Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
|
I'm not really demanding anything from anyone. If you spoke to me in person without knowing who I am, you'd have no idea any of this is going on in my head. I don't make a habit of 'demanding' anything from folks; I simply feel less need to conceal my character online than I do in person and these debates fascinate me. I put forward my own nature as a point of discussion because that nature is where and how I approach the topic from.
That said? Yes. I hold a very dim view of traditional masculinity and always have, even before coming to the increasing conclusion that I feel closer to/more drawn towards aspects of traditional femininity. I don't like Ye Olde Average Hooting Fratboy Guy, which is a dislike they have all been more than eager to return to me over the years. I don't like a lot of the baggage that comes with typical masculinity, and I'm not going to pretend I do to try and score Internet points. |
|
"Technically, I agree that I was advocated some poorer/lesser treatment of females over otherwise identical males, in some situations. However, I also advocate some poorer/lesser treatment of males over otherwise identical females, in some situations. It's important to note that we evolved two different genders in a non-heritable manner. That's NOT sexes, because I'm including behavioral expectations unrelated to sexual reproduction and implied by biological differences - we evolved two genders. The non-heritable nature of gender is biologically enforced diversity - the two genders are meant to coexist. If either gender was strictly inferior to the other, we wouldn't have evolved that way; our gender roles would be less pronounced, we'd have less differences in physical and mental development, and we'd be identical except for our genitals and our heritable genetic characteristics. Thus, each gender must have its own advantages AND disadvantages over the other; thus, there will be some ethically sound differences in discrimination between men and women, grounded on biological truths, incentivizing and disincentivizing particular behaviors. Now is there ever true equality of merit, in a general sense, between men and women? No. But there is never a true equality of merit in a general sense, period. Merit is always contextual, and the context is task-specific. We're not equal, we're inescapably different, and that's okay. The quest for equality of outcome is the quest to make apples equal oranges; it's just silly. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
|
The issue with enforcing ideals of merit based on biological superiority or inferiority is that the logical progression of that ideal is eugenics and scientifically determined predestiny - 'people' who're literally born and bred for some task society wants them to do, and who're locked into that role because their genetics have been tailored specifically for it and a society which disregards the notion that biology is not king will not accept someone doing a job for which they're not built.
Dumb people (i.e. low IQ folks, not Internet dumbasses) need jobs too. Weak people need to eat, and thus need to work. Frail people, or sickly ones, need to be able to earn a living. There's all sorts of ways one can be biologically disadvantaged next to the Aryan Ideal(TM) or whatever else is held up as the Gold Standard of fortunate genetics; does this mean we should just execute those folks because they're polluting the gene pool? Or should we acknowledge that biological differences between people, while certainly a factor in their performance of a given task, is not the sole factor or often even the primary one. Nobody is genetically predisposed to be a machinist - that's all skillset, learning, experience and discipline, which are things just about anybody not actively crippled either physically or mentally can manage to acquire. Biologically ideal does not mean biologically necessary; if we let the meat rule our decision-making, then we end up in a place absolutely nobody wants to go save monsters and madmen. |
|
" works the other way around just as easily. every self-evident social "fact" opens a niche for deviants who in their rejection of these self-evident conventions aim to "individualize" themselves from the mainstream. okay, lets say we arrive at a world where gender is abolished/ free, where a spectrum of gender has become such a accepted social "fact" - then whats next? " well...look at how the USA as a society is threating any other ethnicity thats not white... what do you expect? afro-americans and hispanics have been around since the inception of this nation, they have helped build it - and they are not exactly integrated today, after ~250 years. just abandon this fascists nation and move over here to europe, we (as a society) dont really embrace transgenderism to be honest, but most of our mobs are leftists. and id imagine changing places is somewhat easier than changing gender... |
|
|
Spoiler
" you got it the wrong away around. we are heading towards a worlds of eugenics in the sense that everyone will have "superior" genes. at one point, a bespoke child will be as common as a face-lift. every (medical) invention eventually spreads into the mainstream and becomes a commodity, check how the prices for genetic profiling are tumbling and their availability spreads. there is no such thing as medicine being held back for a few elites (apart from experimental medicine, which simply is expensive - but experimental medicine either fails or eventually becomes common practise). but you are on to something: when we have arrived at such a world...who can be bothered to do the "lower jobs"? we are already seeing this today, there are no more "dumb people" around really. |
|
|
I’m not religious or an atheist . But I do believe that the true nature of reality could be quite a bit different than what we believe it to be.
|
|
" Don't you find it kind of ironical to first reject masculinity and then subject yourself to it's biggest macro scale realization for help? Government is very much a man designed system for men to shape structures and systems in which we can all live together. You sneer and look pitifully on men like incompetent lustful people without self-control, but at the same time run to them for protection in the form of the government. I wonder, how do you make that all make sense in your mind. And don't you think your attitude towards men will provoke reactions you might not desire? As pointed out by some people stating that the people in minority's simply wanna live their live without attention put on them. And in case it isn't obvious, changing the law for minor things like this can result in terrible results in a couple of years. And i call this issue minor since that is what it's statistically is, absolutely no relevance for a government to react on. The fact they might is actually far more troublesome since it imply's they can be swayed to active racism. It seems flawed to the core to me when looked at. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
Sad you're an atheist. I dont know this guy but I know god. have you tested whether the earth is round, but simply accept it on faith? You do not believe in a God that does not exist but the God that does can be known. Knowledge of God can be given to none who do not deserve it or kept from any who do. The kingdom of heaven is within you. God is when you are not. He is what is left when the arrogant controlling self dies. God is a walk-in who takes over when you surrender.
Git R Dun! Last edited by Aim_Deep#3474 on May 3, 2018, 9:46:57 PM
|
|
|
I don't really understand the 'gender confused' crowd. It seems like some sort of obsessive psychological condition to me. Gays, lesbians, whatever 's all cool, but "mind in a body of wrong gender" just doesn't seem to make any logical sense by itself.
If a genie appeared and told me to pick which gender I'd like to live the rest of my life as, I'd probably pick female. On the other hand, if I was offered an entirely free of charge gender swap operation, I would turn the offer down. Even if I went through the operation, I still wouldn't be a "real" woman; so what's the point? I have a 'fear of blood veins' (no official phobia term for it afaik). I couldn't slit my wrists even if the lives of my family depended on it; if someone else were to slit my wrists, I can practically guarantee that I'd die from the shock and fear long before I'd bleed to death. Thinking about them, talking, writing... Mandatory anatomy classes back in school were absolute torture. How does this relate to the topic above? Well, I theorize that the driving force behind 'gender confused' people is "what I don't want to be" rather than "what I want to be". I don't think I can become a veinless existence before my lifespan runs out, but if the subject of my fear/disgust/hate (however you want to categorize it) was changed to gender instead, I could see wanting to get a sex change as well. Maybe I would even convince myself that I feel more like a woman rather than hate being a male. " A perfect example of how weak-minded men need a higher presence in their lives. Tsk tsk. |
|
" " i once tried wax to remove the (few) hair i have on my legs and chest. the pain was among the worst i ever felt. imagining that women do this (or other methods) routinely is baffling to me. it takes 30 minutes for a man to go from drowsy to representable. wild hair and not shaving can add "mystery" or a positive roughness to a man - for a woman its just depravation. a man with a little weigh is leading a satisfying life and has always eaten well - whats with it, "he has a healthy appetite". a woman with a little too much weight? (you know what people say - i wont spell it out) look at EVERY hollywood movie EVER and find me a woman who breaks the norm. even the old women are unrealistically pretty milfs in movies. and then look at some of the really ugly male actors. find me a female john goodman! i could go on and on and on. even before or beyond or after equal rights or payments - women arent threated fairly. women, EVERY woman, have to meet ridiculous implicit standards in so many aspects of everyday-life where men just get a pass. (of course women do also enjoy benefits unavailable to men - but that is only when they meet the criteria of being a fine woman. "no ugly chicks". and i wouldnt trade my male carelessness for those few privilges) Last edited by PaoloPinkel#2463 on May 4, 2018, 8:27:07 AM
|
|
