Joe Biden:

Trump staff member tweets:

Biden still way ahead on the polls.

Dems. They’re gonna pick the only guy who couldn’t sell cold beer in Hell.

I've never heard him say anything pro incel or along the lines of men being owed women's attention or bodies

There are plenty of things he's said that I don't agree with but generally speaking his haters don't seem to have a clue what he actually stands for.

Idk man. I remember one talk about makeup in the work place and how women only wear it to appear sexy to men. I can acknowledge there is probably some truth to that but it lacks nuance and even if it isnt pro-incel its certainly something theyd adopt.

There was debate/interview where he was saying that women wear makeup just to be attractive to men and that men just can't control themselves to insinuate that women bring sexual harassment onto themselves. You really need to understand the art of subtlety to get the moral outrage you keep mocking. Nobody is going to out right say these ****ed up ideas. They hide it under layers of watered down language and masked rhetoric to make taboo narratives seem more palatable and thoughtful. It's a technique the KKK adopted once they became unfavorable. I'd find and post the vid but I'm on a phone right now.

Damn, beat me to it.

I saw that interview. Saying that make up plays on some obvious biological and sexual cues isn't telling men they are entitled to rape women. I agree it wasn't his best quote and he should know people are going to read into anything he says beyond what he means but I think your interpretation lacks the same kind of nuance you're accusing me of lacking. You just take the worst possible interpretation and run with it.

Which is what interviews like that are really designed to do... Which is why they took an hour of footage and edited it down to 7 minutes.

Cause he's not going to outright say it.

Not entitled to rape but it was a lame attempt to justify sexual harassment, catcalling, etc

What is it that you think he means?

Can you dig up the link?

My problem with Peterson is that cultural Marxism doesn't really mean anything. It's a weird umbrella term he throws everything and the kitchen sink under when what he's really railing against is intersectionality.

@Lucem I've heard him talk specifically about incels and he's said the opposite. That it's a man's own fault if women don't find them attractive.

I don't think he was defending any of that. He was basically trying to inject some nuance into the discussion over what is acceptable forms of sexuality in the workplace. You can accuse him of being a prude, but not of advocating any sort of harassment.

I'm at work... Maybe later. I think it was a Vox interview


Zizek called him out on that in their debate. It was the only strong moment Zizek had in the debate. Other than that he completely failed to defend Communism.

Possibly. Its been a while maybe im missremembering. I dont see how you can take a paoition against makeup though if that was his point. I didnt say he was advocating harassment i said he was justifying it (with his hyper prude position) and that incels could very easily use his speech to advocate for harassment.

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/79...SwqVa1DsGPTILw

Andrew Yang's favorite jams, spotify playlist :beer:

interesting and intelligent way to get into the minds of voters https://boxden.com/smilies/ra2NRDo.png

Enforced monogamy (even if he thinks it should be enforced by culture and not the gubmnet) as a way to control women's reproductive rights ("to protect the babies, you see") definitely reeks of male entitlement to women's bodies.

But let's say that none of these examples check the box, why do you think he attracts so many incels?

Enforced monogamy just means monogamy as the cultural norm vs polygamy. You could easily argue women tended to have less rights in most polygamous societies.

I haven't seen any stats on him with incels. I know the self help angle largely appeals to young men who are struggling in one shape or fashion. tbh I've not read his book or anything and was mostly into the biblical lectures.

I'm aware. One of his two key justifications for enforced monogamy is controlling women's reproduction, which is the incelly angle that I was pointing out.

So just the self help angle?

I see him in the same light as the dude who wrote The Bell Curve. They take some form of evidence to draw hasty conclusions to support what they already believe. Then they hide behind the fact that they never directly saying anything racist/sexist/etc., they're just telling everyone the FAXTS and that anyone criticizing their interpretation are criticizing the facts themselves.

But ja he's a solid biblical historian I'll give him that. Definitely the most interesting material he's put out.

Unless you quote what you're talking about I don't have anything to say other than I don't recall this. I remember him talking about enforced monogamy as opposed to polygamy in terms of pragmatic affect, but not him saying women shouldn't be able to choose the lifestyle they want to engage in. I think he just believes one of those is a better basis for our society.



Haven't read the Bell Curve so I have no opinion on that either. But yes I think it's basically the self help/call to personal responsibility that makes him appeal more to young men. Incels would have to specifically ignore what he says about their own responsibility in driving women away in order to think he was advocating they are just victims of society, which is what they actually believe.

I already did but here's the whole thing.

Have you read the Bell Curve Frown?

I mean... That sorta sounds like he's talking from a biological pov rather than a specific policy that is meant to restrict sexuality.

Only the free will part

Philosophers should communicate their ideas beyond a sorta. That's my key issue with Peterson.

Anyways, saying that there's a biological justification for restricting women's rights isn't really any better.

That's really not what I'm getting from him though. I think he favors monogamy on a pragmatic level as a way to structure society. That doesn't require any actual restrictions imposed on sexuality, if the mechanism by which it is "enforced" is by cultural norms. That basically describes the society we already live in, for the most part.

I don't even really value monogamy that much myself, but I just think what he's actually saying is less sexist than you're reading into it.

I haven’t either.

So what informed your opinion?

You know how easy it would be to just up and say straight out all of these things people are supposedly strawmanning him for? The fact that he doesn't and actively seems to avoid coming to the ****ing point implies that it's intentional, possibly either because his real beliefs are more right wing than he's comfortable admitting, or because he's got nothing and is just floating sensible sounding BS to sell books to rubes.

Or maybe he calls it like he sees it and a hypersensitive subculture extrapolates their own conclusions and then gets worked up about **** he never even really said.

Bro I know leftists **** on your for calling black people monkeys but that's your damage.

I like monkeys.

That's what it seems like to me. There are plenty of real points to criticize him on but it seems like virtually everything he says gets put under the microscope and intentionally misinterpreted.

If it's so easy for him to just say the things you think he is saying, and he already gets blamed for saying them, then he really has no reason not to say them. Unless that's not what his real position is.

I tend to give him the benefit the doubt cause I'm so used to his critics misrepresenting everything he says.

I think you tend to give him the benefit of the doubt cause the people criticizing him are leftists.

You can think what you like. I think I'm more familiar with him than you are.

It's the Cathy Newman style of attack that strikes me as phony. And it's the same tactic being used by m many others.

Not all leftists. I saw an interview of him by some feminist lady where I sided with her more than him. Because she didn't spend the entire interview cynically trying to reframe his views as more inflammatory than they are.

Ja I know, nothing that isn't completely unambiguous can't be racist or sexist.

Racists hypersensitively defending it as research gospel and the general reactionary nature of the passages that I've read.

Maybe. Extrapolating one's own conclusions and getting worked up about something that was never actually said seems more like Peterson's field though.

I dunno, you seem pretty good at it yourself.

Rubber glue fallacy

That's what makes me so good at spotting it.

I think Frown and jwb know that the first person to engage in earnest debate with the other is the loser and so they just semantically circle each other like two cats pretending everything's cool.

I don't even necessarily mean that Peterson isn't guilty of it too - I would need whatever example you're thinking of to say.

I just mean that his critics are certainly guilty of it from what I've seen. Even your boy Matt Dillahunty said as much in the beginning of the debate you cited.

I think we just had more of an earnest debate in the last few pages then I've seen from you since I came back to MB.

jwb be like

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/a7...cd0e79c163.gif

I would have to agree. He spouts incomprehensible jibberish and dresses it up as Marxism. He hangs posters of Stalin on his wall ffs.