Jordan Peterson vs. Feminists, SJW, Biology Deniers, Bioware fanboi/gurl/non-binary/non-he/non-she/xe/xi/ze/zi/it/whatever

[Malcador]

Obsidian should just say they were once forced to make a transssexual NPC in a game by an unnamed publisher, which they backed down from because FREEDOM. Then, through careful infographic construction and social media abuse....boom! Profit.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I was talking about guys on this forum. Like Shady could start an argument with someone and at a public event we set up some drama. I figure we could rake in a cool 10k for making low effort videos about the bible.

[ktchong]

Jordan Peterson vs Biology Denier aka Bioware fanboi/gurl/non-binary/non-he/non-she/xe/xi/ze/zi/it/whatever:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18ZmPwuuj88

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by ktchong

[Ben No.3]

 

 

 

 

 

It isn't, you just need to actually listen instead of pretending any anti-feminist argument is by its own nature "insightful".

And how would you know? You stopped listening after 7 minutes because you are so triggered you even cannot listed to someone else point of view.

I can listen to other people's points of view, but a bad point is a bad point no matter how much you dress it and that is why I stopped watching. I wasn't 'triggered', I was simply not interested.

Care to name the bad point?

 

The first video uses a common fantasy scenario as a basis to define what kind of man *women*, in a generalized fashion, are attracted to. This is incorrect firstly for the way it is construed into a sweeping statement, but on the other hand for not identifying the gulf between sexual fantasy and a desired partner. The second, up to what I've seen, uses a hypothetical example to then make another sweeping statement which states that "any woman over thirty knows sexism in their line of work to be bull****", when that is most certainly not true - I have heard myself from several women the complications they have faced upon acquiring jobs in their respective industries and the kind of dispositions and comments they've had to hear at work, many of them well over the age he's indicating. And remarks of this sort which he makes pretty consistently through either video are in the end not things I think point out to anything particularly interesting or well-observed, hence my opinion about them not being particularly insightful.

So basically you are saying that his opinions based on years of research are false because you talked to few women... boy aren't you full of yourself.

It appears that you DO respect the social sciences then? Cool, let's talk about class divisions then.

[Meshugger]

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.  

[Hiro Protagonist]

All those years in Biology class and being taught only two genders. Damn it, I was lied to.

[Ben No.3]

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.

If you consider an entire group of people who all say the same thing to be crazy, every single one ignore them, maybe they aren't the problem...

[Meshugger]

 

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.

If you consider an entire group of people who all say the same thing to be crazy, every single one ignore them, maybe they aren't the problem...

 

 

Lots of chinese tried to ignore the warriors of the culture revolution, but look where it got them.

[Chilloutman]

All those years in Biology class and being taught only two genders. Damn it, I was lied to.

I have been corrected - Gender != Sex (apparently)

[Chilloutman]

 

 

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.

If you consider an entire group of people who all say the same thing to be crazy, every single one ignore them, maybe they aren't the problem...

 

That explains a few thing about German history...

 

Burns

[Ben No.3]

 

 

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.

If you consider an entire group of people who all say the same thing to be crazy, every single one ignore them, maybe they aren't the problem...

That explains a few thing about German history...

fair enough. Never mind that one

[Barothmuk]

I have been corrected - Gender != Sex (apparently)

Sex = genitals. Gender = social roles/mores enforced on you on the basis of your sex that vary from culture to culture.

 

The right demands one's freedoms be limited on the basis of your sex i.e. you must dress and act in accordance with whatever arbitrary set of customs have been enforced on your sex.

 

And the left insists if you don't follow what arbitrary social mores are expected of your sex you must in fact be the other sex or somewhere in between because there's no way a woman could hate makeup or a man could like dresses.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the OP was ****. What a waste of 5 minutes.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Barothmuk

[Chilloutman]

 

I have been corrected - Gender != Sex (apparently)

Sex = genitals. Gender = social roles/mores enforced on you on the basis of your sex that vary from culture to culture.

 

The right demands one's freedoms be limited on the basis of your sex i.e. you must dress and act in accordance with whatever arbitrary set of customs have been enforced on your sex.

 

And the left insists if you don't follow what arbitrary social mores are expected of your sex you must in fact be the other sex or somewhere in between because there's no way a woman could hate makeup or a man could like dresses.

 

EDIT: Oh, and the OP was ****. What a waste of 5 minutes.

 

 

Not going into this anymore

 

You just say the same think I posted I thought '!=' is well known sign

Edited May 1, 2017 by Chilloutman

[Zoraptor]

All those years in Biology class and being taught only two genders. Damn it, I was lied to.

 

School science is full of... maybe not lies, but half truths. You get taught things like 'a genome is like a blueprint' (not really) or 'atoms are like little solar systems' (not really) or 'electrons have negative charge' (arbitrary choice) which work well enough but are certainly not entirely accurate if you end up doing science at university level. People's minds just work better with analogies to stuff they do understand.

 

Even in school though there's plenty of indication that gender isn't quite as binary as the simple case- in NZ at least we learned about chromosome disorders such as Klinefelter's which would have an effect on sexuality in school, or about hormone imbalances.

[Gorgon]

I'm so tired of the gender wars. What we need are Secret Sacred Wars ©

 

[Gfted1]

"This isnt how I learneded it!" is a terrifying concept. You know what else didn't exist until ~11 years ago? That smart phone glued to your hand. Science, technology and other understandings advance over the years. Shocking, I know!

[Malcador]

Jordan Peterson is the only sane left wing left in academia. His lectures are highly recommended, "like maps of meaning", where he goes through the importance of symbology and myths in culture.

And you checked that how? Sure is a lot of people in academia.

[algroth]

"This isnt how I learneded it!" is a terrifying concept. You know what else didn't exist until ~11 years ago? That smart phone glued to your hand. Science, technology and other understandings advance over the years. Shocking, I know!

I remember reading that the expected half-life of scientific knowledge, it being the time it takes for about half of the knowledge to be proven wrong or made obsolete by better hypotheses, is nowadays roughly five years. So it can very well be that plenty of what one's learned ten years ago is innaccurate by today's standards.

[Gfted1]

I remember reading that the expected half-life of scientific knowledge, it being the time it takes for about half of the knowledge to be proven wrong or made obsolete by better hypotheses, is nowadays roughly five years. So it can very well be that plenty of what one's learned ten years ago is innaccurate by today's standards.

Its disappointing that a lot of people will lock on to the first rendition of the "information" and then forevermore that will be their standard truth on the matter. The sun orbiting the Earth, which is definitely a flat disk, and lousy with dragons if travelling by sea, were all FACTS at one time. How is a mind so small to believe nothing changes, or is invented, or becomes better understood over time?

[redneckdevil]

And what we think now is new information may very well be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

So are we just sitting around bad mouthing misinformed people when in some years, we are proven to be misinformed as well?

[Malcador]

"This isnt how I learneded it!" is a terrifying concept. You know what else didn't exist until ~11 years ago? That smart phone glued to your hand. Science, technology and other understandings advance over the years. Shocking, I know!

Older than that, I had thought the BB was but it was a Japanese one (makes sense)

[Gfted1]

And what we think now is new information may very well be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

So are we just sitting around bad mouthing misinformed people when in some years, we are proven to be misinformed as well?

If that's your takeaway from my posts...maybe a TL;DR version will be better: Keep an open mind at all times regarding all matters.

[Zoraptor]

And what we think now is new information may very well be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

So are we just sitting around bad mouthing misinformed people when in some years, we are proven to be misinformed as well?

 

It's different with non scientific stuff like morals or ethics but then there aren't many definitive rights or wrongs with subjectives by definition. Much of the meta stuff that makes people people is not testable science.

 

For testable science though the operative word there is 'may'. If something is wrong now then it's extremely unlikely to be right later. In contrast though by and large what is correct now remains correct and just gets modified to fit better*; it's very rare for something to be thrown out wholesale. It may be thrown out later, but it's highly unlikely.

 

*there's a massive difference between the theory that heavier things fall faster than lighter things (in a vacuum, since you need stipulations even for that) and Newton being 'wrong' about his equations of motion, for example. The first case is simply wrong and plain not how things work, the second is acceptably accurate except for edge cases which Newton had no possibility of knowing about. You will still be taught Newton's 'incorrect' equations at school because you don't need to know that they don't work for very fast or very small objects per Einstein or Schrodinger and could not do the maths for their equations anyway most likely- otoh, you will only be taught that heavier objects fall faster as an example of something that seems logical on surface examination but is incorrect.

[ShadySands]

And what we think now is new information may very well be proven wrong in 5-10 years.

So are we just sitting around bad mouthing misinformed people when in some years, we are proven to be misinformed as well?

 

In this example if those people refuse to accept or acknowledge the new information then sure

 

But I agree with Zor that it's more likely to be a new understanding rather than reversion

[redneckdevil]

sometimes it's more comfortable to rely on old info instead of being challenged is why I see people hanging onto old info. Sometimes we class data with ethics and traditions. Somehow people think that just because they don't accept things, will somehow keep it the same in their head and world. I can see some info not really mattering if someone accepts or not (like Pluto not being a planet though it will always be in my head, it was my favorite growing up lol) And I think right now, if it doesn't effect me, I don't really care if it gets changed. Its a good thing that info changes, means it's not stagnant. Sometimes people just don't want the waves. And sometimes things need to be challenged again to see if it's proven false.