next month, now calls Soros “an American financial speculator attacking Hungary” who has “destroyed the lives of millions of Europeans”, and has based his election campaign on attacking a supposed “Soros plan” to flood Hungary with Muslim migrants.

Further, it is important that this is taken against the backdrop that, as of 2015, 59% of Hungarians think it's "probably true" that Jews have too much power in the business world; 57% that they have too much power in financial markets; and 49% that they have too much control over global affairs.

So when someone says, "Many of the Budapestintelligentsia are Jewish, andform part of the extensive networks around the Soros Empire" do you still sincerely think this has nothing to do with antisemitic tropes?

How about first saying that you aren't explicitly saying that he is an anti-semite and then saying he is making antisemitic comments? — ssu

These are very much two separate things. Soros made an antisemitic trope. Do I think everyone who has made a racially stereotypical comment or trope racist? No, not necessarily. Just as I think it would be absurd to call someone a liar because they've lied once. It would be a whole other matter if he repeated it multiple times, or had made additional antisemitic comments, or stated it more explicit terms, such as "Jews manipulate the world" or something to that effect. But he didn't, and as I explained earlier, I wasn't going to call him an outright antisemite because I'm not aware of any other comments he's made towards Jews.

This was just a typical leftist character assassination campaign — ssu

LOL he said that "tribes" of Muslim refugees were "invading" Hungary for fuck's sake! It's not "character assassination", he merely quoted him! I do love when right-wingers do this, they accuse others of "character assassination" when their own fucking words are thrown right back at them.

Oh yes, you just said that his comments are an undeniable antisemitic canard and you can't imagine he has a rosy view of Jews. Again, that he in his talk referred to Jews being prosecuted in Hungary and antisemitism being a problem there doesn't naturally matter to you. — ssu

Yes, he mentioned the historical fact that Jews were prosecuted under Eastern European Communists, and that indigenous antisemitism continues to be an obstacle for the emergence of a nationally shared Hungarian identity between Jews and non-Jews, which of course seems odd to me given his friendship with Orban who has leveraged antisemitism for political purposes, while Scruton has said such accusations were "nonsense". So when the only "problem" of antisemitism is because it's a barrier to shared nationalism, rather than a problem in itself, I'm somewhat skeptical for his sincerity here.

Regardless, you continue to dodge the issue I brought up, which is that Scruton made antisemitic comments, which of course hasn't been disputed.

And it's not about his dishonor here, it's about the ease how loosely defined accusations are enthusiastically hurled and accepted without critical thinking — ssu

I'm frankly less interested in what epithets we apply to people, as oppose to what they actually say, and in this particular case, if it's acceptable for someone in a government position to say them. Personally, I don't think it's acceptable for someone in a public position to say that Islamophobia isn't a valid term, or to refer to immigrants and refugees as "Muslim tribes" who are "invading".