Yeah he's sort of disappeared after that, not sure why we're even talking about him
Current Affairs The New Middle
- Thread starter dholliday
- Start date
- Status
Yeah he's sort of disappeared after that, not sure why we're even talking about him
Here's a website that some might be interested in. It is called heterodox academy.
The website above was started because of things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy
Briefly, a philosophy professor, Rebecca Tuvel, published a philosophical study in the feminist philosophy journal Hypatia comparing transracialism to transgenderism using Rachel Dolezal and Caitlin Jenner as examples. It was a typically rarefied academic piece (meaning I really couldn't understand most of what she was talking about...but I'm not a philosopher!). It created a vast controversy, and it even divided me and my academic friends...but taking a quote from the wikipedia page above, I'll let this do the speaking:
On Friday, 28 April 2017, Tuvel and the article came under attack on Facebook and Twitter. Tuvel was called transphobic, racist, crazy and stupid, and accused of engaging in "epistemic violence". Several feminists referred to her as a "Becky", a pejorative sexist term. The article was called violent, crap and "wack [Poor language removed]". Kelly Oliver, W. Alton Jones Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, made an effort on Facebook to defend Tuvel by asking for arguments rather than insults, and suggested that Hypatia invite critical responses. She was told her comments were "unforgivable", and that her suggestions were "doing violence" and triggering PTSD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_transracialism_controversy#cite_note-Oliver7May2017-9
Subsequently, I was not surprised to see that Tuvel has since joined heterodox academy.
peteblue
Welcome back Wayne
You should share that video with posters on the EU and Trump threads, or even better send the threads to the heterodox academy so they can have a few more case studies...
I do like it’s concept though, especially using argument and opposite viewpoint to generate learning...
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
No, it isn't. You said:
What Milo said, which you helpfully quoted, was that paedophila only referred to an attraction to pre-pubescent children - ie: that older people attracted to (for example) thirteen year old boys weren't paedophiles. How that squares with "the problem is mainstream media have shoved 'paedophila' into meaning any kind of sexual preference involving under the age of consent" is something you'll have to explain.
Jordan Peterson is a pseudo-academic, who relies on nothing other than deluded paranoia presented as theory.
One of his favored lines is "facts are facts", whilst also making the utterly ridiculous statement that women "refuse" to point out the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia is due to their "unconscious wish for brutal male domination".
One of his favored lines is "facts are facts", whilst also making the utterly ridiculous statement that women "refuse" to point out the human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia is due to their "unconscious wish for brutal male domination".
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
It isn't so much of a weird trap as descending into the bizarre world of your posts to point out the nonsense contained within.
Take this for example, in which you said "he wasn't defending paedophilia in any shape or form", then followed it with a complaint that the "problem is mainstream media have shoved 'paedophilia' into meaning any kind of sexual preference involving under the age of consent. This is obviously stupid (age of consents around the world can be very different), but there you go".
Now strictly speaking in terms of the exact definition of a psychiatric disorder, paedophilia does mean what Milo (and you) claims it means; however what it does not mean is that the alternative (hebephilia, to use his example) is legal, acceptable or not a psychiatric disorder in and of itself, nor that the mainstream media made it illegal, unacceptable or a disorder. The reason the two are confused is that both of them constitute child abuse, though Milo claimed otherwise:
.... which, finally, brings us back to "what he actually said".
dholliday
deconstructed rep
He doesn't state that as a fact, he states that as a possible psychological factor, and not among all women, but among the 3rd/4th-wave feminism types. And this may be his opinion too, or at least he is indulging it as a thought experiment (I have too). When he states an actual fact, he is then liable to state "facts are facts".
Or have you got evidence that Peterson said women having an "unconscious wish for brutal male domination" is a "fact"?
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Where did I even slightly imply that hebephilia is legal, acceptable or not a paraphilia (disorder)? The only thing I said which might slightly imply it's legal is in that some countries have lower age of consents (some as young as 13). Milo is saying that he was post-pubescent at the time (ephebophilia), so his argument is that his experience didn't constitute child abuse, even if the legal age of consent in Britain says it did.
Ergo: he wasn't defending paedophilia in any shape or form. Which is/was my original point.
Then you quote the bit where you say "but he didn't say that":
...but he did say that. It's right there in your own quote.
dholliday
deconstructed rep
Quote from your video: "I think it's their unconscious wish for brutal male domination".
It's not a fact, he didn't say it was a fact. He's just putting it out there as a free thought. And he's not the only one.
Oh dear.
It also speaks volumes about the "centreground" of politics is also an apologist for people with views as horrid as suggesting that women have a "unconscious wish for brutal male domination".
dholliday
deconstructed rep
And again you're taking what he says out of context. You're armed with an 18-second clip, what do you expect to learn from that?
tsubaki
Player Valuation: £90m
You said "the problem is mainstream media have shoved 'paedophilia' into meaning any kind of sexual preference involving under the age of consent. This is obviously stupid (age of consents around the world can be very different), but there you go". If you are saying you don't think it should be legal, acceptable nor not a disorder then where is the problem? Why is it stupid (unless you consider the media should only use the exact terms laid down in the psychiatric literature)?
Where did I say "but he didn't say that"? I said that is "what he actually said", which was effectively that he didn't consider sexual activity between a 13 year old and an adult to be child abuse. Do you agree with him?
- Status