General MFC Discussion 2.0

[Cannon82]

Unfortunately I can only give you a single like. Incredibly well articulated and reasoned response. Well done.

Shit, I'd better see a doctor.

 

[TheDarkDwarf]

****, I'd better see a doctor.

Why, are you ill?

 

[Salc0]

Thanks for the reply, thought I might get a wall of text to respond to from you

The reason he was so careful of his words was clearly because it seems he's used to people trying to twist his words around to make it offensive so they can get a headline and soundbite out of it. He's only using "double speak and ambiguity" if you're interpreting what he's saying as something else, which clearly seems to be the case with you. I re-watched a bit of that Cathy Newman interview for the hell of it yesterday and he was quite clear in what he was saying, despite her best efforts.

I'm less concerned with the specific example of the Cathy Newman interview and more how Peterson generally expresses himself. Actually the Cathy Newman interview was my first exposure to Peterson, and I must admit it is a very weird interview. Cathy is quite aggressive in the interview style, but at the same time Peterson isn't very open to answering the questions.

More generally, however, as someone who claims to pride himself on expressing himself clearly, I would imagine that the idea he can be misconstrued should be something that Peterson is concerned with. Maybe I am just dumb, but I find it very difficult to understand what his central point is a lot of the time. If he is so clear to understand, maybe you could help me out. What is Peterson's idea of Postmodern neo-marxism that he refers to so often and why is he so scared of it?

When everything is racist, nothing is racist. When everything is sexist, nothing is sexist. When everything is homophobic, nothing is homophobic. You moan about being called an SJW in the other post yet you want to shout people down with accusations of all the "isms" at your disposal. Its pretty standard fare for your kind to kill off a debate with accusations of wrong-think. Peterson isn't responsible for people who watch his videos and has no obligation to comment on them.

I didn't say that everything is racist, or that everything is sexist, etc. I actually don't very often call people out for bad behaviour, but I most certainly do have the right to do so when it occurs. I actually don't really care about being called many different names, it has happened my whole life, I just more wanted to get across the idea that people are not free from the consequences of their actions (more on that to come below). I never claimed to try and stop people 'thinking' certain things. People will always have bad thoughts, when they express bad ideas or act on them they do open themselves up to criticism. That is not 'wrong-think', it is 'wrong-action'. Personally, I would think that Peterson should be concerned about who is using his ideas and what they are using them for, but he is obviously not that socially conscious.

As a side note, as someone who said they are concerned with increasing tribalism and separation of people into categories I find it strange that you would comment something like 'your kind', seems pretty divisional to me

The left is as much to blame for the lack of political discourse as anyone, and you can examine your own behaviour to see why. You want to be able to accuse people of everything under the sun - accusations which have real-world implications on people's employment and social lives - and yet get upset about what is basically name-calling in return. You are absolutely allowed to criticize people for their opinions, but don't expect them to like it. If you want to publicly accuse people of racism, homophobia, etc, you'd really want to have some solid evidence up your sleeve or you should expect to get sued. Its almost like you can't just do what you want because you feel like it.

As for shutting down debate, the left absolutely loves it. Look at people getting de-platformed / de-monetized on Twitter, YouTube, other social media; events being cancelled because of panicked screaming from SJWs; the media's biased reporting and misrepresentation of people as racist, sexist, etc etc because their views don't align with the narrative. Just accusing people of **** rather than arguing the points is pretty much the default conversational starter from your snowy colleagues, and yourself as you've just demonstrated.

Again you seem to be putting words in my mouth I didn't say. How am I shutting down political discourse by actively trying to talk about issues on an (albeit probably too far removed) internet forum? As I said above, I very rarely accuse people of poor behaviour. But, when I see other people being called out for being racist or homophobic, there is always a bunch of others defending them in the name of free speech or any other reason. I'm not actually a big supporter of free speech personally, but even if you do support it, it does not make people free from the consequences of their actions. Someone wants to be racist then they don't get to enjoy the benefits of earning money from a platform they don't own. Someone wants to be homophobic, then they don't get to be employed by a company that supports the LGBTIQ+ community. Seems fair enough to me, do you disagree? You are mostly right though, if someone feels comfortable openly hating on a minority group for no reason I probably don't feel like talking to that person.

The 'narrative' sounds like an ominous monster under the bed, like Peterson's Postmodern Neo-marxism to me.

Some questions for you:

1. What do you expect individuals to do about climate change?
2. After answering the first question: Do you drive a car? Do you have air-conditioning in your home? How many fridges, freezer, TVs, computers, phones, lights, etc etc are going right now in your home?

1. I expect people to be conscious of the decisions they make and try to enact positive change in the world
2. I own a car that I share with my wife. We usually will drive it once or twice a week. We both either ride or walk to work everyday. I don't use air conditioning, but do occasionally use electric heating. I deliberately avoid using wood heaters as they are the worst option in terms of efficiency. In terms of other appliances I currently have my laptop running and one light on in the house. At the moment I am renting so am using coal fired power, which does bother me. In my previous home I had solar power and when I purchase my next house I will be using solar power and solar hot water again. Generally, I try to live a low impact life style, whether it be my food choices, transport choices, or power choices. Overall, I know that not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices I have, but I still think they can do more. Hell, I can do more and do try most days to challenge myself. A bigger issue then personal action, however, is consumer choices. The more consumer power we get putting pressure on big companies to use sustainable power choices the better. The more people walking the streets demanding action on the climate the better.

Its a common theme in your responses that you assume that you're on the right side of the debate and that everyone should be falling into line with you. Sadly, accusing people of **** and calling them names isn't a great way win people over to your way of thinking. You should have a bit more thought on what you know, what you think you know and where you get your information from - you act self-righteous, but have you considered that what you've just said isn't actually right? Doesn't seem like that's crossed your mind.

Doesn't everyone assume they are in the right? I would take from your responses that you definitely assume you are, and that anyone who dares question your choices is apparently accusing you of 'wrong-think'. Quite the victim complex there snowflake Yes, I just called you a name, I hope you can take it. However, in my previous posts, I believe the only name I called anyone was dick head to the climate change denier. I must admit I was kind of annoyed by that with the current political climate and probably over-reacted. I know I'm not going to win anyone over with that response, but I was being emotional.

Generally, I actually question my decisions and thoughts alot. One thing that I don't assume I am right about is climate action. I know I am right about climate action because I have read a lot on the topic. I have informed myself on what is appropriate action and try to live my life in line with that. For a lot of other things I am open to other's ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't think for myself and disagree with people, it kind of sounds like you want everyone to just fall in line without thinking for themselves.

In terms of the self-righteous comment, I suggest you look in a mirror. You have assumed a lot about me as an individual from a few posts online and gone on the attack pretty ferociously. Not really sure that is a proportional response.

 

[Topkent]

On the bright side guys, Carlton host the WBs next week and GC host St Kilda coming off a bye. If Collingwood put us to the sword like id expect we could be very easily bottom of the ladder

 

[Cannon82]

Thanks for the reply, thought I might get a wall of text to respond to from you

Oh, a cunning ruse! I have fallen for the oldest trick in the book!

I'm less concerned with the specific example of the Cathy Newman interview and more how Peterson generally expresses himself. Actually the Cathy Newman interview was my first exposure to Peterson, and I must admit it is a very weird interview. Cathy is quite aggressive in the interview style, but at the same time Peterson isn't very open to answering the questions.

More generally, however, as someone who claims to pride himself on expressing himself clearly, I would imagine that the idea he can be misconstrued should be something that Peterson is concerned with. Maybe I am just dumb, but I find it very difficult to understand what his central point is a lot of the time. If he is so clear to understand, maybe you could help me out. What is Peterson's idea of Postmodern neo-marxism that he refers to so often and why is he so scared of it?

So you just posted about him being "#1 with racists", now you're telling me you're actually principally concerned with his method of expression and the difficulty in understanding his central points on Postmodern neo-marxism? Colour me skeptical - I'll pass on that bait and switch, and I don't watch his videos so I can't tell you what his views are. If you want to learn, try watching the material with an open mind and listening. Typically that works.

I didn't say that everything is racist, or that everything is sexist, etc. I actually don't very often call people out for bad behaviour, but I most certainly do have the right to do so when it occurs. I actually don't really care about being called many different names, it has happened my whole life, I just more wanted to get across the idea that people are not free from the consequences of their actions (more on that to come below). I never claimed to try and stop people 'thinking' certain things. People will always have bad thoughts, when they express bad ideas or act on them they do open themselves up to criticism. That is not 'wrong-think', it is 'wrong-action'. Personally, I would think that Peterson should be concerned about who is using his ideas and what they are using them for, but he is obviously not that socially conscious.

As a side note, as someone who said they are concerned with increasing tribalism and separation of people into categories I find it strange that you would comment something like 'your kind', seems pretty divisional to me

No, you didn't, but the trending fashion with "your kind", ie snowflake SJWs, is to label anything they don't like as the nearest -ism or -ist that feels appropriate, which you did do. You seem to believe its your role to police people's behaviour that you find unacceptable, but you're not trying to "stop people thinking certain things"... although the impression I get from you is that if you could, you would. Thankfully the thought police don't exist yet. Have you considered policing your own behaviour to act as the self-appointed arbiter of what is and isn't socially acceptable behaviour?

I think you have me confused with someone else. I simply said identity politics is a lingering stain of an ideology that needs to be flushed. People can go sort themselves into whatever category they want, they just shouldn't expect any special treatment or privileges for doing so. You know, one rule for all and fair across the board.

Again you seem to be putting words in my mouth I didn't say. How am I shutting down political discourse by actively trying to talk about issues on an (albeit probably too far removed) internet forum? As I said above, I very rarely accuse people of poor behaviour. But, when I see other people being called out for being racist or homophobic, there is always a bunch of others defending them in the name of free speech or any other reason. I'm not actually a big supporter of free speech personally, but even if you do support it, it does not make people free from the consequences of their actions. Someone wants to be racist then they don't get to enjoy the benefits of earning money from a platform they don't own. Someone wants to be homophobic, then they don't get to be employed by a company that supports the LGBTIQ+ community. Seems fair enough to me, do you disagree? You are mostly right though, if someone feels comfortable openly hating on a minority group for no reason I probably don't feel like talking to that person.

The 'narrative' sounds like an ominous monster under the bed, like Peterson's Postmodern Neo-marxism to me.

Maybe you too need to brush up on your communication methods. How could someone possibly misconstrue what you're saying?

You're trying to come across as reasonable here but you're talking witch hunts and people losing their jobs because they don't share your views on certain topics. You don't support free speech but you want the freedom yourself to dress people down or finger them for behaviour you don't approve of. You'd have made a marvelous brown shirt back in the day. I do disagree with your politics - you can feel free to dislike and not talk to a person whose views you don't like, but thinking you get a say on who gets to work for certain companies and how people get to behave in public is narcissistic. Its a common delusion shared by the snowflake community that they take it upon themselves to enact "positive" change, whether the majority of people want it or not. Comes back to that self-righteousness we touched on earlier.

1. I expect people to be conscious of the decisions they make and try to enact positive change in the world
2. I own a car that I share with my wife. We usually will drive it once or twice a week. We both either ride or walk to work everyday. I don't use air conditioning, but do occasionally use electric heating. I deliberately avoid using wood heaters as they are the worst option in terms of efficiency. In terms of other appliances I currently have my laptop running and one light on in the house. At the moment I am renting so am using coal fired power, which does bother me. In my previous home I had solar power and when I purchase my next house I will be using solar power and solar hot water again. Generally, I try to live a low impact life style, whether it be my food choices, transport choices, or power choices. Overall, I know that not everyone is willing to make the sacrifices I have, but I still think they can do more. Hell, I can do more and do try most days to challenge myself. A bigger issue then personal action, however, is consumer choices. The more consumer power we get putting pressure on big companies to use sustainable power choices the better. The more people walking the streets demanding action on the climate the better.

Noble. Surely not much more of a sacrifice to walk the streets spreading the good word instead of wasting power on an online forum? The earth and perhaps a few others will silently thank you for it.

Doesn't everyone assume they are in the right? I would take from your responses that you definitely assume you are, and that anyone who dares question your choices is apparently accusing you of 'wrong-think'. Quite the victim complex there snowflake Yes, I just called you a name, I hope you can take it. However, in my previous posts, I believe the only name I called anyone was dick head to the climate change denier. I must admit I was kind of annoyed by that with the current political climate and probably over-reacted. I know I'm not going to win anyone over with that response, but I was being emotional.

Generally, I actually question my decisions and thoughts alot. One thing that I don't assume I am right about is climate action. I know I am right about climate action because I have read a lot on the topic. I have informed myself on what is appropriate action and try to live my life in line with that. For a lot of other things I am open to other's ideas, but that doesn't mean I can't think for myself and disagree with people, it kind of sounds like you want everyone to just fall in line without thinking for themselves.

In terms of the self-righteous comment, I suggest you look in a mirror. You have assumed a lot about me as an individual from a few posts online and gone on the attack pretty ferociously. Not really sure that is a proportional response.

Indeed, most do, but most will attempt to justify their position rather than abuse or accuse at the first hint of opposition. You say you're open-minded and question your own thoughts about climate action but when someone disagrees with you because they're a "climate change denier", you jump down their throat for daring to oppose your view. Perhaps I have made some assumptions about you, but you do come across as a cookie cutter copy of a woke SJW and that doesn't appear to be changing the more you post.

I'm aware of what I'm doing and how it comes across. If you feel its okay to dictate to other people how they should behave, then its fair game to shine that light on you, too. Look after your own patch and leave other people be. You view it as "an attack", I'm just pointing out what I believe to be socially unacceptable behaviour... wait... does that sound familiar to you?

 

[Tempy Tiger]

The reason he was so careful of his words was clearly because it seems he's used to people trying to twist his words around to make it offensive so they can get a headline and soundbite out of it. He's only using "double speak and ambiguity" if you're interpreting what he's saying as something else, which clearly seems to be the case with you. I re-watched a bit of that Cathy Newman interview for the hell of it yesterday and he was quite clear in what he was saying, despite her best efforts.



When everything is racist, nothing is racist. When everything is sexist, nothing is sexist. When everything is homophobic, nothing is homophobic. You moan about being called an SJW in the other post yet you want to shout people down with accusations of all the "isms" at your disposal. Its pretty standard fare for your kind to kill off a debate with accusations of wrong-think. Peterson isn't responsible for people who watch his videos and has no obligation to comment on them.



The left is as much to blame for the lack of political discourse as anyone, and you can examine your own behaviour to see why. You want to be able to accuse people of everything under the sun - accusations which have real-world implications on people's employment and social lives - and yet get upset about what is basically name-calling in return. You are absolutely allowed to criticize people for their opinions, but don't expect them to like it. If you want to publicly accuse people of racism, homophobia, etc, you'd really want to have some solid evidence up your sleeve or you should expect to get sued. Its almost like you can't just do what you want because you feel like it.

As for shutting down debate, the left absolutely loves it. Look at people getting de-platformed / de-monetized on Twitter, YouTube, other social media; events being cancelled because of panicked screaming from SJWs; the media's biased reporting and misrepresentation of people as racist, sexist, etc etc because their views don't align with the narrative. Just accusing people of **** rather than arguing the points is pretty much the default conversational starter from your snowy colleagues, and yourself as you've just demonstrated.



Some questions for you:

1. What do you expect individuals to do about climate change?
2. After answering the first question: Do you drive a car? Do you have air-conditioning in your home? How many fridges, freezer, TVs, computers, phones, lights, etc etc are going right now in your home?

Its a common theme in your responses that you assume that you're on the right side of the debate and that everyone should be falling into line with you. Sadly, accusing people of **** and calling them names isn't a great way win people over to your way of thinking. You should have a bit more thought on what you know, what you think you know and where you get your information from - you act self-righteous, but have you considered that what you've just said isn't actually right? Doesn't seem like that's crossed your mind.

That is a ****ing outrageous post and I am deeply offended.

 

[Tempy Tiger]

Cannon82 are you 55+? If so, you may be in line for involuntary euthanasia.

 

[HANDSOLO]

I love it. Although I think you should work on the trusting horses bit. Where’s the farm?

Farm is between Geelong and Ballaratt in the moorabool valley, where all those vineyards are

I’m starting to trust horses again, but you cant completely trust an animal always looking at you sideways and prone to kicking

 

[Topkent]

Farm is between Geelong and Vallarta in the moorabool valley, where all those vineyards are

I’m starting to trust horses again, but you can completely trust an animal always looking at you sideways and prone to kicking

I don't ****ing trust horses one bit. Shady looking campaigners

 

[Proper Gander]

Cannon82 are you 55+? If so, you may be in line for involuntary euthanasia.

I don’t think so. Pretty sure the campaigner is younger than me. I can no longer recall how I know this though.

 

[Cannon82]

I don’t think so. Pretty sure the campaigner is younger than me. I can no longer recall how I know this though.

The hint is in the "82" part. I'm 82 and have been since I signed up on BF.

 

[Salc0]

Oh, a cunning ruse! I have fallen for the oldest trick in the book!

No trick, was just expecting it.

So you just posted about him being "#1 with racists", now you're telling me you're actually principally concerned with his method of expression and the difficulty in understanding his central points on Postmodern neo-marxism? Colour me skeptical - I'll pass on that bait and switch, and I don't watch his videos so I can't tell you what his views are. If you want to learn, try watching the material with an open mind and listening. Typically that works.

Sorry, you don't watch his videos? So you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Just defending someone without knowing what you are actually defending. Maybe you just like arguing with people or something. In terms of the 'bait and switch', I'm sorry I didn't mean to do anything underhanded. I am not good at debating or anything like that, I am just trying to put forward my point of view. If I switched the topic it wasn't on purpose. Feel free to ignore my fruitless search for an outline of what Postmodern neo-marxism is.

In terms of the racist comment, I didn't claim that Peterson is racist, but he is very popular amongst alt-right communities. I think he would be concerned with that, but as you have suggested he doesn't appear to be. I actually don't know why those groups have jumped onto him as he hasn't as far as I have seen expressed anything too racist. However, he is often ambiguous on various intersectionality topics so I can see how the vague nature of his views allows people to fill in the gaps for themselves. Let's look at an example from the Cathy Newman interview as that is something you are familiar with.

Peterson outlines that there are various factors that explain the wage gap between males and females. He admits that prejudice (against females, a dreaded -ism of sexism!) may play a part, but severely undersells it. He goes on to explain that things like the types of jobs males and females work in, and personality factors are a better explanation for the current wage gap. I agree with him that these are considerations, but Peterson seems to suggest that we don't really need to think about or, shock horror, act on the prejudice component. The downplaying of the prejudice factor in the wage gap allows people watching him to fill in the gap for themselves that it doesn't matter.

No, you didn't, but the trending fashion with "your kind", ie snowflake SJWs, is to label anything they don't like as the nearest -ism or -ist that feels appropriate, which you did do. You seem to believe its your role to police people's behaviour that you find unacceptable, but you're not trying to "stop people thinking certain things"... although the impression I get from you is that if you could, you would. Thankfully the thought police don't exist yet. Have you considered policing your own behaviour to act as the self-appointed arbiter of what is and isn't socially acceptable behaviour?


I think you have me confused with someone else. I simply said identity politics is a lingering stain of an ideology that needs to be flushed. People can go sort themselves into whatever category they want, they just shouldn't expect any special treatment or privileges for doing so. You know, one rule for all and fair across the board.

Maybe you too need to brush up on your communication methods. How could someone possibly misconstrue what you're saying?

Good point, maybe I am not being clear. I have never once said that people should have their thoughts controlled or policed, I don't think that would be okay. Is that clear enough for you? Considering I feel I never said anything like thought control it seems weird to me that you keep focusing on it. I am also not paid to speak clearly on a range of political topics. If it was my job, I would try to get better at it. Considering this is something you are familiar with as well, would you mind telling me what identity politics are? My take is that certain groups are severely disadvantaged in modern society, and that trying to remove that disadvantage is a positive thing.

You're trying to come across as reasonable here but you're talking witch hunts and people losing their jobs because they don't share your views on certain topics. You don't support free speech but you want the freedom yourself to dress people down or finger them for behaviour you don't approve of. You'd have made a marvelous brown shirt back in the day. I do disagree with your politics - you can feel free to dislike and not talk to a person whose views you don't like, but thinking you get a say on who gets to work for certain companies and how people get to behave in public is narcissistic. Its a common delusion shared by the snowflake community that they take it upon themselves to enact "positive" change, whether the majority of people want it or not. Comes back to that self-righteousness we touched on earlier.

I don't get a say on where they work or what companies do, but the private companies themselves do! I can then express my support or non support for the decisions of those companies. Take the Youtube/Steven Crowder situation of the last couple of days. It took a bit of time but I applaud the decision of Youtube in the end to demonitise Crowder's channel. He has a right to express his views however he wants, but he doesn't have the right to use a private companies platform to earn money from those views. I also don't care whether the majority like it or not. People are often very poor at recognising when they have had an ongoing unfair advantage, to the point where they see it as a disadvantage when they are put back on equal footing.

Noble. Surely not much more of a sacrifice to walk the streets spreading the good word instead of wasting power on an online forum? The earth and perhaps a few others will silently thank you for it.

Thanks Talking on online forums is part of the process, discussing ideas and engaging with people who hold different views.

Indeed, most do, but most will attempt to justify their position rather than abuse or accuse at the first hint of opposition. You say you're open-minded and question your own thoughts about climate action but when someone disagrees with you because they're a "climate change denier", you jump down their throat for daring to oppose your view. Perhaps I have made some assumptions about you, but you do come across as a cookie cutter copy of a woke SJW and that doesn't appear to be changing the more you post.

I'm aware of what I'm doing and how it comes across. If you feel its okay to dictate to other people how they should behave, then its fair game to shine that light on you, too. Look after your own patch and leave other people be. You view it as "an attack", I'm just pointing out what I believe to be socially unacceptable behaviour... wait... does that sound familiar to you?

You are right about my response regarding climate change denial. I already admitted it was too emotional a response. Not sure what the quotes around climate change denier are though? There wasn't any doubt about the the level of denial on display.

The difference is that I haven't told you you can't express your views, you have told me I can't. It seems that you might actually be the thought police yourself.

 

[Toump Ass]

The trending fashion with "your kind", ie snowflake SJWs, is to label anything they don't like as the nearest -ism or -ist that feels appropriate

... kind of like how "the other kind" ie: RWNJs label anyone with an opposing viewpoint as a snowflake or communist or whatever.

Happens on both sides.

Most right wing commentators who are getting "de-platformed" are glorified trolls anyway... can't blame the left for getting Milo's tour cancelled when he's supporting pedophilia and blaming the Christchurch massacre on Antifa...

 

[Toump Ass]

Anyway who cares

Go Dees!

 

[Proper Gander]

The hint is in the "82" part. I'm 82 and have been since I signed up on BF.

Oh yeah. Right. I just thought you liked the numbers. I'm not really very clued in when it comes to user names. I still think RandB is a guy called Rand.

Oh good then - at least that doesn't put you in the age bracket where I start pondering over being old enough to be your Mum

 

[Demon 16]

I can’t find the Casey thread.

Kyle Dunkley had 21 possessions and 3 goals today.

 

[PerfectFooty]

I can’t find the Casey thread.

Kyle Dunkley had 21 possessions and 3 goals today.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/casey-demons-2019-discussion.1215423/

 

[Demon bhoy]

He said yesterday that if sea levels rise people can just sell their houses and move to higher land

He’s a right wing ideologue with a strong tendency towards religious based homophobic bigotry and is a massive hypocrite when it comes to the current US president, his sit down with Joe Rogan is well worth a listen. He also makes many valid points on a range of topics but like most modern day talking heads is more about his team winning than open dialogue.

P.S The dees are rubbish again

 

[Cannon82]

Sorry, you don't watch his videos? So you actually have no idea what you are talking about. Just defending someone without knowing what you are actually defending. Maybe you just like arguing with people or something. In terms of the 'bait and switch', I'm sorry I didn't mean to do anything underhanded. I am not good at debating or anything like that, I am just trying to put forward my point of view. If I switched the topic it wasn't on purpose. Feel free to ignore my fruitless search for an outline of what Postmodern neo-marxism is.

I haven't claimed to be an expert on Jordan Peterson, I'm just pointing out that you misunderstanding what he's saying and then attempting to use guilt by association to disprove whatever points he's making are a piss-poor substitute for an argument.

In terms of the racist comment, I didn't claim that Peterson is racist, but he is very popular amongst alt-right communities. I think he would be concerned with that, but as you have suggested he doesn't appear to be. I actually don't know why those groups have jumped onto him as he hasn't as far as I have seen expressed anything too racist. However, he is often ambiguous on various intersectionality topics so I can see how the vague nature of his views allows people to fill in the gaps for themselves. Let's look at an example from the Cathy Newman interview as that is something you are familiar with.

Many racists like ice cream. We should picket ice cream companies until they explain why racists like ice cream so much. I'm not saying ice cream companies are racist, but racists like ice cream.

Peterson outlines that there are various factors that explain the wage gap between males and females. He admits that prejudice (against females, a dreaded -ism of sexism!) may play a part, but severely undersells it. He goes on to explain that things like the types of jobs males and females work in, and personality factors are a better explanation for the current wage gap. I agree with him that these are considerations, but Peterson seems to suggest that we don't really need to think about or, shock horror, act on the prejudice component. The downplaying of the prejudice factor in the wage gap allows people watching him to fill in the gap for themselves that it doesn't matter.

I do recall watching that part yesterday, and he shot that down. He was absolutely spot on - its completely reductive to simplify the various age groups, industries, job roles, experience levels etc into one catch-all statistic. What does that basic information tell you? The only thing you can infer from the Wage Gap statistic is that the work men do on average is more valuable than the work women do on average. How do we know that? That's literally what the statistic is measuring - average weekly earnings. If you want to prove discrimination, then find evidence of actual discrimination. Don't assume discrimination because you've convinced yourself that because society is roughly 50-50 that every desirable outcome should also be 50-50 when it suits you.

The Wage Gap has been thoroughly debunked and you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to think its down to discrimination. Turns out that if men work 39 hours per week on average and women work 30 hours per week on average, the men will get paid more. Who would have guessed? Working away / FIFO, working dangerous jobs, working shift / night more often, not taking career breaks, skewing the work/life seesaw firmly towards work etc also factor in. If you think that 15% is down to men getting a leg up, lets think about how much that is across a country of 25M people... billions and billions of dollars that you think companies are happily forking out despite the fact women are available who could do the same job for less. If that's the case, why don't companies just hire women? Would save big buckaroos.

Good point, maybe I am not being clear. I have never once said that people should have their thoughts controlled or policed, I don't think that would be okay. Is that clear enough for you? Considering I feel I never said anything like thought control it seems weird to me that you keep focusing on it. I am also not paid to speak clearly on a range of political topics. If it was my job, I would try to get better at it. Considering this is something you are familiar with as well, would you mind telling me what identity politics are? My take is that certain groups are severely disadvantaged in modern society, and that trying to remove that disadvantage is a positive thing.

No, you just want to impugn people for exhibiting behaviour that you don't like and expect companies to do the same. You take a very literal interpretation of things I say.

Naturally certain types of people are disadvantaged in this society. We call them poor people. You want to help the poor, go help the poor. Don't identify them by certain demographics / genders / ethnicity etc so you can discriminate against other people in a similar situation. You don't fix a problem by causing another problem.

I don't get a say on where they work or what companies do, but the private companies themselves do! I can then express my support or non support for the decisions of those companies. Take the Youtube/Steven Crowder situation of the last couple of days. It took a bit of time but I applaud the decision of Youtube in the end to demonitise Crowder's channel. He has a right to express his views however he wants, but he doesn't have the right to use a private companies platform to earn money from those views. I also don't care whether the majority like it or not. People are often very poor at recognising when they have had an ongoing unfair advantage, to the point where they see it as a disadvantage when they are put back on equal footing.

What? If Crowder has a lot of people tuning in to watch his videos and gets a cut of ad revenue from that, why is it okay to de-monetize him and not others? Do you understand the principle of fairness rather than this rules for thee but not for me schtick you're espousing? You don't agree with his views so you're okay with him being de-monetized, but I'm sure that if you did you'd be kicking up an almighty stink. Very hypocritical point of view to take. Perhaps YouTube should just de-monetize everyone and then see how much the content creation drops off?

The difference is that I haven't told you you can't express your views, you have told me I can't. It seems that you might actually be the thought police yourself.

I'm more like the campaigner police in this case.

On a side note, what's the go with lurking on a football forum and your only contributions are to post rather crackpot political views? Don't care enough to comment on the football?

 

[Cannon82]

... kind of like how "the other kind" ie: RWNJs label anyone with an opposing viewpoint as a snowflake or communist or whatever.

Happens on both sides.

Most right wing commentators who are getting "de-platformed" are glorified trolls anyway... can't blame the left for getting Milo's tour cancelled when he's supporting pedophilia and blaming the Christchurch massacre on Antifa...

I'm sure its easy enough to go along with discrimination against certain people if you've convinced yourself they deserve it.

 

[Proper Gander]

so, general MFC discussion....

MFC are good.

 

[Salc0]

I haven't claimed to be an expert on Jordan Peterson, I'm just pointing out that you misunderstanding what he's saying and then attempting to use guilt by association to disprove whatever points he's making are a piss-poor substitute for an argument.

Ultimately I don't think I am misunderstanding him, my point is that he is deliberately vague on some points. I also disagree with him openly on others. I am sure he has some viewpoints I agree with aswell. I am happy to discuss on the merit of his viewpoints, but you aren't familiar with them so there isn't much point getting into the discussion further.

Many racists like ice cream. We should picket ice cream companies until they explain why racists like ice cream so much. I'm not saying ice cream companies are racist, but racists like ice cream.

That's totally exactly the same point I was making! /s I am sure there is some clever debating term for the tactic you have used here to extrapolate a pretty ridiculous point from the argument I made

I do recall watching that part yesterday, and he shot that down. He was absolutely spot on - its completely reductive to simplify the various age groups, industries, job roles, experience levels etc into one catch-all statistic. What does that basic information tell you? The only thing you can infer from the Wage Gap statistic is that the work men do on average is more valuable than the work women do on average. How do we know that? That's literally what the statistic is measuring - average weekly earnings. If you want to prove discrimination, then find evidence of actual discrimination. Don't assume discrimination because you've convinced yourself that because society is roughly 50-50 that every desirable outcome should also be 50-50 when it suits you.

The Wage Gap has been thoroughly debunked and you'd have to be deliberately obtuse to think its down to discrimination. Turns out that if men work 39 hours per week on average and women work 30 hours per week on average, the men will get paid more. Who would have guessed? Working away / FIFO, working dangerous jobs, working shift / night more often, not taking career breaks, skewing the work/life seesaw firmly towards work etc also factor in. If you think that 15% is down to men getting a leg up, lets think about how much that is across a country of 25M people... billions and billions of dollars that you think companies are happily forking out despite the fact women are available who could do the same job for less. If that's the case, why don't companies just hire women? Would save big buckaroos.

Hooray! Something you are actually willing to discuss about, rather than just dismissing and dodging.

Unfortunately, the wage gap is a very real thing that is not at all debunked.

I'm not sure what the actual dollar for dollar gap is in gender pay. According to this article they theorise it to be around 90 cents on the dollar for HOURLY wage while controlling for other factors.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416683393

The above article also provides some further references for different areas, but the below study for europe highlights bigger gaps at the top and bottom of the salaries.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/ab...xzcNroZ6MDV609vNTokbWwsH-vTvotPswGXuhcnqPPO78

Regardless there is an amount that can't be explained by anything other than discrimination. Even if you ignore that percentage that is most likely due to discrimination, it kind of annoys me when people claim the wage gap doesn't exist due to things like career choices or looking after children (as a couple of specific examples).

First, why have we as a society decided that male dominated professions are worth more than female dominated ones?

Second, why do we put so little value in taking care of our family and why is it still the primary responsibility of women? Some might claim that the responsibility falls to mothers more often due to pregnancy. But the amount of time needed off for the actual pregnancy and giving birth is decreasing with increased medical resources. I had a friend stay at work until the week before giving birth. It would be great to ensure that paternity leave was given at the same rate of maternity leave so that males have more of an opportunity to raise children. I also suspect that moms stay at home for care even when adopting. I had a quick look but couldn't find anything to support my suspicions so am open to changing that view if there is evidence I missed. The only thing I could find was a study looking at time taken off by men and women in Australian workplaces

All of the above is also only concerning taking care of our own children. Why do women also disproportionately take time off to look after other family members? Personally, I think we need to drastically re-evaluate the shared role of men in taking care of family.

At the end of the day, the gender pay gap is a complex issue, but to wave it off as not existing is not valid based on any of the current evidence

No, you just want to impugn people for exhibiting behaviour that you don't like and expect companies to do the same. You take a very literal interpretation of things I say.

Naturally certain types of people are disadvantaged in this society. We call them poor people. You want to help the poor, go help the poor. Don't identify them by certain demographics / genders / ethnicity etc so you can discriminate against other people in a similar situation. You don't fix a problem by causing another problem.

Sorry, but what? are you seriously claiming that the only group of people disadvantaged in the world are poor people? I agree they are a disadvantaged group, and I am all for helping them where possible. But, there are a number of other groups that are put at a disadvantage due to factors such as race, gender, and sexual orientation (as some examples). I don't want to discriminate against anyone, I want to level the playing field.

What? If Crowder has a lot of people tuning in to watch his videos and gets a cut of ad revenue from that, why is it okay to de-monetize him and not others? Do you understand the principle of fairness rather than this rules for thee but not for me schtick you're espousing? You don't agree with his views so you're okay with him being de-monetized, but I'm sure that if you did you'd be kicking up an almighty stink. Very hypocritical point of view to take. Perhaps YouTube should just de-monetize everyone and then see how much the content creation drops off?

It seems like you want to police what private companies can and can't do. I would think they have a right to choose what viewpoints they are happy expressing, even if that is just a money making exercise.

I'm more like the campaigner police in this case.

On a side note, what's the go with lurking on a football forum and your only contributions are to post rather crackpot political views? Don't care enough to comment on the football?

I'm actually pretty socially anxious and only signed up after a couple of years visiting the site so I didn't have to keep scrolling through the posts I had already read. I enjoy coming here to read about people's thoughts on how the Dees are going and celebrating in the all to rare wins. However, there has been a number of posts (by a number of posters) over the years that have annoyed me and have almost brought me out of lurking previously. I actually had you on ignore for a long time, but then some threads stopped making sense due to the number of interactions you have with other posters. I suppose in this case the climate posts got me all riled up and wanting to contribute to the discussion. I imagine i will run out of energy fairly shortly, so if you keep up the posting you will most likely 'win' the discussion due to my non-responding. Not sure how much more stamina I have.

It's kind of ridiculous to call my views crackpot though, just because you don't agree with them

 

[Salc0]

so, general MFC discussion....

MFC are good.

Actually, the problem seems to be that they aren't very good. It was pretty cool last year when were going ok

 

[Proper Gander]

Actually, the problem seems to be that they aren't very good. It was pretty cool last year when were going ok

This board had its shit moments last year too, but I agree with you essentially that if we were a better football team everything would be better.

Maybe the pricks are due for a random and very surprising win tomorrow? That would be great. Particularly for me since we always go to QB as guest of my partner’s brother (MCC member) and I’m getting tired of his being understanding and polite to me after the last few results

 

[stretcharmstrong]

so, general MFC discussion....

MFC are good.

Generally not...