Sorry I don’t mean to sound so patronising. I find much of these new wave of pseudo intellectuals cringey beyond belief. They’re the antithesis of everything I believe.
Jordan Peterson Thread.
- Thread starter mezzrow
- Start date
- Status
dholliday
deconstructed rep
She's not worth my time mate if she has an opinion like the one you quoted. She's influential only to those who like that sort of thing. Like Ron Hubbard is influential.
How would she answer my question? Is she denying men are biologically bigger & stronger or is she denying that such qualities have naturally formed masculine roles? Both denials are utter bonkers, surely you see this?
It does your argument no good just to repeat her words, or to claim she is famous. You have to understand how & explain why her statement is true if you want others to be convinced.
You're not being patronising, Jimmy. You could say what you believe in, tho'. These 'new wave of pseudo intellectuals' believe in free speech, classical liberalism (equality of opportunity), open debate, long-form analysis, individualism & small government...that probably covers the main things they all pretty much agree on. So if you believe in the antithesis of all that, it means you believe in:
- lack of free speech / censoring debate
- contemporary progressivism (equality of outcome)
- short-form soundbites (ala Twitter or your posts here where you just quote someone else but don't offer your own analysis)
- homogeneous society (Islamic countries, or perhaps Japan & North Korea, are examples of these)
- Nanny State
Sound about right? Have you seen George Lucas's first film: THX-1138? If you're not a bookworm & can't be arsed with the dystopian classics like Zamyatin's We then watch that. There's an interesting message there.
The IDW has popped-up so prominently because the dystopia of THX-1138 seems to be desired in some quarters.
Butler is not worth your time but you want him to watch a Lucas film, funniest thing I've read on here. dystopian futures because the left??? You gonna tell him to follow the hari seldon plan next? Amazing
dholliday
deconstructed rep
used to love reading I, Robot shorts when stoned back in the day
-Freedom of speech is a progressive idea. Using it as a way to protect ones right to spread hate speech, as an example, should be censored.
-Equality of opportunity is a very progressive idea. Equality of outcome is only necessary in some cases to ensure equality of opportunity.
-Short form vs long form. Both have their place.
-homogeneous societies...not sure where you are going with that. That is a far right idea.
-Nanny State is such a negative term coined by a conservative. There are cases where this has improved society 10 fold. For example smoking in public places.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Freedom of speech is not a progressive idea. The concept has been around since Roman times. Idealogically it falls under the classical liberalist umbrella. More latterly see the Bill of Rights of 1689, inspired by John Locke (the "father of liberalism").
Progressivism as a movement or idea has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment...so much later.
If ya know yer history...
Who's spreading what hate speech? This sounds like a strawman comment. What's Peterson or anyone associated with the IDW said that's deserving of censure?
No it's not, see above. Progressivism can't take credit for things long already in place.
Examples?
Agreed. But only long-form aids deep understanding. Short-form is often wittier, brighter, more memorable: hence slogans (albeit ultimately meaningless) gaining traction...i.e. Yes We Can. Make America Great Again etc
It goes beyond right/left politik: it's a society promoted by a controlling (or wannabe-controlling) state: be that Nazism, Communist, Islamic or indeed 'progressive'.
Your tribal bias shows. If it originated by someone associated with liberalism you wouldn't be so critical of the term. My point about 'Nanny State' being it's the antithesis of 'small government'. I was attempting to identify what Jimmy stands for as he's the "antithesis" of what the IDW stands for.
Sigh. No mate. I could easily end up writing a basic undergrad essay here but it’s entirely pointless. Gender roles have little or no basis in any kind of supposed evolutionary determinism especially going forward into a post Industrial Age. What a man or women is meant to be is imprinted upon them from the moment they are born.
I don’t want to watch a George Lucas film thank you. I would love to watch a YouTube vid called Butler DESTROYS dark web intellectual lightweight JP though
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Again, you're not explaining why you believe your controversial statements. That's what's pointless. If you want meaning, you have to provide it.
You're plain wrong and I'll explain why. This is gonna be a TL/DR for most people. And that's cool. But such a weighty disagreement deserves more than short-form statements if anything's to be truly understood.
Men are biologically built stronger & bigger than woman. If you disagree with that then the rest will be gobbledigook to you. So I'm assuming you are seeing that most obvious of things. So then the next thing to consider is: has this physical advantage naturally assigned gender roles?
Well, clearly yes. That's why the man went hunting and the woman looked after home. We're not a million years away from these times, hence we still have these "biologically-fixed" gender roles. Evolution moves slowly. Are you familiar with Darwin's work? Not wanting to sound patronising, I'm being serious. It's important to understand how slow evolution (and its inherent biological-imperativism) evolves.
So the next thing to consider is has the Industrial Revolution (your example) put paid to this advantage? No, it hasn't. For two reasons:
1) the man is still bigger & stronger, he thus will instinctively feel a responsibility for bigger & stronger work (remember, evolution moves slowly). Modern life still has such work, even if it means more things like 12-hour shifts rather than gutting rabbits.
These instincts of competition, territorialism, fight-or-flight and base survival are still there. And if the male is naturally stronger, he will have these instincts more than the female. It's biology. It's not something we can deny is there. It shapes the roles men & woman have (gender roles, if you like). It's different with bears or spiders, as their gender strength-gap isn't the same as humans.
See also the debate on men's sports vs women's sports, and their popularity in the eyes of the world's populace. That's not a socially-constructed popularity, that's borne of biological advantage. That's why we don't watch the Women's Premier League.
2) the woman, tho' empowered, continues to not 'choose' the path the man chooses. Hence we have the infamous gender pay-gap which only exists because the woman is impelled to work less hard than men (to protect her ability to carry & nurture children as well as being physically weaker) and/or in fields less well-paid (competition, remember? that's a man thing) and/or choose to have babies and then take even longer work breaks to care for them. This is their biological-imperativism at work. It's not a socially-constructed role. Our species has worked with this biological truth to form society. We didn't invent it to form society, it's the way we're built.
Individually, we can indeed choose to work against these imperatives...no problem. We're intelligent & advanced enough. The man can look after home & baby and the woman can go provide. All good. But biological-imperative means this won't be the norm unless forced upon by social changes (progressivism) or tens-of-thousands of years of further evolution.
The irony is that you're not seeing where biology ends & social culture begins. You think culture decides biological-imperativism - i.e. culture decides men are stronger and thus seek to do strong work, or at least that men being stronger makes social culture push them in a direction of strong work - but that's impossible. Social culture can only work with or away from biological-imperativism, it cannot decide what it is.
Gender (non-biological) is the social construct. Gender (biological) is the real thing. The former can mean anything you want it to mean...it's lala-fantasyland. Nowt wrong with that. Makes life interesting. But once you deny the latter you're intellectually in trouble.
And it's intellect (again, see Darwin) which has gotten us humans so far.
Whatever you studied at Uni is irrelevant if it's just plain wrong and thus without actual use in the real world - unless your 'use' is furthering social agendas...we now know the masses of students with aimless social-studies degrees are not getting on in the workplace...and we now know why, as I've explained above.
You might disagree. But if all you've got is stating something as if it's true without explaining yourself at least empirically, then you've got no argument.
Hence, you've lost the argument. Ergo, the IDW wins.
As you're the antithesis of IDW and presumably don't want them to win, maybe you'd like to try to present your case better?
Eh?
Last edited:
Not sure I will have time today to respond.
I will just say that I use the term progressive and liberal as it applies today. Two terms both that are synonymous with the left wing.
... I can’t be arsed
See the bit I've put in bold? That's what I'd call a double irony. Making a lot of assumptions based off of sexual dimorphism to try and address an is-ought problem, or nature vs nurture.
Just for starters, do you have a source to back this up: "These instincts of competition, territorialism, fight-or-flight and base survival are still there. And if the male is naturally stronger, he will have these instincts more than the female." a
Also you don't seem to understand that society does have a huge role on the decisions women make. Here's one example: http://allthatsinteresting.com/scully-effect
ALSO, even physically, not all men are bigger and stronger than all women - a pretty important point. (Sorry, reading your comment bit by bit, because busy lol)
Last edited:
They were until insufferable right-wing bellends like Youtube personality Sargon of Gonads started declaring themselves to be on the Left. Just so people know how dishonest this Sargon character (real name Carl Benjamin) is, here's a recent picture he posted... Yes, he's such a great Leftist.
Exactly. It's such a loaded term to begin with. Anyone who wishes to discuss the role of government in society, and starts by calling it the nanny state is poisoning the well (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). Dishonest from the off, basically. lol The fact that you were accused of "tribal bias" for calling that out is just outrageous.
Only on average, and it depends on what type of strength you are talking about. There is actually a lot of overlap for certain strength-based activities, such as distance running, carrying heavy-loads, and walking. Men, on average, do have higher grip-strength and upper body strength.
No, not exactly. On average, men hunt and women gather, but in some hunter-gatherer societies there is far less gendered roles for these two activities, so one can't draw up tidy little dichotomies. Futher, some types of hunting doesn't involve or rely on men's strength; in fact in more than a few hunting-gathering societies men hunt large game not because they are strong, but more likely because successful hunters are viewed as more prestigious and can acquire more resources (and females) by being viewed as a successful hunter. Studies have suggested that hunter-gatherer men would actually obtain more animal protein if they hunt/trapped small game (something that doesn't require strength), but they don't do this; instead, they pursue risky animal prey for status reasons. Certainly, from what I understand, strength plays a role in some types of hunting, but I don't think hunting was the evolutionary reason for sexual dimorphism in body strength.
I'm not aware of any evidence suggesting that "bigger & stronger" will lead to an instinctive "responsibility for bigger & stronger work"
Again, these "instincts" you refer to depend critically on our ancestral social/mating system, and it is unclear how territorial/competitive our ancestors were, so it is unclear exactly how territorial/competitive present-day humans are supposed to be. If anything, several psychological studies suggest humans will rapidly readjust their in-group/out-group competitive mentality in the face of a larger threat (A hates B, but A and B unite against common enemy C), indicating that these are not hard-wired and fixed instincts, but flexible psychological "programs" that are capable of responding to external stimuli. And one of the largest external stimuli out there is culture. If you grow up watching/experiencing violence (a cultural phenomenon), you will end up being violent. Same goes for non-violence and its influence on your demeanor. Compare, for example, the !Kung versus the Yanomamo. The former is quite egalitarian, passive, and monogamous, the latter is quite fierce and polygynous.
Women tend to want to have children more than men, on average. But I'm not sure this has much to do with women impelling themselves to working less hard than men, which is what you wrote. That seems a rather harsh and unsupportable judgment on women's work ethic, particularly when there are so many other real obstacles in their way such as sexual harassment, to name one. Raising kids while holding down a job in a culture that is predominantly male-oriented is another.
Also, women (and females throughout the animal kingdom) are highly competitive, just not competitive in a way that a right-leaning man such as yourself might see them.
It is a common and false dichotomy to talk about "biology ends and social/culture begins" They interact, and as I said before, our brains are not hardwired with fixed instincts, but are wired up by evolution to be capable of adapting/adjusting to external phenomena. We don't have an hard-wired and adapted brain; we have a brain capable of adapting.
I'm not aware of masses of students with aimless social-studies degrees not getting on in the workplace...where is this idea coming from?
- Status