You wish to label me alt-right even though I say I despise the alt-right because you think it sounds right. — Judaka

1. Accuses people of being intersectional feminists based on no evidence.
2. Complains about being labelled alt-right.

You're a real hypocrite. I don't give a fuck what you label yourself, dude, if you walk like a duck...

It seems entirely plausible that there could be two communities which face essentially the same problem like bad roads or littering or something like that. — BitconnectCarlos

Indeed. But problems don't arrange themselves around the world like that. The problems in Arusha are not the same as the problems in Manchester which aren't the same as the problems in Grand Rapids.

You'd help out your own community first, and then it's fine to go off the help the other, right? And this is the right thing to do, right? — BitconnectCarlos

That's logistically optimal, since if the two communities are so similar, they'd both have volunteers. No point swapping volunteers. But if the second community had none, it would make perfect sense for those of the first to expand into the second, and not only once all the problems of the first are resolved, which would be a bit twattish.

Does that answer (b)? Essentially, the only reason to help your own town first is that logistically it's amenable to self-organisation. That aside, no, I see no reason to sort out my town's problems before someone else's, and it's not a very useful theoretical construct since the entire point of e.g. volunteering abroad is precisely that they face more difficult problems.

At the same time, he warns women who would attempt to compete on the boy's own turf, in order to achieve professional careers, that they are bound to become very depressed or even suicidal in later life. He likes to provide examples from his clinical experience of career women who became very depressed because they lost their opportunity to flourish through raising children. — Pierre-Normand

Maybe because "career women" can afford a shrink?

Probably our main disagreement comes from the fact you think you're elevating the public perception of JP rather than slandering him horrifically. Who would want to listen to JP after reading your "take", I have no idea, but if you say in your opinion, you're helping to make him look good, what can I say, agree to disagree lol. — Judaka

Perhaps it's telling of our times that Peterson is referred to being a philosopher.

Anyway, I have become extremely sceptical to anyone who today is a critic of some person. Now days there simply is no objectivity or any will to try to understand the other. As a Finnish saying goes: it's like "The Devil reading the Bible". It gets interest, clicks. The critic has either an agenda or simply promotes his views to his or her own tribe of similar thinking people. Perhaps it is far too confusing for people if you agree with one thing and disagree with another thing that some person has said. That seems lax, weak. Nope, tribalism has to dominate! You are either for or against and either with us or against us!

The solution? Listen to the people yourself and make up your mind without the people who have chewed the message for you before hand.

It's the old us-versus-them attitude. People get caught in feelings before weighing all pros and cons, before really thinking things through.

I think Nietzsche explains this perfectly:

I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. … I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and live accordingly, without having first given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward.

What does believing that a meat diet cured their problems say about their critical ability? — Banno

Well, the placebo effect is real.
Someone who is eager to see themselves superior to others will reflect this in their eating habits as well.
Eating cows is somewhere at the top of the hierachy. Chicken, pigs, fish are lowlier, so there isn't much superiority in eating those.

Here's rooting he gets scurvy, at least that!

I think Nietzsche explains this perfectly:

I do not want to believe it although it is palpable: the great majority of people lacks an intellectual conscience. … I mean: the great majority of people does not consider it contemptible to believe this or that and live accordingly, without having first given themselves an account of the final and most certain reasons pro and con, and without even troubling themselves about such reasons afterward. — deusidex

But they're happy ...

Did you just parrot back the very same thing I just said to you? Call me a fascist, alt-right, racist, I don't care. If anyone on this forum hasn't learned already how little these words mean when you use them, they will soon figure it out. My argument for why you're most likely an intersectional feminist or at a bare minimum, closely ideologically aligned is not unreasonable. And unlike for the alt-right, there are doubtless many proud feminists on this forum and intersectional feminism is not likely something they see as incorrect.

All intersectional feminism says is that people experience different levels of privilege and discrimination based on their various political and social identities. Through the lens of intersectional feminism, we see people as experiencing these different lives based on those identities and sometimes make assumptions about people. Some have taken it to extremes and used the idea of intersectional feminism to develop anger against "straight white men" because they inhabit multiple privileged identities. My problem with it is that we don't want to focus on seeing a person through these most visible identities, using our assumptions about their levels of privilege or discrimination to prejudice against them. The end result seems to be that rather than increasing awareness about discrimination and privilege, it instead leads to just more discrimination and prejudice.

When I call someone an intersectional feminist, in the negative sense, what I am saying is that their hypersensitivity to these identities is causing them to be more prejudicial and discriminatory. That is not necessarily something that they'll agree with but doesn't mean they need to argue against the term. Given the way that you talk on this forum, I think that my guess about your views is correct, whenever you start talking about "straight white men" and whenever your seen overusing the terms "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "transphobic" or whatever. It shows that your worldview is centralised around discrimination and privilege, if you didn't learn it from self-identified feminists then perhaps you just learned it on the internet, it's quite possible.

This is the evidence that links you to intersectional feminism and unlike "racist" or "fascist" just being called an intersectional feminist, doesn't leave you without grounds to argue that you're in the right. I'm not trying to win arguments by giving people labels. But unlike say, Marxism, the ideology is simple enough that you can just figure it out by listening to people on Twitter, I don't need you to self-identify for what I said to be correct. That said, I will not persist beyond convincing that this description of you is correct if you still adamantly disagree then I'll reconsider.

I've seen you debate people you disagree with politically on this forum, it's not a pleasant sight. I don't belong to any political factions and I am really far off being alt-right. I expect when I talk to you, to be called racist, fascist, alt-right, a right-wing nutter or whatever else because I've seen you describe people as such in the most ridiculous ways. You aren't a piece of shit in my eyes if you admitted to being an intersectional feminist but I am definitely a piece of shit for being alt-right. Your labels to you, mean the total destruction of my credibility, the degradation of my morality, the proof of my low intelligence and an easy dismissal of whatever I might have to say. And you give them out, so easily, here it's because I called you far left. For Garth, it's that he critiqued Antifa, for carlos, he's pro-fascist because he refused to condemn fascist groups to your liking. These events simply don't meet the bar for the words and terms you're using, especially, when they're things you passionately hate.

So, do not compare my calling you an intersectional feminist, to you calling me alt-right, because both the justification and the consequences of the use of these labels are night and day.


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.

I've never particulary liked Peterson. I see too much bullshit tweets from him. Like:

Women: if you usurp men they will rebel and fail and you will have to jail or enslave them.

Errr... what?

Or this stuff: "You can test a woman's preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren't on the pill like wide-jawed men when they're ovulation, and they like narrow-jawed men when they're not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well, all women on the pill are as if they're not ovulating, so it's posibble that a lot of the antipathy that eixsts right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling."

I mean seriously? I don't even know where to start with this stuff and will just throw up my hands.

Did you just parrot back the very same thing I just said to you? — Judaka

Kind of, but with respect to chronology. It helps if one of us can follow a conversation we're having.

Call me a fascist, alt-right, racist, I don't care. — Judaka

I didn't say you were alt-right, I said you seemed to be making the exact same kind of bullshit argument that I'd previously bemoaned wherein someone "left" can be described as anything you like as long as you consider it also "left". The example with JP being that anyone who is a feminist is automatically a Marxist. The example with you being that anyone who's anti-fascist and anti-racist is automatically an intersectional feminist.

You're obviously not going to justify your crap arguments. Up to you whether you want to debase yourself.

My argument for why you're most likely an intersectional feminist or at a bare minimum, closely ideologically aligned is not unreasonable. — Judaka

You didn't make one.

All intersectional feminism says is that people experience different levels of privilege and discrimination based on their various political and social identities. — Judaka

Incorrect. Intersectional feminism is somewhat more specific, clue's in the name.

My problem with it is that we don't want to focus on seeing a person through these most visible identities, using our assumptions about their levels of privilege or discrimination to prejudice against them. — Judaka

Given the context, it seems more like your problem is one of hypocrisy, in which privileged people should go unchallenged when saying that e.g. racism, misogyny, homophobia don't exist, that whatever conspiracy theories they're peddling to explain data to the contrary ought to be respected as facts, and that anyway those facts don't count.

Racism makes race an issue, not opposing or understanding racism. I'm getting kind of tired of the ridiculous argument that opposing racism is racist. It basically amounts to "I can bang on and on about it but you can't because you're supposed to be colour-blind". Yes, ideally we should be colour-blind. Alas racists make that a future goal not a present reality.

This is the evidence that links you to intersectional feminism — Judaka

It's pretty stupid. Basically exactly as I described above: criticise X, associate X to Y, proceed under the basis that Y has been criticised. For a man who despises the alt-right, you really talk like one. You may as well argue that a chocolate covered strawberry is a chocolate covered banana because it's covered in chocolate.

I've seen you debate people you disagree with politically on this forum, it's not a pleasant sight. — Judaka

I'm sorry that that's what displeases you rather than the racism I object to. Sorry, but not shocked.

Incorrect. Intersectional feminism is somewhat more specific, clue's in the name. — Kenosha Kid

:lol:

Another thing is, the language his followers/fans use. He DESTROYS people. Gives them the ULTIMATE advice. SCHOOLED by Peterson. Meanwhile, on the other side, Peterson is a nazi, white supremacist, racist, sexist, evil, bitter professor. What's in between? Because both sides are heated with such strong emotions like they are preparing for war.

Or this stuff: "You can test a woman's preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren't on the pill like wide-jawed men when they're ovulation, and they like narrow-jawed men when they're not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well, all women on the pill are as if they're not ovulating — Benkei

Studies support this, though, e.g. Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for malefacial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity


As for the rest of what he says about women ... I think he's an example of a male martyr.

Meanwhile, on the other side, Peterson is a nazi, white supremacist, racist, sexist, evil, bitter professor. — deusidex

He is definitely a sexist bitter professor, or he was bitter, he's raking it in now. He recycles Nazi propaganda but that doesn't make him a Nazi, and I don't think he's a white supremacist. JP's beef is mostly with women and trans people afaik. His arguments on mandating correct rather than censoring incorrect terminology aren't without merit, but nothing you wouldn't hear from an opinionated cab driver.

Peterson is a nazi, white supremacist, racist, sexist, evil, bitter professor — deusidex

Heh, maybe that's the scurvy talking out of his mouth!

Studies support women changing preferences in how men look. The link between jaw width and aggression is totally spurious. That's driven by the fact we're no longer hunter-gatherers chewing hard, uncooked foods.

Studies support women changing preferences in how men look. The link between jaw width and aggression is totally spurious. That's driven by the fact we're no longer hunter-gatherers chewing hard, uncooked foods. — Benkei

Quite right, the prevalence of a narrower jaw did not arise after the invention of the contraceptive pill: it arose after the advent of agriculture. Once again, agriculture screwed us, this time with dentistry bills. :meh:

What is the opinion on the Peterson-Žižek debate here?

Wikipedia - Reception of the Peterson–Žižek debate

Perhaps it's telling of our times that Peterson is referred to being a philosopher.

Anyway, I have become extremely sceptical to anyone who today is a critic of some person. Now days there simply is no objectivity or any will to try to understand the other. As a Finnish saying goes: it's like "The Devil reading the Bible". It gets interest, clicks. The critic has either an agenda or simply promotes his views to his or her own tribe of similar thinking people. Perhaps it is far too confusing for people if you agree with one thing and disagree with another thing that some person has said. That seems lax, weak. Nope, tribalism has to dominate! You are either for or against and either with us or against us!

The solution? Listen to the people yourself and make up your mind without the people who have chewed the message for you before hand. — ssu

The most wisdom in a post on this thread yet. :up:

I didn't say you were alt-right, I said you seemed to be making the exact same kind of bullshit argument that I'd previously bemoaned wherein someone "left" can be described as anything you like as long as you consider it also "left". The example with JP being that anyone who is a feminist is automatically a Marxist. The example with you being that anyone who's anti-fascist and anti-racist is automatically an intersectional feminist. — Kenosha Kid

You're such a hypocrite, you are the one poster who is most egregious in this area. You have on numerous occasions called people "right-wing" and accused people of using "right-wing" logic and in literal total absence of any argument and meant as an insult. I did not say anyone who is anti-fascist and anti-racist is automatically an intersectional feminist. I'm anti-fascist and anti-racist, most people are.

You're obviously not going to justify your crap arguments. Up to you whether you want to debase yourself. — Kenosha Kid

The crap argument that you're an intersectional feminist? If I agreed with how you paraphrased my arguments, I'd agree that they're terrible. Or did I not make one? Whichever it is.

Given the context, it seems more like your problem is one of hypocrisy, in which privileged people should go unchallenged when saying that e.g. racism, misogyny, homophobia don't exist, that whatever conspiracy theories they're peddling to explain data to the contrary ought to be respected as facts, and that anyway those facts don't count. — Kenosha Kid

I don't know how much I want to actually address your uncharitable and unflattering characterisations of me and my views. At this stage, I expect it and I don't think I can avoid it. No, you can challenge people on being racist or homophobic, you can challenge them if they say those things don't exist, you can fact-check people, lol.

Incorrect. Intersectional feminism is somewhat more specific, clue's in the name. — Kenosha Kid

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROwquxC_Gxc&ab_channel=LafayetteCollege
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWa63FLEYsU&ab_channel=OmegaInstituteforHolisticStudies

Crenshaw discusses as I said, the impact of various kinds of discrimination and privilege, which intersect to create new classes of privilege and discrimination. That a black woman has to deal with both racism and sexism and is thus worse off than a black man who only deals with racism and a white woman who only deals with sexism. That includes homophobia, transphobia, ageism, ableism, classism and many kinds of discrimination besides sexism. In other words, the various social identities one embodies have individual privileges or disadvantages and people experience different levels of privilege and discrimination based on these identities. You're going to have to be more specific if you still have a
disagreement.

I'm sorry that that's what displeases you rather than the racism I object to. Sorry, but not shocked. — Kenosha Kid

You mislabel others, don't expect me to agree with you whenever see racism and in the cases that I agree, I'll criticise them too. I expressed a specific dislike for some of the ideologies surrounding intersectional feminism, I'm not playing a correlation game. All it took for you, is for me to call you hard left and I gotta deal with "you're using the logic of the alt-right" and whatever bs you can use to smear me.

The link between jaw width and aggression is totally spurious — Benkei

Peterson and the study I linked to are talking about changed preferences about men in women who use hormonal contraceptives.

↪ssu
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

Social media plays a big role, its a fact that it creates tension. Its designed to. I recommend The Social Dilemma, eye opening.
Also, it wasnt a waste of time responding to whats his face the Kenosha wanker. You exposed him and other people here can see, you were speaking to them as much as to him so yes it was worth you bothering.

Quite right, the prevalence of a narrower jaw did not arise after the invention of the contraceptive pill: — Kenosha Kid

No, the point is that even the same woman can have different preferences in men, depending on whether she uses hormonal contraceptives or not.
Hormonal contraceptives don't only have physical side-effects, but also psychological ones.

I know. And Peterson concludes things from it that do not follow from the study.

And Peterson concludes things from it that do not follow from the study. — Benkei

Such as?

Such as jaw width being related to level of aggressiveness.

Quite right, the prevalence of a narrower jaw did not arise after the invention of the contraceptive pill: it arose after the advent of agriculture. Once again, agriculture screwed us, this time with dentistry bills. — Kenosha Kid

Humans have a mutation that weakens their jaw muscles as compared to other primates. This weakness may also explain our larger brains. The size of a chimp's brain is constrained by the powerful muscles required to chew raw vegetation.

There does seem to be some correlation between jaw width and aggressiveness:

Recent research has identified men’s facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) as a reliable predictor of aggressive tendencies and behavior. Other research, however, has failed to replicate the fWHR-aggression relationship and has questioned whether previous findings are robust. In the current paper, we synthesize existing work by conducting a meta-analysis to estimate whether and how fWHR predicts aggression. Our results indicate a small, but significant, positive relationship between men’s fWHR and aggression.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122637

You're moving from jaw width to facial width-to-height ratio.

Oh, right.