Gender Equality Action Plan

[ferball]

can't take ferball "studies" seriously after reading this https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

edit: i see snake already posted the JRE podcast of these guys but the article is good anyway.

You know one of them supports what Peterson says right?

 

[Mcarcherey]

You know one of them supports what Peterson says right?

probably. after all, most of these grievance studies are BS....

but it doesn't detract from the fact they called out these academics for their very own extreme bias - don't think if they agree with Peterson or not really is relevant.

 

[ferball]

From @Mcarchery's article:

Like just about everything else in this depressing national moment, Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors.

 

[Mcarcherey]

From @Mcarchery's article:

this doesn't support nor reject anything you or myself have said.

ah how i don't miss discussions with you, ferball.

 

[ferball]

this doesn't support nor reject anything you or myself have said.

ah how i don't miss discussions with you, ferball.

Then why did you say anything?

The study that claims anti bias training works with specific protocols was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been around for over 50 years. It was not some "Grievance studies" journal. Its one of the most respected journals in its field in the world and publishes research into Social Psychology. A fair chunk of Petersons work is published in various Social Psychology journals. Its one of his fields.

I know what the sokal hoax was. I've read it and its very funny.

It doesn't invalidate post modernism. If anything it reinforces the ideas the people who developed that philosophy were getting at.

They would have loved it, especially Jean Baudrillard, who would rightly seen it as proof of his basic thesis in Simulacra and Simulation - essentially that modern society's ability to tell the difference between reality and bullshit has disappeared up its arse. No doubt Peterson cultists think he's helping to expose this but I think he is more proof.

When I was young and lived in Melbourne in the v early 90s one of my housemates was a lit/writing student at Victoria College. He found or wrote a computer program that randomly generated trite, essentially meaningless phrases of poetry and strung them together then submitted the work for assessment and got very good marks of his lecturer who was some renowned Australian poet.

This is nothing new.

These new hoaxes prove what? That humanities departments are full of people who are so used to talking shit they genuinely can't tell the difference between it and reality? Wow what a revelation!!!

 

[Mcarcherey]

Then why did you say anything?

The study that claims anti bias training works with specific protocols was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been around for over 50 years. It was not some "Grievance studies" journal. Its one of the most respected journals in its field in the world and publishes research into Social Psychology. A fair chunk of Petersons work is published in various Social Psychology journals. Its one of his fields.

I know what the sokal hoax was. I've read it and its very funny.

It doesn't invalidate post modernism. If anything it reinforces the ideas the people who developed that philosophy were getting at.

They would have loved it, especially Jean Baudrillard, who would rightly seen it as proof of his basic thesis in Simulacra and Simulation - essentially that modern society's ability to tell the difference between reality and bullshit has disappeared up its arse. No doubt Peterson cultists think he's helping to expose this but I think he is more proof.

When I was young and lived in Melbourne in the v early 90s one of my housemates was a lit/writing student at Victoria College. He found or wrote a computer program that randomly generated trite, essentially meaningless phrases of poetry and strung them together then submitted the work for assessment and got very good marks of his lecturer who was some renowned Australian poet.

This is nothing new.

These new hoaxes prove what? That humanities departments are full of people who are so used to talking shit they genuinely can't tell the difference between it and reality? Wow what a revelation!!!

I said it's because it's a valid point. Perhaps a point that everyone here needs to take into account especially yourself considering you think that myself and others are going to take these articles seriously. i know i'm not because many (especially the articles that support your view - hence i posted the article) are flawed.

fyi i'm not going to argue with you here, i know your views won't change, there is no point trying. if anything your disagree-ability on the subject will only falsely reinforce your views.

 

[Sopwiths North]

Multi-quotes are a pain at the best of times, but I appreciate the discussion and time you put into your post.


You're correct that due process was needed, and why the judicial hearings were conducted in a format resembling a slap-dash trial while not actually going to trial in the traditional manner is suspect. Even more suspect was the heavily restricted FBI investigation that was only allowed 7 days to be conducted - a restriction imposed by the White House - and in which many potential witnesses were not allowed to be interviewed, again, due to restrictions imposed by the White House. The lack of recollected details goes both ways though. Apparently Kavanaugh forgot that he liked to drink a lot of beer. M'eh. It was a long tome ago, right?

The thing is though, he's been subject to quite a few previous (more in-depth) FBI screenings, if there was something quite credible there, they would have most likely found something. Definitely, as I said, we should wait for evidence otherwise presume innocence.

My remark about her being a psychologist was intended more to draw comparison to her credibility, seeing as many have used it on here to give Jordan Peterson a free pass. I did also say that a lie detector test in not the ultimate yardstick to measure truthfulness, but the fact is, she passed it.

Sure, I knew that, but I thought I would continue with it as a psychologist, they would know best how to play with the truth so to speak.

So she was "eager to involve the Democrats" or "she was taken on a ride"? Which was it? In my opinion, neither. She began by contacting her local Member of Congress, out of what appears to have been a sense of duty. It snowballed from there. And I think we can both agree that yes, she was very stressed. She even admitted at one point that she was so nervous it was rattling her ability to think clearly about her answer to a specific question (which question it was I can't recall) and asked for a moment to collect herself. Which she did, and then went on to answer the question. I'm not sure as to how you are perceiving this as her lying.

This is why I shouldn't type on my phone. She was eager to involve herself politically rather than legally first, what does that tell you, but my latter comment about being taken on a ride was in the context of things spiraling out of control, I doubt anyone could have predicted just how big everything got and how much support she actually received from a political party. I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the lying part.

"Regime" is a great word for the Trump Government. He's spent 2 years hiring and firing based on who he wants surrounding him and how well they fulfill his dictates. Kavanaugh is a supreme example of this.


Technically speaking, regime is used to denote any administration, whether it be democratic, Obama, communist, Bush, fascist, etc. A regime is basically any form of government with specific set rules and conventions. Some people in the dictionary department have stretched this to include authoritarianism, which annoys people in the political science and international affairs arena a little bit.

And, Obama and Bush did the exact same thing, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/10/white-house-staff-quit and https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...4/donald-trumps-white-house-turnover-context/), if they want surround themselves with yes-men, that's their prerogative, it does not diminish democracy in any shape or form. Every democratic government in history has done what Trump has done in terms of putting in yes-men and guess what, they are usually thrown out after the next election. In Australia, whenever a Liberal government enters office after years of an ALP government, the Liberals often cut the bureaucracy as it full of ALP cronies and yes-men. When there are widespread changes to election rules, media censorship, military crackdowns, etc, then we can talk about authoritarianism, yes-man are not a new thing to democracy.



I perceived his crying as disingenuous, and you did not. That's okay. Each to their own. (I'm kind of chuckling at us having this conversation though, as I think it was not too recently that I was vehemently defending Justin Trudeau's tears to you further back in this thread. So, I respect your right to accept his crying. It's only fair.)

Good memory and it is a good chuckle, it's all about context and genuineness in the end. I perceive father-daughter relationships as fairly sacred, probably too much.

I don't know, how many? I DO know that after his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that he should NOT be confirmed because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

The Bar Association itself, Bennett (Clinton's lawyer), Yale law and quite few others. Those signatures are all well and good, but there are a lot more than 2,400 law professors in the USA, why did those other people not sign? In any case, their main issue was with him being a yes-man, which is fair enough, while some did cite his emotions, none of them had faced the same adversity that he did, so ivory tower and all that. Those signatures are worth fairly little, not even counting the lack of scrutiny of their political leanings or the dominance of leftist politics in universities.


You're right, I don't know what either Ford or Kavanaugh are like. But as I have already stated, I saw how each behaved when under extreme pressure. The one who lost his cool in a repeatedly aggressive and volatile manner is now the one who presides over the highest court in the country.

Fair enough.

What is that reason?

Reputable evidence always wins out over hearsay, it's why we have a decent legal system.

See my response above (#4) regarding "regime".

No worries.

I would argue that we don't know yet, given Robert Mueller's ongoing FBI investigation

We'll see, but grand conspiracies rarely occur and if they do, not in the way most people expect. The world is a lot more boring in reality.

Yes, he has in the past banned multiple major media organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC, from White House press briefings, with no reason given.

My point was more in relation to actively shutting down these organisations or their capacity to criticise Trump on air, which they still do quite openly. Honestly, who really cares about White House press briefings, they rarely produce anything other than the official government word. It's a non-issue with the bans. Blanket bans for entire networks across all airways would be scary.

Doesn't need to. In his lunatic mind he's already got them: "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." - Donald J. Trump.

I never said he was not a moron or at least naive, but still, my point stands.

I don't really think he's interested in this. He's more of a real estate guy.

You'll be surprised, the Americans like a good war, we are buying the same F-35's you guys are.

Nope. There's one! (Although his once-henchman Rudy Giuliani did publicly ponder it)

Fair enough, lol, it's bit early for me to play House of Cards.

Are you kidding? How about passing the executive order that banned travel from 7 Muslim countries?

Not racism, if it was racist, why not all Muslim countries, why specifically those seven countries? Iraq (Destablised with ISIS sympathisers, despite close Iraq-US political and military ties), Iran (a lot of political and historical issues here), Libya (Destablised with a lot of ISIS sympathisers), Somalia (Destablised state with issues with poverty related piracy), Sudan (human rights and other issues here), Syria (obvious reasons) and Yemen (destablised state with a lot of issues, many of them with US origins). Is the policy way over the top, certainly, ignorant, certainly, should Trump be more enlightened on the broader Islamic factions and their systems, certainly, but the policy is not fundamentally racist at its core.


And you're innocent until proven guilty. Although tell that to the 2,500 children of migrants seeking refugee status he's imprisoned in holding facilities separated from their parents.

They are getting fed, clothed and given a warm bed, while not a great situation, they are still better off than sitting in a refugee camp in Central and South America where the children are at the risk of gangs, rape, prostitution etc.


Fear serves to help him. There's 2 things that can override rational thought. One is love. The other is fear. Tyrants operate by mongering fear. Trump is doing just that.
Fear serves all politicians, no matter their political leanings. No, Trump is doing what every politician has done since Machiavelli. Look at the leftist media variants, fear the orange man, fear the fascist revival, Nazi's are everywhere, white straight males dominate everything, western women are being oppressed, Trump is oppressing Muslims, police are targeting blacks and that the KKK are everywhere (less than 5,000 members nationally in the USA btw). This fear garbage has spread to Australia and GB, and he's not even their president.

And look what has happened, a mini-revival in Western anarchism, socialism, black supremacist groups and communism, this inherently serves the interests of the Democrat party (which is funny because much of the KKK's founding members were southern democrats and many of them fought for the South rather than a bastion of Republicanism than it is often potrayed) as much as Trump using fear via security and the economy to get votes.

When you understand that all politicians (except for the rare naive Trudea's of the world) are more concerned with power, the more you will understand how the world operates at the higher levels and why "love and internationalism" don't work in the end.

Multi-quotes are a pain at the best of times, but I appreciate the discussion and time you put into your post.

Thanks K4E. See in pink.

You're correct that due process was needed, and why the judicial hearings were conducted in a format resembling a slap-dash trial while not actually going to trial in the traditional manner is suspect. Even more suspect was the heavily restricted FBI investigation that was only allowed 7 days to be conducted - a restriction imposed by the White House - and in which many potential witnesses were not allowed to be interviewed, again, due to restrictions imposed by the White House. The lack of recollected details goes both ways though. Apparently Kavanaugh forgot that he liked to drink a lot of beer. M'eh. It was a long tome ago, right?

The thing is though, he's been subject to quite a few previous (more in-depth) FBI screenings, if there was something quite credible there, they would have most likely found something. Definitely, as I said, we should wait for evidence otherwise presume innocence.

My remark about her being a psychologist was intended more to draw comparison to her credibility, seeing as many have used it on here to give Jordan Peterson a free pass. I did also say that a lie detector test in not the ultimate yardstick to measure truthfulness, but the fact is, she passed it.

Sure, I knew that, but I thought I would continue with it as a psychologist, they would know best how to play with the truth so to speak.

So she was "eager to involve the Democrats" or "she was taken on a ride"? Which was it? In my opinion, neither. She began by contacting her local Member of Congress, out of what appears to have been a sense of duty. It snowballed from there. And I think we can both agree that yes, she was very stressed. She even admitted at one point that she was so nervous it was rattling her ability to think clearly about her answer to a specific question (which question it was I can't recall) and asked for a moment to collect herself. Which she did, and then went on to answer the question. I'm not sure as to how you are perceiving this as her lying.

This is why I shouldn't type on my phone. She was eager to involve herself politically rather than legally first, what does that tell you, but my latter comment about being taken on a ride was in the context of things spiraling out of control, I doubt anyone could have predicted just how big everything got and how much support she actually received from a political party. I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the lying part.

I'm not sure she was eager to involve herself at all. Victims of sexual abuse often don't report because they just want to put as much distance between themselves and the trauma as possible. We can't know why she waited until she did, but it's my sense that she was compelled out of a sense of duty, or "patriotism" as I have called it. It's one thing to deal with your own personal experience in your own private way, but if you perceive that your offender may be ascending to a position where they have jurisdiction over others, then you may choose to act to stop that. But again, none of us can really know.

"Regime" is a great word for the Trump Government. He's spent 2 years hiring and firing based on who he wants surrounding him and how well they fulfill his dictates. Kavanaugh is a supreme example of this.


Technically speaking, regime is used to denote any administration, whether it be democratic, Obama, communist, Bush, fascist, etc. A regime is basically any form of government with specific set rules and conventions. Some people in the dictionary department have stretched this to include authoritarianism, which annoys people in the political science and international affairs arena a little bit.

And, Obama and Bush did the exact same thing, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/10/white-house-staff-quit and https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...4/donald-trumps-white-house-turnover-context/), if they want surround themselves with yes-men, that's their prerogative, it does not diminish democracy in any shape or form. Every democratic government in history has done what Trump has done in terms of putting in yes-men and guess what, they are usually thrown out after the next election. In Australia, whenever a Liberal government enters office after years of an ALP government, the Liberals often cut the bureaucracy as it full of ALP cronies and yes-men. When there are widespread changes to election rules, media censorship, military crackdowns, etc, then we can talk about authoritarianism, yes-man are not a new thing to democracy.

True, but there is also a system of checks and balances that needs to be in place to prevent the tipping of the scales into the realm of authoritarianism. It's my perception that anyone who has looked to hold up that system has wound up fired by Trump.

I perceived his crying as disingenuous, and you did not. That's okay. Each to their own. (I'm kind of chuckling at us having this conversation though, as I think it was not too recently that I was vehemently defending Justin Trudeau's tears to you further back in this thread. So, I respect your right to accept his crying. It's only fair.)

Good memory and it is a good chuckle, it's all about context and genuineness in the end. I perceive father-daughter relationships as fairly sacred, probably too much.

I don't think you can perceive that too much K4E. It's a good quality to have, so keep on being that way. I too perceive the relationship as being sacred, which is why - believing as I do that Kavanaugh is guilty - I found it pretty repulsive that he would (again, as I perceive it) exploit that sacred relationship for his own devices. The whole thing just felt weird and contrived, and left me with an ill feeling.

I don't know, how many? I DO know that after his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that he should NOT be confirmed because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

The Bar Association itself, Bennett (Clinton's lawyer), Yale law and quite few others. Those signatures are all well and good, but there are a lot more than 2,400 law professors in the USA, why did those other people not sign? In any case, their main issue was with him being a yes-man, which is fair enough, while some did cite his emotions, none of them had faced the same adversity that he did, so ivory tower and all that. Those signatures are worth fairly little, not even counting the lack of scrutiny of their political leanings or the dominance of leftist politics in universities.

My understanding was that their main issue was that he "did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court in the land." I also feel like 2,400 law professors is a lot of law professors.


You're right, I don't know what either Ford or Kavanaugh are like. But as I have already stated, I saw how each behaved when under extreme pressure. The one who lost his cool in a repeatedly aggressive and volatile manner is now the one who presides over the highest court in the country.

Fair enough.

What is that reason?

Reputable evidence always wins out over hearsay, it's why we have a decent legal system.

True. But I also think it's important to note that just because no evidence is available, doesn't mean the crime never happened. No system is foolproof, and I would argue that while we still have judges who rule that a woman who doesn't want to get r*ped "should have kept her legs crossed", is a system that needs improvement. In my opinion, that improvement doesn't happen with someone like Kavanaugh manning the helm. (no pun intended)

See my response above (#4) regarding "regime".

No worries.

I would argue that we don't know yet, given Robert Mueller's ongoing FBI investigation

We'll see, but grand conspiracies rarely occur and if they do, not in the way most people expect. The world is a lot more boring in reality.

Yes, he has in the past banned multiple major media organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC, from White House press briefings, with no reason given.

My point was more in relation to actively shutting down these organisations or their capacity to criticise Trump on air, which they still do quite openly. Honestly, who really cares about White House press briefings, they rarely produce anything other than the official government word. It's a non-issue with the bans. Blanket bans for entire networks across all airways would be scary.

Sorry, you just said "ban".

Doesn't need to. In his lunatic mind he's already got them: "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." - Donald J. Trump.

I never said he was not a moron or at least naive, but still, my point stands.

I don't really think he's interested in this. He's more of a real estate guy.

You'll be surprised, the Americans like a good war, we are buying the same F-35's you guys are.

Oh, believe me, I know this! I just don't think Trump himself is that interested.

Nope. There's one! (Although his once-henchman Rudy Giuliani did publicly ponder it)

Fair enough, lol, it's bit early for me to play House of Cards.

Are you kidding? How about passing the executive order that banned travel from 7 Muslim countries?

Not racism, if it was racist, why not all Muslim countries, why specifically those seven countries? Iraq (Destablised with ISIS sympathisers, despite close Iraq-US political and military ties), Iran (a lot of political and historical issues here), Libya (Destablised with a lot of ISIS sympathisers), Somalia (Destablised state with issues with poverty related piracy), Sudan (human rights and other issues here), Syria (obvious reasons) and Yemen (destablised state with a lot of issues, many of them with US origins). Is the policy way over the top, certainly, ignorant, certainly, should Trump be more enlightened on the broader Islamic factions and their systems, certainly, but the policy is not fundamentally racist at its core.

Well, aside from at one point having a statement on his Presidential website that called for "Preventing Muslim Immigration", I happen to feel that the travel bans were racist at their core. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were affected by them, both within the US and abroad. Families were separated. Students couldn't go home. But we can agree to disagree.

And you're innocent until proven guilty. Although tell that to the 2,500 children of migrants seeking refugee status he's imprisoned in holding facilities separated from their parents.

They are getting fed, clothed and given a warm bed, while not a great situation, they are still better off than sitting in a refugee camp in Central and South America where the children are at the risk of gangs, rape, prostitution etc.

They have been separated from their parents and are being held in chain link compounds, during what is well-acknowledged to be important formative years psychologically. Little attempt has been made at reuniting them, and it's been publicaly acknowledged that there is little to no tracking system in place to reunite them, and that many will be lost forever from their kin. This is not Central and South America, or any other Third World country, this is the United States, and it can and should do better. Most egregious of all is that Trump did this deliberately to threaten and punish innocent people fleeing persecution and violence in their own countries. It's reprehensible.


Fear serves to help him. There's 2 things that can override rational thought. One is love. The other is fear. Tyrants operate by mongering fear. Trump is doing just that.

Fear serves all politicians, no matter their political leanings. No, Trump is doing what every politician has done since Machiavelli. Look at the leftist media variants, fear the orange man, fear the fascist revival, Nazi's are everywhere, white straight males dominate everything, western women are being oppressed, Trump is oppressing Muslims, police are targeting blacks and that the KKK are everywhere (less than 5,000 members nationally in the USA btw). This fear garbage has spread to Australia and GB, and he's not even their president.

And look what has happened, a mini-revival in Western anarchism, socialism, black supremacist groups and communism, this inherently serves the interests of the Democrat party (which is funny because much of the KKK's founding members were southern democrats and many of them fought for the South rather than a bastion of Republicanism than it is often potrayed) as much as Trump using fear via security and the economy to get votes.

When you understand that all politicians (except for the rare naive Trudea's of the world) are more concerned with power, the more you will understand how the world operates at the higher levels and why "love and internationalism" don't work in the end.

Well, first of all, less than 5,000 KKK members in the US is still too many. And I believe that Trump has been guilty of oppressing Muslims. I also believe some police (not all) do target black people. I would fear a fascist revival, but I don't think Nazi's are "everywhere". As a woman, I can't say that I have ever personally felt repressed, but I'm not discounting that many of my sex are still. We've come a long way though. I will always argue for equality for all, and that includes white straight males, who I have no doubt struggle with the current societal backlash that is happening. I do not wish to see them persecuted, and I don't support any women in any anti-male sentiments. We're all humans. And I believe we can find a common middle ground. I understand that most politicians are concerned only with power, but I refuse to accept that this means "love and internationalism" have no chance. Sure, history says it's big odds against, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying. I mean, why not? What have we got to lose?

I also believe that the hippies had it right. Give peace a chance.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Multi-quotes are a pain at the best of times, but I appreciate the discussion and time you put into your post.

Thanks K4E. See in pink.

You're correct that due process was needed, and why the judicial hearings were conducted in a format resembling a slap-dash trial while not actually going to trial in the traditional manner is suspect. Even more suspect was the heavily restricted FBI investigation that was only allowed 7 days to be conducted - a restriction imposed by the White House - and in which many potential witnesses were not allowed to be interviewed, again, due to restrictions imposed by the White House. The lack of recollected details goes both ways though. Apparently Kavanaugh forgot that he liked to drink a lot of beer. M'eh. It was a long tome ago, right?

The thing is though, he's been subject to quite a few previous (more in-depth) FBI screenings, if there was something quite credible there, they would have most likely found something. Definitely, as I said, we should wait for evidence otherwise presume innocence.

My remark about her being a psychologist was intended more to draw comparison to her credibility, seeing as many have used it on here to give Jordan Peterson a free pass. I did also say that a lie detector test in not the ultimate yardstick to measure truthfulness, but the fact is, she passed it.

Sure, I knew that, but I thought I would continue with it as a psychologist, they would know best how to play with the truth so to speak.

So she was "eager to involve the Democrats" or "she was taken on a ride"? Which was it? In my opinion, neither. She began by contacting her local Member of Congress, out of what appears to have been a sense of duty. It snowballed from there. And I think we can both agree that yes, she was very stressed. She even admitted at one point that she was so nervous it was rattling her ability to think clearly about her answer to a specific question (which question it was I can't recall) and asked for a moment to collect herself. Which she did, and then went on to answer the question. I'm not sure as to how you are perceiving this as her lying.

This is why I shouldn't type on my phone. She was eager to involve herself politically rather than legally first, what does that tell you, but my latter comment about being taken on a ride was in the context of things spiraling out of control, I doubt anyone could have predicted just how big everything got and how much support she actually received from a political party. I am happy to agree to disagree with you on the lying part.

I'm not sure she was eager to involve herself at all. Victims of sexual abuse often don't report because they just want to put as much distance between themselves and the trauma as possible. We can't know why she waited until she did, but it's my sense that she was compelled out of a sense of duty, or "patriotism" as I have called it. It's one thing to deal with your own personal experience in your own private way, but if you perceive that your offender may be ascending to a position where they have jurisdiction over others, then you may choose to act to stop that. But again, none of us can really know.

"Regime" is a great word for the Trump Government. He's spent 2 years hiring and firing based on who he wants surrounding him and how well they fulfill his dictates. Kavanaugh is a supreme example of this.


Technically speaking, regime is used to denote any administration, whether it be democratic, Obama, communist, Bush, fascist, etc. A regime is basically any form of government with specific set rules and conventions. Some people in the dictionary department have stretched this to include authoritarianism, which annoys people in the political science and international affairs arena a little bit.

And, Obama and Bush did the exact same thing, (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/10/white-house-staff-quit and https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...4/donald-trumps-white-house-turnover-context/), if they want surround themselves with yes-men, that's their prerogative, it does not diminish democracy in any shape or form. Every democratic government in history has done what Trump has done in terms of putting in yes-men and guess what, they are usually thrown out after the next election. In Australia, whenever a Liberal government enters office after years of an ALP government, the Liberals often cut the bureaucracy as it full of ALP cronies and yes-men. When there are widespread changes to election rules, media censorship, military crackdowns, etc, then we can talk about authoritarianism, yes-man are not a new thing to democracy.

True, but there is also a system of checks and balances that needs to be in place to prevent the tipping of the scales into the realm of authoritarianism. It's my perception that anyone who has looked to hold up that system has wound up fired by Trump.

I perceived his crying as disingenuous, and you did not. That's okay. Each to their own. (I'm kind of chuckling at us having this conversation though, as I think it was not too recently that I was vehemently defending Justin Trudeau's tears to you further back in this thread. So, I respect your right to accept his crying. It's only fair.)

Good memory and it is a good chuckle, it's all about context and genuineness in the end. I perceive father-daughter relationships as fairly sacred, probably too much.

I don't think you can perceive that too much K4E. It's a good quality to have, so keep on being that way. I too perceive the relationship as being sacred, which is why - believing as I do that Kavanaugh is guilty - I found it pretty repulsive that he would (again, as I perceive it) exploit that sacred relationship for his own devices. The whole thing just felt weird and contrived, and left me with an ill feeling.

I don't know, how many? I DO know that after his testimony, more than 2,400 law professors signed a letter saying that he should NOT be confirmed because "he did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land."

The Bar Association itself, Bennett (Clinton's lawyer), Yale law and quite few others. Those signatures are all well and good, but there are a lot more than 2,400 law professors in the USA, why did those other people not sign? In any case, their main issue was with him being a yes-man, which is fair enough, while some did cite his emotions, none of them had faced the same adversity that he did, so ivory tower and all that. Those signatures are worth fairly little, not even counting the lack of scrutiny of their political leanings or the dominance of leftist politics in universities.

My understanding was that their main issue was that he "did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court in the land." I also feel like 2,400 law professors is a lot of law professors.


You're right, I don't know what either Ford or Kavanaugh are like. But as I have already stated, I saw how each behaved when under extreme pressure. The one who lost his cool in a repeatedly aggressive and volatile manner is now the one who presides over the highest court in the country.

Fair enough.

What is that reason?

Reputable evidence always wins out over hearsay, it's why we have a decent legal system.

True. But I also think it's important to note that just because no evidence is available, doesn't mean the crime never happened. No system is foolproof, and I would argue that while we still have judges who rule that a woman who doesn't want to get r*ped "should have kept her legs crossed", is a system that needs improvement. In my opinion, that improvement doesn't happen with someone like Kavanaugh manning the helm. (no pun intended)

See my response above (#4) regarding "regime".

No worries.

I would argue that we don't know yet, given Robert Mueller's ongoing FBI investigation

We'll see, but grand conspiracies rarely occur and if they do, not in the way most people expect. The world is a lot more boring in reality.

Yes, he has in the past banned multiple major media organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC, from White House press briefings, with no reason given.

My point was more in relation to actively shutting down these organisations or their capacity to criticise Trump on air, which they still do quite openly. Honestly, who really cares about White House press briefings, they rarely produce anything other than the official government word. It's a non-issue with the bans. Blanket bans for entire networks across all airways would be scary.

Sorry, you just said "ban".

Doesn't need to. In his lunatic mind he's already got them: "I have the absolute right to pardon myself." - Donald J. Trump.

I never said he was not a moron or at least naive, but still, my point stands.

I don't really think he's interested in this. He's more of a real estate guy.

You'll be surprised, the Americans like a good war, we are buying the same F-35's you guys are.

Oh, believe me, I know this! I just don't think Trump himself is that interested.

Nope. There's one! (Although his once-henchman Rudy Giuliani did publicly ponder it)

Fair enough, lol, it's bit early for me to play House of Cards.

Are you kidding? How about passing the executive order that banned travel from 7 Muslim countries?

Not racism, if it was racist, why not all Muslim countries, why specifically those seven countries? Iraq (Destablised with ISIS sympathisers, despite close Iraq-US political and military ties), Iran (a lot of political and historical issues here), Libya (Destablised with a lot of ISIS sympathisers), Somalia (Destablised state with issues with poverty related piracy), Sudan (human rights and other issues here), Syria (obvious reasons) and Yemen (destablised state with a lot of issues, many of them with US origins). Is the policy way over the top, certainly, ignorant, certainly, should Trump be more enlightened on the broader Islamic factions and their systems, certainly, but the policy is not fundamentally racist at its core.

Well, aside from at one point having a statement on his Presidential website that called for "Preventing Muslim Immigration", I happen to feel that the travel bans were racist at their core. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were affected by them, both within the US and abroad. Families were separated. Students couldn't go home. But we can agree to disagree.

And you're innocent until proven guilty. Although tell that to the 2,500 children of migrants seeking refugee status he's imprisoned in holding facilities separated from their parents.

They are getting fed, clothed and given a warm bed, while not a great situation, they are still better off than sitting in a refugee camp in Central and South America where the children are at the risk of gangs, rape, prostitution etc.

They have been separated from their parents and are being held in chain link compounds, during what is well-acknowledged to be important formative years psychologically. Little attempt has been made at reuniting them, and it's been publicaly acknowledged that there is little to no tracking system in place to reunite them, and that many will be lost forever from their kin. This is not Central and South America, or any other Third World country, this is the United States, and it can and should do better. Most egregious of all is that Trump did this deliberately to threaten and punish innocent people fleeing persecution and violence in their own countries. It's reprehensible.


Fear serves to help him. There's 2 things that can override rational thought. One is love. The other is fear. Tyrants operate by mongering fear. Trump is doing just that.

Fear serves all politicians, no matter their political leanings. No, Trump is doing what every politician has done since Machiavelli. Look at the leftist media variants, fear the orange man, fear the fascist revival, Nazi's are everywhere, white straight males dominate everything, western women are being oppressed, Trump is oppressing Muslims, police are targeting blacks and that the KKK are everywhere (less than 5,000 members nationally in the USA btw). This fear garbage has spread to Australia and GB, and he's not even their president.

And look what has happened, a mini-revival in Western anarchism, socialism, black supremacist groups and communism, this inherently serves the interests of the Democrat party (which is funny because much of the KKK's founding members were southern democrats and many of them fought for the South rather than a bastion of Republicanism than it is often potrayed) as much as Trump using fear via security and the economy to get votes.

When you understand that all politicians (except for the rare naive Trudea's of the world) are more concerned with power, the more you will understand how the world operates at the higher levels and why "love and internationalism" don't work in the end.

Well, first of all, less than 5,000 KKK members in the US is still too many. And I believe that Trump has been guilty of oppressing Muslims. I also believe some police (not all) do target black people. I would fear a fascist revival, but I don't think Nazi's are "everywhere". As a woman, I can't say that I have ever personally felt repressed, but I'm not discounting that many of my sex are still. We've come a long way though. I will always argue for equality for all, and that includes white straight males, who I have no doubt struggle with the current societal backlash that is happening. I do not wish to see them persecuted, and I don't support any women in any anti-male sentiments. We're all humans. And I believe we can find a common middle ground. I understand that most politicians are concerned only with power, but I refuse to accept that this means "love and internationalism" have no chance. Sure, history says it's big odds against, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying. I mean, why not? What have we got to lose?

I also believe that the hippies had it right. Give peace a chance.

You’re too kind for this world and I do mean that in a sincere and positive manner. I am too much of a Machiavellian and studied too much history to be that positive. Things are never as bad or as good as they seem I suppose.

 

[Mcarcherey]

You’re too kind for this world and I do mean that in a sincere and positive manner. I am too much of a Machiavellian and studied too much history to be that positive. Things are never as bad or as good as they seem I suppose.

some people need to be reminded utopia is a mythical place.

 

[Snake_Baker]

So much for my reign as the pink texting champion of the North board.

 

[ferball]

I said it's because it's a valid point. Perhaps a point that everyone here needs to take into account especially yourself considering you think that myself and others are going to take these articles seriously. i know i'm not because many (especially the articles that support your view - hence i posted the article) are flawed.

fyi i'm not going to argue with you here, i know your views won't change, there is no point trying. if anything your disagree-ability on the subject will only falsely reinforce your views.

How do you know that if you don't read them? Or at least read the abstract.

You're using me as your excuse not to have your views challenged.

Its your brain. You can misuse it however you like.



On the off chance you do read this far here's a comment on reddit about Peterson. I dare you to read it.

I think you're missing the point. A lot of young men grew up in fatherless homes and missed a lot of crucial information that's important for a man to learn from their father. Stoicism, emotional control, the importance of accepting difficulties and taking the fall when you need to, being reliable when everything is falling apart, etc.

A lot of young men in their 20s today grew up with a mother who tried to turn them against their father. Jordan Peterson isn't so much curating a message as he is just disseminating information that guys should have gotten from their fathers when they were growing up. My mother never taught me the importance of anything I listed above, but just having a place to access that information has been immensely beneficial to me personally.

I think Peterson has some views that are a little out of whack, but a lifetime in academia will do that to you. Voices like his are hard to come by these days, and everyone's divided themselves up into teams so aggressively that it's not surprising that you get the level of backlash you do from his fans when you criticize him. We tend to attach ourselves of politicians and identity leaders a little too much these days.

I think the "father figure" vibe or message you're picking up is coming mostly from guys who grew up with no father figure, and are thrilled to finally hear a voice that resonates with them. I think a lot of the negativity from his followers comes from the fact that this sort of "post-modernist" doctrine they position themselves opposite of has been actively attacking the only thing that they've found satisfaction in, which is video games and academia.

You may disagree with Peterson and his fans, but I think the "cult" claim may be a bit of a stretch. There are always going to be loud, disillusioned individuals that follow cultural figures like him, but the guys who claim to see him as some kind of "father figure" are likely claiming that because they've never had a male in their life to tell them not just to get their shit together, but how to get their shit together. Men like that kind of stuff, you know?

Its unfortunate a society needs to be relying on him to do this. But I've probably invested a little more attention in Peterson because its seems to be a genuine thing that he does that is worthy of some respect.

There is a sig line one of this board's members has:

Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.

Think about us. North Melbourne values winning your own ball, going when its your turn to go - not squibbing the hard work and pain and the club motto is "Victory demands dedication".

That's the sort of thing that Peterson is sposed to teach young men.

Most of what I come across by him is stupid rubbish but he has done what is claimed in that comment above and that is a worth some respect.

I don't agree with a lot of the shit he says. Shit he says because he's trying to diagnose the problem he deals with - young men with no clue. It seems he thinks his personal prejudices are the solution to the problem because he is able to provide a solution therefore it must be so.

It doesn't mean the problems not there.

Obviously there are young men who have no idea how to be men.

Or be resilient enough, sorry tough enough, to face the challenges life provides in a way that .. is honourable for lack of a better word.

I dunno how many live in Australia. Where I live the young men get good male role models - from an old school pov - and often good new school role models too, sometimes from the same people. But I've also got a nephew who was raised by his mum and some of the stuff mentioned in that quote happened. He's got a good relationship with his dad now but it could have easily gone other ways. He's a good young man.

I get all that but Peterson gets shit wrong all the time in the service of constructing an irrational ideology that validates whatever shit he heard when he was growing up. I'm all for irrationality but not the boring sort we've all seen before.

 

[Tas]

Multi-quotes are a pain at the best of times, but I appreciate the discussion and time you put into your post.

You can create a paragraph by inserting QUOTE in square brackets at the start of the text and ending it with /QUOTE in square brackets at the end of the part you wish to quote.

I hope you don't mind me barging into the conversation, feel free to ignore it if you do. I'll skip the parts I have no real knowledge on, like the Kavanaugh shenanigans, I hadn't been following it.

True, but there is also a system of checks and balances that needs to be in place to prevent the tipping of the scales into the realm of authoritarianism. It's my perception that anyone who has looked to hold up that system has wound up fired by Trump.

I don't like Trump, I think he is a crass buffoon, however, I think it is important for any authority that is meant to keep the president in line should be free of political bias.

Whether there is bias or not, he feels that there is bias against him and he is using the powers available to him to get rid of people who he believes are working against him. In some regard I think the president has too much power and those checks and balances aren't really very effective within terms.

If enough people in real power felt he was a threat to the American way of life he would have copped the JFK treatment at some point by now.

Well, aside from at one point having a statement on his Presidential website that called for "Preventing Muslim Immigration", I happen to feel that the travel bans were racist at their core. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were affected by them, both within the US and abroad. Families were separated. Students couldn't go home. But we can agree to disagree.

Wasn't that ban overturned by the court because it wasn't legal?

They have been separated from their parents and are being held in chain link compounds, during what is well-acknowledged to be important formative years psychologically. Little attempt has been made at reuniting them, and it's been publicaly acknowledged that there is little to no tracking system in place to reunite them, and that many will be lost forever from their kin. This is not Central and South America, or any other Third World country, this is the United States, and it can and should do better. Most egregious of all is that Trump did this deliberately to threaten and punish innocent people fleeing persecution and violence in their own countries. It's reprehensible.

It is a deplorable scenario, but attempting to manage mass migration of undocumented people must be a horrific endeavour. It has been a deplorable scenario for decades. It is not like Trump is the first president to stop people entering the country illegally. Obama wasn't there on the border waving them through, ICE was created in 2003 during the Bush era and were fully operational during both of Obama's terms. The US Customs and Border Protection where also established in 2003. Why is this all of a sudden outrage? Nobody gave a shit about anyone left in the lurch during Obama's or Clinton's administration. It is because Orange Man Bad?

If the bleeding heart liberals could stop snorting a fortune in cocaine for long enough to realise they are empowering the cartel thugs who are the ones causing these people to want to flee their country in the first place, but no, it is someone else's fault and someone else's problem. I don't think anything more about the gun totting conservatives who end up selling arms to these thugs, but at least they are transparent in not giving a shit about anyone other than themselves.

Amnesty International claims at least 60% of migrant women and girls fleeing their shithole countries and attempting to get to the United States are r*ped while migrating, other sources has it as high as 80%, the vast majority of these migrants aren't from Mexico but from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala primarily.

Here is a story from "Nancy". by Amnesty International.

"On April 13, 2009, Nancy, a twenty-four-year-old Salvadoran migrant heading north to the United States, stayed at a shelter in Veracruz, a state in southern Mexico. While there, members of the criminal group the Zetas arrived at the shelter in large trucks and abducted her and 83 other migrants. The trucks took them to Reynosa, Tamaulipas on the United States.-Mexico border.

Mexican immigration authorities and Federal Police they passed along the way accepted bribe money to waive them along. During the journey, the kidnappers sexually abused Nancy and the other kidnapped women; when a male migrant attempted to defend the women, he was r*ped by the kidnappers and beaten to death.

In Reynosa, two of the women with Nancy paid the ransom asked by the kidnappers and were released. Unwilling to continue their journey, they turned themselves in to Mexican immigration authorities. These officials then sold the women back to the Zetas. The kidnappers brought the women back to the house, killed them, and displayed their bodies in front of Nancy and the other hostages. The kidnapper “bosses,” three Mexican men, sexually abused Nancy and the other women regularly. The “bosses” r*ped Nancy several times. The Zetas proposed that Nancy work for them, smuggling people from El Salvador; she agreed at first, hoping to escape, but then became afraid and declined their offer. She waited fifteen days for her aunt to gather the money required for her ransom before she was set free."

The vast majority of people who want to leave want to do so for the opportunity to have a better life and I think more should be done to address problems where they are rather than move millions of people to other countries. 85% of the women say it is the fear of being r*ped or killed as the main motivation for leaving where they live but that is what happens to the vast majority of people who do leave.

We need better solutions and solutions that are not mired by petty politics. It is really insulting to everyone for the media to feign indignity at a handful of survivors on the border who have to deal with what are minor inconveniences in the grand scheme of things when it has been a bloodbath out there for decades and they haven't held any liberal government accountable for their inaction at all.

Well, first of all, less than 5,000 KKK members in the US is still too many.

Politically speaking, 5k are as effective as 0. They have no positive political influence.

And I believe that Trump has been guilty of oppressing Muslims.

I think so too, however, the Muslim community has some issues with extremism which leads to some terrorist attacks. There are less than 4 million Muslims in the USA, there are 323m Non-Muslims. When push comes to shove, he is going to do what he thinks is going to protect the 323m Non-Muslims.

I also believe some police (not all) do target black people.

Target for abuse? I think some would, however a lot of the video evidence of fatalities I have seen has come from some form of resistance or inexperience from the police. I think American police are notoriously under-trained and are thrust into dangerous environments with little to no experience. Given the state of numerous black heavy neighbourhoods it is powder keg for mistakes even if they have the very best of intentions, ie many of the police officers involved are also black and have no reason to target black people.

I think if in every scenario people just shut their mouth and don't say anything (which is what any lawyer will tell you to do) and do exactly as they instruct you to do then I think the vast majority of incidents could be avoided. There are some inexcusable abhorrent things done though.

I would fear a fascist revival, but I don't think Nazi's are "everywhere".

Anyone who fears a fascist revival has a phobia, because it is an irrational fear. Fascists believe in one-party dictatorships, are against democracy and are for the forcible suppression of opposition. Fascists wouldn't be looking to gain some popularity in minority political parties. Given it is a system of forced control, it is usually a military dictatorship.

The vast majority of the fascist government existed around the time of the two great wars when there was great upheaval and when Communism was at it's height. Fascism in most circumstances was a counter-movement against the authoritarian left. Both are essentially collectivists, they are just different ends of a spectrum. Both should be equally as scary to a centrist.

We had a fascist paramilitary organisation in the 1930s here in NSW, when the communist party affiliated with the Labor party, the backlash was the New Guard, lead by a WW1 veteran, they sought to remove the then premier (Jack Lang) at the time by force for being a commie who believed the great depression was caused by overseas bankers who were greedy for even more money and devised the Lang Plan which probably would have devastated our economy if he wasn't dismissed by the governor general for being an insane commie. With Lang dismissed, there was nothing to keep our fascists focused against so disbanded.

If you fear there is the possibility of a fascist uprising, we are probably already at peril because it would mean we are well entrenched in a Marxist revolution. Neither scenario has a happy ending for peace loving people.

In my youth I was an idealistic Socialist, I liked the premise of Socialism but it has been tried in almost every conceivable fashion and it has failed every single time. I would have more faith in Snow White and the 7 Dwarves being offered as a successful model than Socialism of Communism. Once you dismantle incentive and property rights you have trashed your country. It is a great con job. It is a fantasy sold to the masses who are then forced at gunpoint to sit back and slave away in poverty while the leaders reside in the palaces taken by the state and anyone who is a threat become landfill. The amount of dead people massacred by collectivist left leaning governments (their own people) make the entirety of fascist atrocities seem pitiful by comparison.

As a woman, I can't say that I have ever personally felt repressed, but I'm not discounting that many of my sex are still.

I hope you never do feel that way. I have never felt repressed either but there are many men who feel that way, especially those who have had their relationships with their kids stripped from them.

I think most of us can handle the pushback which comes from generalisation, however, it is somewhat disturbing when you try to envisage that type of forced social engineering forced on you when you are a kid. What kind of damage does that do to a young person? You can't give a kid a back-hander but it is open season to perform psychological trauma on him for more than a decade. Is that right?

How many insufferable people is it okay for men to have to deal with? Like Julie Burchill who wrote toxic rubbish for the Guardian and described herself as a militant feminist who indulged us with such thoughts as "That young men succeed in suicide more often than girls isn't really the point, indeed, the more callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men finally to find something that they're better at than girls."

I am sure this wasn't read out during her son's funeral after he had taken his own life. How much torment did that poor kid have to endure? Imagine being a young kid and put through those don't rape and murder your partner forced courses at school, how ****ed up is that? Do they force women to attend the don't drown your babies in the bath tub course? It is horrific. I just fear in the hope to manufacture better people they are going to mass produce a lot of psychologically damaged people instead because none of these brilliant ideas come from anyone with any speciality in psychology.

I love all women and I want them to have every happiness in the world, I think there are positive ways to go about it but the stuff I see just looks horrific. I'd hate to be a kid right now.

if a man would say spiteful shit about women in the media they would be unemployable, well, other than Mark Latham. It is sad that the only people that are given any type of respect in terms of defending men has to be done by women because men aren't taken seriously when they attempt to do so. That in itself is an indication of far deeper systemic problems.

We've come a long way though. I will always argue for equality for all, and that includes white straight males, who I have no doubt struggle with the current societal backlash that is happening.

I am not even sure what equality is anymore. When I was a second wave feminist we had pre-determined goals, we achieved them and the movement ended. There is nothing systemic holding women back. What is equality now?

I do not wish to see them persecuted, and I don't support any women in any anti-male sentiments. We're all humans. And I believe we can find a common middle ground. I understand that most politicians are concerned only with power, but I refuse to accept that this means "love and internationalism" have no chance. Sure, history says it's big odds against, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying. I mean, why not? What have we got to lose?

I am still idealistic in terms of having a good social environment, I like to think humanity will get to a point like in Star Trek where our technology, intelligence and education takes us to a point we raise humanity to a higher standard and lifts the IQ of people who currently are like a yoke that have us mired in mediocrity. Sadly, that isn't going to be in my lifetime and we haven't made much genuine progress forwards in recent times. I do hope we choose to do better though.

I also believe that the hippies had it right. Give peace a chance.

I think if people make the effort to be nice to everyone, then things would improve dramatically.

 

[The Other Dean]

Because as I've said before, his opinion clearly carries weight otherwise he wouldn't be invited to universities or shows to engage in various topics. If he didn't get asked these questions we'd be still stuck at gender pronouns and feminism - two topics the media failed to pin him down over. If he sticks to self-help he's no better than some motivational speaker. He is worth listening to whether you think so or not. That's not an opinion because it's clearly backed up by everything that is happening in his life at the moment.

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I don’t begrudge Peterson’s willingness to speak out on topics that fall outside his direct field of expertise, or subjects that are quite separate from his self-help stuff. He can knock himself out on that front. And if people want to listen to him and appreciate what he says, they can knock themselves out, too. That is his and their right. A right which I have no interest in them being denied.

I’m likewise not trying to baulk the significant appeal he has had among a certain section of the population. ferball has provided a good summary above of one area where he has had a positive impact. I have made mention of similar.

However, that’s far from where the story ends. As I said in my previous post, given Peterson’s profile and the range and type of subjects he discusses, and the level of division his words have provoked, his work has to be assessed in a far more complete and holistic fashion. Cherry-picking the positives without weighing them against the negatives is disingenuous. Whether or not you agree with the people who have a negative take on Peterson’s work, or those who view his factual errors or use of pseudo-science as a deal-breaker, they exist. And are therefore part of the equation in assessing Peterson’s overall worth. His work has undoubtedly polarised opinion and I’m not sure further division and disharmony is such a great thing for a world that already has those things in spades.

Moving on to something else you mentioned....I have no idea what constitutes “the media failing to pin him down on pronouns”, but what I do know that in the aftermath of the Bill C-16 furore, it is now generally accepted that Peterson completely exaggerated and misrepresented the Bill. To provide a couple of examples – Rene Basque, head of the Canadian Bar Association, has since (publicly) rejected his interpretation of the Bill. Brenda Cossman, Professor of Law at the University Of Toronto has also said that Peterson was, quote, “fundamentally mischaracterizing” Bill C-16. And the list of authoritative voices that echo their sentiments goes on. (These comments are readily available online for all to investigate.)

Bill C-16 only concerns “hate propaganda” (or “hate speech”) which strictly refers to advocating genocide, discriminatory practises that apply to the provision of goods and services, employer-employee relations, and federally provided services. So someone intentionally and/or repeatedly refusing to refer to someone by their preferred pronoun is of no consequence unless that person is causing undue hardship to an employee, discriminating in the provision of goods or services, or criminally harassing someone that is deemed to reasonably fear for their life and safety, a relatively high standard to be met.

Therefore, the “compelled speech” argument that Peterson likes to invoke with regards to Bill C-16 is basically a hysterical (both kinds) claim without any grounding in factual application. An exercise in baseless scare-mongering.

Of course, it becomes even more interesting and curious when you look at the possible explanation for (or motivation behind) Peterson’s gross misrepresentation of the C-16 Bill. While I’m not ruling out the possibility that there could be some other reason at play, his actions would seem to point to three fairly obvious conclusions. Either Peterson is (a) trans-phobic, or (b) he’s REALLY bad at interpreting law (so bad that he has misinterpreted something that your average high school kid could understand), or instead (c) he deliberately misrepresented the Bill with a view to whipping a specific demographic into a frenzy. (And perhaps raise his profile in the process.) Let’s just say, I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on the first two.

Correct, you didn't say that in those words but "drinking from the Peterson fountain" is exactly that but just worded more eloquently

Disagree.

And as I’ve already pointed out, the post in question was a fishing trip anyway.

In your opinion. In my opinion if you are being critiqued by a journalist that is painting you as something you're not you make a strong point that it is incorrect and that they are a piece of shit. Stand up straight with your shoulders back is something he discusses and I see no issue with it. There was no violence so it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

“Do not allow yourself to become arrogant or resentful.”

“Peaceful social being is preferable to isolation and to war. In consequence, it justly and rightly demands some sacrifice of individual impulse and idiosyncrasy.”

“Be a prince of peace.”

Etc.

Playing ‘pick-a-quote’ tennis is easy with a guy like Peterson because his work is so riddled with ambiguity and contradiction. Of course, this employment of ambiguity then allows both he and his supporters to trot out the completely asinine, ‘you just don’t understand his work’ line with clockwork regularity. (Often it would seem as a convenient exit strategy from further debate on a particular topic.) It’s tried-and-true political shtick and Peterson and his supporters are by no means the first people to adopt this tactic. Regardless, the very suggestion that anyone who disagrees with Peterson is only doing so because his work is too complicated or high concept for them to understand, is obviously completely and utterly ridiculous. Laughably and embarrassingly so. Because, hey, I’m sure the only reason Chomsky said Peterson ‘merits little attention’ was due to him finding Peterson’s work too difficult to comprehend.

(The above wasn’t directed at you, Groin, just a general observation.)

Back on what you wrote, just by the by, I couldn’t disagree more with the over-arching inference one could reasonably draw from the last sentence of your post. Just because a person who threatens physical violence against someone doesn’t carry through with their threat, that doesn’t make it okay. Not in my eyes, or the eyes of the law.

But I digress...while tweeting highbrow stuff like “**** you” and wishing violence upon a writer may appeal to some of his more testosterone-heavy acolytes, I would suggest the moderate and/or civilised souls among Peterson's supporters (and the rest of society) wouldn’t be quite so taken by his inability to exercise self-control in that situation. (There definitely seems to be quite a bit of criticism around for his actions in this instance, too, even from his supporters.)

And what of the other examples I gave?

I don’t care who is behind it, doxxing is a thoroughly pissweak act. Whether you’re the militant Leftie doxxing Far Right fanatics that have managed to fly under the radar, or Peterson doxxing students. Either way, it's gutless shit. The work of cowards and *essendon supporters.

But of course, more importantly, how on earth can that be reconciled with his claim that free speech is sacrosanct?

And what about his desire to have certain Uni courses discontinued, or his plan (since abandoned) to keep a watchdog database instructing the public on which courses were infecting young minds with post-modern and cultural Marxist evils? How does that tie in with the whole ‘sanctity of free speech thing’?

 

[The Other Dean]

Well, aside from at one point having a statement on his Presidential website that called for "Preventing Muslim Immigration", I happen to feel that the travel bans were racist at their core. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were affected by them, both within the US and abroad. Families were separated. Students couldn't go home. But we can agree to disagree.

Loving the pink.

And put me firmly in the 'agree' camp.

They have been separated from their parents and are being held in chain link compounds, during what is well-acknowledged to be important formative years psychologically. Little attempt has been made at reuniting them, and it's been publicaly acknowledged that there is little to no tracking system in place to reunite them, and that many will be lost forever from their kin. This is not Central and South America, or any other Third World country, this is the United States, and it can and should do better. Most egregious of all is that Trump did this deliberately to threaten and punish innocent people fleeing persecution and violence in their own countries. It's reprehensible.

It is an utter disgrace. And there's pretty much no mitigating circumstances in the world, logistical or otherwise, that make it okay.

Well, first of all, less than 5,000 KKK members in the US is still too many. And I believe that Trump has been guilty of oppressing Muslims. I also believe some police (not all) do target black people. I would fear a fascist revival, but I don't think Nazi's are "everywhere". As a woman, I can't say that I have ever personally felt repressed, but I'm not discounting that many of my sex are still.

Yeah, nah. Haven't you heard? Removal of systematic roadblocks = equality achieved!

We've come a long way though. I will always argue for equality for all, and that includes white straight males, who I have no doubt struggle with the current societal backlash that is happening. I do not wish to see them persecuted, and I don't support any women in any anti-male sentiments. We're all humans. And I believe we can find a common middle ground. I understand that most politicians are concerned only with power, but I refuse to accept that this means "love and internationalism" have no chance. Sure, history says it's big odds against, but that doesn't mean we can't keep trying. I mean, why not? What have we got to lose?

I also believe that the hippies had it right. Give peace a chance.

Word.

Excellent posting, Ms North.

 

[The Other Dean]

Anyways, I'm with Tas.

Curse those bleeding heart liberals and their coke binges!

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Anyways, I'm with Tas.

Curse those bleeding heart liberals and their coke binges!

Lucky bastards, we only have cigars and brandy on the right.

 

[Snake_Baker]

You folks need to step out to the outer fringes.

 

[Groin guru]

The study that claims anti bias training works with specific protocols was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which has been around for over 50 years. It was not some "Grievance studies" journal. Its one of the most respected journals in its field in the world and publishes research into Social Psychology.

The journal has an impact factor of 2.159...

I'd file an injunction against any journal <3 if they tried to publish my work.

 

[ferball]

The journal has an impact factor of 2.159...

I'd file an injunction against any journal <3 if they tried to publish my work.

That's like Josh Kelly not coming to North cos he wants to win a flag at GWS.

You could be driving that journal's impact factor up and increasing your reputation in the process.

And yep about the impact factor right now, it was lower recently apparently, and that is about between 8 and 12 on the ranking for social psyche journals, there are over 50 and some of them ranked above that one have a specific focus on media. Peterson has published in several ranked below and above that one. Its not a perfect rating system tho, nothing is. (I didn't even know what it was two days ago.)

 

[ferball]

You folks need to step out to the outer fringes.

Its even worse when its the coppers and that happens...

 

[Groin guru]

That's like Josh Kelly not coming to North cos he wants to win a flag at GWS.

You could be driving that journal's impact factor up and increasing your reputation in the process.

And yep about the impact factor right now, it was lower recently apparently, and that is about between 8 and 12 on the ranking for social psyche journals, there are over 50 and some of them ranked above that one have a specific focus on media. Peterson has published in several ranked below and above that one. Its not a perfect rating system tho, nothing is. (I didn't even know what it was two days ago.)

It isn't perfect but it's probably more of a slight on the field if anything. Protocols in those fields aren't exactly what you'd call robust. Even the one you initially posted lacked a follow up period which I feel is a must for that sort of study. You want to gauge knowledge translation and if it actually held up in the mind to long term.

Journal process in general is shit. Top researchers refuse to review papers as it's more about giving back. I can't be bothered reviewing a paper that might take me 1-3 hours to review so I'll off load it, they'll off load it and then it ends up with a PhD student that is flattered that they were asked. The cycle continues. Open access journals try and combat it by offering you discounts/credits and a faster turn around but still. If you're lucky you might have it published in 9 months. That's 9 months + the time it took to write it = a fast moving field could already make your research obsolete. You get published and after 2 years you might have ~1500 downloads and 20 citations...wow you've made an impact...It's why I think the future might look towards something like posting basic papers on social media platforms or things like 'the conversation'. They can get 20000+ views in quick succession and media platforms across the globe can run with the story. The element of science + lay speak is there. Then you can tie in tipping micropayment services (similar to STEEM) where you are rewarded based on the content you deliver. Those payments could allow you to conduct more research and gauge public sentiment etc. Not perfect but it's where I see more research going because adoption and knowledge translation isn't working.

 

[ferball]

Sorry to jump in... (Yeah really sorry )

If enough people in real power felt he was a threat to the American way of life he would have copped the JFK treatment at some point by now.

LOL.

JFK was killed by aliens. Everyone knows that.

It is a deplorable scenario, but attempting to manage mass migration of undocumented people must be a horrific endeavour. It has been a deplorable scenario for decades. It is not like Trump is the first president to stop people entering the country illegally. Obama wasn't there on the border waving them through, ICE was created in 2003 during the Bush era and were fully operational during both of Obama's terms. The US Customs and Border Protection where also established in 2003. Why is this all of a sudden outrage? Nobody gave a shit about anyone left in the lurch during Obama's or Clinton's administration. It is because Orange Man Bad?

First of all when it comes to foreign policy Obama is a black Dubya. He should be called the Obomber given what the US did during his admin.

Secondly ICE now operates with what appears to be impunity and expanded powers beyond what Obama and Bush allowed. At least that's what I have heard from friends in the US recently. Its a fair point about the selective outrage tho. Some progressives in the US voted for Clinton at the last election to protect their privilege despite the fact that she is a war monger with no compunction about blowing the **** out of foreigners for shot term political gains. Ruling class hypocrites like that can GAGF.

If the bleeding heart liberals could stop snorting a fortune in cocaine for long enough to realise they are empowering the cartel thugs who are the ones causing these people to want to flee their country in the first place, but no, it is someone else's fault and someone else's problem. I don't think anything more about the gun totting conservatives who end up selling arms to these thugs, but at least they are transparent in not giving a shit about anyone other than themselves.

Amnesty International claims at least 60% of migrant women and girls fleeing their shithole countries and attempting to get to the United States are r*ped while migrating, other sources has it as high as 80%, the vast majority of these migrants aren't from Mexico but from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala primarily.

That's not just (added that word on edit) why people are fleeing those places. Part of it is simply the whole "Advertise a bullshit lifestyle and immigration is your new problem" thing. Mostly its cos of decades of corruption and broken politics, much of it on the back of US interference to guarantee banana supply and related stuff.

Also see the School of the Americas.

Also legalise coke then the US can't use the profits to fund their intelligence agencies' black ops. Or at the very least allow their allies to grow rich dealing coke and use the money to fund guns to send to Iran or something.

According to the "Its Happening" gif guy Dubya's dad - the first Bush pres knew all about the importation of Cocaine into the US via CIA protected back channels as part of the Iran Contra deal and if anything possibly made money off it himself (tho thats hard to take seriously. He was in Dallas the day the aliens got JFK tho.).

"On April 13, 2009, Nancy, a twenty-four-year-old Salvadoran migrant heading north to the United States, stayed at a shelter in Veracruz, a state in southern Mexico. While there, members of the criminal group the Zetas arrived at the shelter in large trucks and abducted her and 83 other migrants. The trucks took them to Reynosa, Tamaulipas on the United States.-Mexico border.

Mexican immigration authorities and Federal Police they passed along the way accepted bribe money to waive them along. During the journey, the kidnappers sexually abused Nancy and the other kidnapped women; when a male migrant attempted to defend the women, he was r*ped by the kidnappers and beaten to death.

In Reynosa, two of the women with Nancy paid the ransom asked by the kidnappers and were released. Unwilling to continue their journey, they turned themselves in to Mexican immigration authorities. These officials then sold the women back to the Zetas. The kidnappers brought the women back to the house, killed them, and displayed their bodies in front of Nancy and the other hostages. The kidnapper “bosses,” three Mexican men, sexually abused Nancy and the other women regularly. The “bosses” r*ped Nancy several times. The Zetas proposed that Nancy work for them, smuggling people from El Salvador; she agreed at first, hoping to escape, but then became afraid and declined their offer. She waited fifteen days for her aunt to gather the money required for her ransom before she was set free."

Los Zetas was formed by former members of central american military forces who had graduated from the School of the Americas. FWIW.

Much of this sounds similar to some of what happened under regimes like Pinichet's at places like Colonia Digidad.

The vast majority of people who want to leave want to do so for the opportunity to have a better life and I think more should be done to address problems where they are rather than move millions of people to other countries. 85% of the women say it is the fear of being r*ped or killed as the main motivation for leaving where they live but that is what happens to the vast majority of people who do leave.

We need better solutions and solutions that are not mired by petty politics. It is really insulting to everyone for the media to feign indignity at a handful of survivors on the border who have to deal with what are minor inconveniences in the grand scheme of things when it has been a bloodbath out there for decades and they haven't held any liberal government accountable for their inaction at all.

I agree. Central America is ****ed over big time. A large reason for that is US corporate exploitation.

I think so too, however, the Muslim community has some issues with extremism which leads to some terrorist attacks. There are less than 4 million Muslims in the USA, there are 323m Non-Muslims. When push comes to shove, he is going to do what he thinks is going to protect the 323m Non-Muslims.

Target for abuse? I think some would, however a lot of the video evidence of fatalities I have seen has come from some form of resistance or inexperience from the police. I think American police are notoriously under-trained and are thrust into dangerous environments with little to no experience. Given the state of numerous black heavy neighbourhoods it is powder keg for mistakes even if they have the very best of intentions, ie many of the police officers involved are also black and have no reason to target black people.

I think if in every scenario people just shut their mouth and don't say anything (which is what any lawyer will tell you to do) and do exactly as they instruct you to do then I think the vast majority of incidents could be avoided. There are some inexcusable abhorrent things done though.

It doesn't always work when you're black. Plus people should be allowed to assert their rights. Allowing the police to do what they want and overstep their authority means you have surrendered your rights as a free citizen. The US police system is over militarised and treats situations as problems to be solved by violence.

There is also a huge undercurrent of racism. You probably haven't seen the various leaks of documents, police newsletters etc etc that have come out over the last decade especially that show the levels of disfunction in US police departments. Its not like the shooting of Tamir Rice was a surprise. Have you bseen the video? Or the dashcam video of John T Williams being shot by coppers.

The stuff in the (secret till leaked in the aftermath of Williams' murder by Police officer Ian Birk.^) Seattle PDs internal newsletter (which I've seen, I had a friend who worked on the Seattle social justice coalition or whatever it was. QA real life SJW!! ) was disgusting and in some ways predicted the next 5 years of over the top police shootings.

Anyone who fears a fascist revival has a phobia, because it is an irrational fear. Fascists believe in one-party dictatorships, are against democracy and are for the forcible suppression of opposition. Fascists wouldn't be looking to gain some popularity in minority political parties. Given it is a system of forced control, it is usually a military dictatorship.

Tell that to the people of Brazil.

The vast majority of the fascist government existed around the time of the two great wars when there was great upheaval and when Communism was at it's height. Fascism in most circumstances was a counter-movement against the authoritarian left. Both are essentially collectivists, they are just different ends of a spectrum. Both should be equally as scary to a centrist.

It doesn't really matter if the ideology is right or left wing if its backed by an authoritarian, or authoritarian totalitarian government that is where the trouble comes from. If anything Authoritarianism is the real threat to people, not what side of the political spectrum it emerges from.

In my youth I was an idealistic Socialist, I liked the premise of Socialism but it has been tried in almost every conceivable fashion and it has failed every single time. I would have more faith in Snow White and the 7 Dwarves being offered as a successful model than Socialism of Communism. Once you dismantle incentive and property rights you have trashed your country. It is a great con job. It is a fantasy sold to the masses who are then forced at gunpoint to sit back and slave away in poverty while the leaders reside in the palaces taken by the state and anyone who is a threat become landfill. The amount of dead people massacred by collectivist left leaning governments (their own people) make the entirety of fascist atrocities seem pitiful by comparison.

There are democratic socialist governments all over europe and they do all right.

The real issue isn't socialism or capitalism its the limitation of the abuse of power by democratic institutions. If that happens then usually societies will function reasonably well.

How many insufferable people is it okay for men to have to deal with? Like Julie Burchill who wrote toxic rubbish for the Guardian and described herself as a militant feminist who indulged us with such thoughts as "That young men succeed in suicide more often than girls isn't really the point, indeed, the more callous among us would say that it was quite nice for young men finally to find something that they're better at than girls."

If men can't handle this sort of shit stirring from women then perhaps the entire lot of us need daily glasses of cement added to our diet. i read that article and its not unreasonable.

I am sure this wasn't read out during her son's funeral after he had taken his own life. How much torment did that poor kid have to endure? Imagine being a young kid and put through those don't rape and murder your partner forced courses at school, how ****** up is that? Do they force women to attend the don't drown your babies in the bath tub course? It is horrific. I just fear in the hope to manufacture better people they are going to mass produce a lot of psychologically damaged people instead because none of these brilliant ideas come from anyone with any speciality in psychology.

How many babies get drowned every week in Australia?

if a man would say spiteful shit about women in the media they would be unemployable, well, other than Mark Latham. It is sad that the only people that are given any type of respect in terms of defending men has to be done by women because men aren't taken seriously when they attempt to do so. That in itself is an indication of far deeper systemic problems.

Unless they are the entire Australian Media talking about Julia Gillard, who should be drowned in a chaff bag, stabbed or cut throated, kicked to death or killed in other ways etc etc. Alan Jones, Steve Chiobo and Grahame Morris all kept their jobs.

I am not even sure what equality is anymore. When I was a second wave feminist we had pre-determined goals, we achieved them and the movement ended. There is nothing systemic holding women back. What is equality now?

You know something? Maybe its time for an intelligent public debate about that. What do you reckon?

I am still idealistic in terms of having a good social environment, I like to think humanity will get to a point like in Star Trek where our technology, intelligence and education takes us to a point we raise humanity to a higher standard and lifts the IQ of people who currently are like a yoke that have us mired in mediocrity. Sadly, that isn't going to be in my lifetime and we haven't made much genuine progress forwards in recent times. I do hope we choose to do better though.

Humanity won't even get thru this century. The planet is ****ed and so are we.

I think if people make the effort to be nice to everyone, then things would improve dramatically.

True. Most people do that most of the time as well I think, but a little more effort would make all the difference.

^ Did I mention former Seattle cop Ian Birk is a cold blooded murderer? Cos he is. The murdering campaigner.

 

[Mcarcherey]

How do you know that if you don't read them? Or at least read the abstract.

You're using me as your excuse not to have your views challenged.

Its your brain. You can misuse it however you like.



On the off chance you do read this far here's a comment on reddit about Peterson. I dare you to read it.

I think you're missing the point. A lot of young men grew up in fatherless homes and missed a lot of crucial information that's important for a man to learn from their father. Stoicism, emotional control, the importance of accepting difficulties and taking the fall when you need to, being reliable when everything is falling apart, etc.

A lot of young men in their 20s today grew up with a mother who tried to turn them against their father. Jordan Peterson isn't so much curating a message as he is just disseminating information that guys should have gotten from their fathers when they were growing up. My mother never taught me the importance of anything I listed above, but just having a place to access that information has been immensely beneficial to me personally.

I think Peterson has some views that are a little out of whack, but a lifetime in academia will do that to you. Voices like his are hard to come by these days, and everyone's divided themselves up into teams so aggressively that it's not surprising that you get the level of backlash you do from his fans when you criticize him. We tend to attach ourselves of politicians and identity leaders a little too much these days.

I think the "father figure" vibe or message you're picking up is coming mostly from guys who grew up with no father figure, and are thrilled to finally hear a voice that resonates with them. I think a lot of the negativity from his followers comes from the fact that this sort of "post-modernist" doctrine they position themselves opposite of has been actively attacking the only thing that they've found satisfaction in, which is video games and academia.

You may disagree with Peterson and his fans, but I think the "cult" claim may be a bit of a stretch. There are always going to be loud, disillusioned individuals that follow cultural figures like him, but the guys who claim to see him as some kind of "father figure" are likely claiming that because they've never had a male in their life to tell them not just to get their shit together, but how to get their shit together. Men like that kind of stuff, you know?

Its unfortunate a society needs to be relying on him to do this. But I've probably invested a little more attention in Peterson because its seems to be a genuine thing that he does that is worthy of some respect.

There is a sig line one of this board's members has:

Everything I know about morality and the obligations of men, I owe it to football.

Think about us. North Melbourne values winning your own ball, going when its your turn to go - not squibbing the hard work and pain and the club motto is "Victory demands dedication".

That's the sort of thing that Peterson is sposed to teach young men.

Most of what I come across by him is stupid rubbish but he has done what is claimed in that comment above and that is a worth some respect.

I don't agree with a lot of the shit he says. Shit he says because he's trying to diagnose the problem he deals with - young men with no clue. It seems he thinks his personal prejudices are the solution to the problem because he is able to provide a solution therefore it must be so.

It doesn't mean the problems not there.

Obviously there are young men who have no idea how to be men.

Or be resilient enough, sorry tough enough, to face the challenges life provides in a way that .. is honourable for lack of a better word.

I dunno how many live in Australia. Where I live the young men get good male role models - from an old school pov - and often good new school role models too, sometimes from the same people. But I've also got a nephew who was raised by his mum and some of the stuff mentioned in that quote happened. He's got a good relationship with his dad now but it could have easily gone other ways. He's a good young man.

I get all that but Peterson gets shit wrong all the time in the service of constructing an irrational ideology that validates whatever shit he heard when he was growing up. I'm all for irrationality but not the boring sort we've all seen before.

ffs i'm not reading a reddit comment.

the thing is you're not challenging my views - for example just glossing over what you're saying "north melbourne values of hard work and not squibbing" and then saying that JP doesn't teach this is f********* laughable. what's more laughable is you try and spew the tripe of socialism and communism whilst posting the above about dedication and accountability. this doesn't challenge anything that i already don't know, the only thing it has challenged is whether i bother replying to your post.

like i said - i'm not going to argue with you, it's a waste of our time. my original point was that many of the studies that you post are in the realm of academia which is beginning to be called out for it's BS and bias. spin it however way you want but i'm putting it out there so everyone can see that most of those links you love to post don't carry any kind of merit.

 

[Tas]

Anyways, I'm with Tas.

Curse those bleeding heart liberals and their coke binges!

Get on the ethical coke.

 

[ferball]

ffs i'm not reading a reddit comment.

the thing is you're not challenging my views - for example just glossing over what you're saying "north melbourne values of hard work and not squibbing" and then saying that JP doesn't teach this is f********* laughable. what's more laughable is you try and spew the tripe of socialism and communism whilst posting the above about dedication and accountability. this doesn't challenge anything that i already don't know, the only thing it has challenged is whether i bother replying to your post.

like i said - i'm not going to argue with you, it's a waste of our time. my original point was that many of the studies that you post are in the realm of academia which is beginning to be called out for it's BS and bias. spin it however way you want but i'm putting it out there so everyone can see that most of those links you love to post don't carry any kind of merit.

You need to read what I wrote instead of not reading it and thinking that I wrote something else.

I compared North to Peterson because they both value hard work and not squibbing - not to say he doesn't. I was saying that is a good thing. The opposite of what you said.

The reddit comment you were to snobbish to read is from someone who is defending Peterson and pointing out the positives he has. I acknowledged them and said they are worthy of respect. Not whatever rubbish you posted. (Frankly the way that comment was treated by other posters - lefty posters - was appalling.)

None of the studies I posted were the sort of academic tripe you are referring to, even the ones I posted ages ago collected data and studied it. They had numbers and repeatable methods for collecting those numbers. So they are falsifiable. Do you know what that means? FFS.

The trouble with you is you're arguing with what you think I've said not what I've actually said. Fair enough tho. Its the only way you'll win.

Have fun.