Regarding the first tweet: These people are so selective. If you cited statistics about women, alphabet people, or any nonwhite group, you're sexist or 'phobic' or racist.
So, men are bad because some men - a tiny fucking minority - rape. But if you use that logic to show massive and significant disproportionality in violence, sexual assault, pedophilia, or what have you, in other groups...you're the bad guy.
Also, to the group itself, and the vetting thereof...it's not even like it requires a deep dive; just look at them, and their imagery/signage. Obviously a feminist group. Peterson just continues his nosedive into absolute irrelevance. And I'm not even one of his many haters; I've defended him plenty of times, and do think he brought a lot of value in that past. But it's just that, it's in the past. Because right now he's just pathetic and completely untrustworthy.
In fairness, almost every other comparison isn't as extreme as 98%. That's pretty onesided. It's so onesided that "teach men not to rape" never could be an answer. There will always be someone. Hell, the only real solution to stop the few random men from grabbing a woman's ass is to literally have another man kick the shit out of them at literally any time because it's that predictable, that biologically ingrained, and that unavoidable.
In fairness, almost every other comparison isn't as extreme as 98%.
Also in fairness, that number is completely unsourced, and there's a 98% chance it's bullshit.
I tried to find it, the closet I could do was some liberal college sheet addressing "misinformation" and going on about trans people and how victims have no responsibility to try to not prevent rape. It was poorly worded, poorly reasoned, and poorly sourced as well.
There's just no way that number makes any sense, unless they're using some very misleading definition of 'sexual assault,' and maybe the other 2% of assaulters are transwomen or something.
I think I've previously seen that it's somewhere over 80% of all acts of sexual assault are done by men, and I've never really seen any evidence that would suggest it's even close to a 50-50 split.
Physical violence is predominantly a male thing (specifically under 40), sexual violence even more so.
Potentially and, if not, very likely near there. I think people do underestimate the amount of female predators but, yes, we're in complete agreement that men do it significantly more.
Then please don't use similar argument when it comes to jews.
Just because you can find exceptions within a population doesn't discount the average result of a population.
Just because there are plenty of people not employed by jews who shill TERF crap doesn't mean there isn't a connection between jews and TERF crap.
In the case of JP, this connection is painfully obvious. Guy gets hired by a jew and starts shilling for Israel, going all anti-Iran, anti-men, pro-feminism under the guise of tradcuckerism. It's so blatant, it should be undeniable.
The rise of JP is just another example as of how the right desperately lacks leaders and mainstream champions.
At the time I thought JP's rise was more connected to the fact that so many millennials and zoomers grew up without a solid father figure, because his shit seemed straight up basic stuff you should've learned with your dad or older brother.
But then as his self help author aspect faded away, he started to take on this role of mainstream spokesman of the dissident right, specially after that infamous interview.
The right is thirsting for heroes, for champions, for public faces who they perceive to be on their side. And the Jews see this.
They've taken note, and they're happy to be the ones who choose and fund which individuals get the spotlight.
Pretty much all these right wing sub celebrities are either grifters or controlled opposition. The red pilled flamboyant fag, the RW tranny, the conservative black woman (or women)...
They're doing their thing, they just want to be famous (and maybe make some cash in the process). The fault here lies with social media addicted people on the right who can't stop giving these people clicks.
It’s ironic (or perhaps darkly poetic?) - his message of “Clean Your Room” echos the age-old wisdom:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Peterson brought the idea of a rational faith (oxymoron? Not in my understanding) to a generation of Nietzscheian Atheist (the modern day culturally dominant religion) untermensches.
Then, instead of actually living the message of sacrifice which he rode to fame and wealth, he tried so desperately to cling to his worldly goods that his subsequent fall is utterly undeniable.
Like you say, everyone these days (not just the right imo) seeks a savior, a messiah, to take the yoke unto themselves alone - and it’s leading to false messiahs left and right. They don’t get that when we all take the yoke together, the weight ceases to be a burden.
Idk, hope that made sense, just a seemingly interesting parallel that came to mind reading your insightful comment.
It's not a good way to start an argument calling your reader intellectually lazy. Peterson says that anyone engaging in "identity politics" must be looking for a simple explanation to blame all his problems on, whereas people I hear from come to the jewish question after rather a lot of searching. This is the libertarian-to-reactionary and Trump-to-reactionary pipeline. We tried to come up with solutions whilst holding the mainstream's values about race. We made excuses for jews that we know, saying that's one of the good ones while he acts out the things that we think of as shameful stereotypes.
How many of us actually grew up anti-jew? I know I didn't hear a peep of counter-semitism growing up.
No, I didn't come to the jewish question looking for someone to blame my problems on at all. It's not even practical to have this knowledge. Sometimes you wish you didn't know. Rather the explanations for so many things just ran together in that direction. it's called noticing, Jordan.
Ed: Wow it gets even better. If you ask about the jews, you're a Nazi, an asshole, and a low IQ. Making the anti-thinking left's argument for them there, buddy. They couldn't do it any better.
Sure, if you don't factor in the futility men grapple with when wondering whether to take a complaint to the police... or the discretion police have in choosing not to report a female perpetrator at all when a call is made.
The reason I say this is that an official Stats Canada report from the early/mid 2010s indicated that 418,000 men and 342,000 women self-reported being victims of spousal violence in the preceding 5 years. Yes, men were the majority of self-reported victims. However, if you look at the Ministry of Women's Issues for Ontario, statistics there suggest women represent 80% of the victims of police-reported domestic violence. Police do not report or treat male- and female-led crimes equally.
(Aside: Pair the Stats Canada figures with the 2010 CDC study on domestic violence rates in couples by sexual orientation and it will illustrate that gay men have the least amount of domestic violence and lesbians have the most, so don't bother thinking that men might be hitting each other).
Women are just as handsy as men, and they're conditioned to think their gropes are harmless and/or always wanted, and the legal system is less inclined to take their misgivings seriously. The reality is no one has the statistics on the matter, but from the context of other stats, I'm convinced male and female sexual assault rates are at parity.
The strong are a threat to the weak. You get a bunch of soyboys like Tim pool and throw them in prison with rabid feminists and bull dykes and it won’t be little Tim doing the raping…
Yeah, I thought that would raise some hackles. If you're at night alone and there's a woman there, she's going to be afraid of you, even if you're a good guy. If you're a woman, then not.
Did you mean to say that "men as a group are perceived as a threat by women"? As the comments here have gone over, someone having fear does not imply a threat exists. In other words, "that sounds like a you problem."
If you're at night alone and there's a woman there, she's going to be afraid of you, even if you're a good guy.
This is complete subjective, women will inherently cling to the largest, safest person as their defense mechanism. The amount of times I’ve had a random woman I’ve never met cling to me like a drunk child after the bars close until they get a ride or find their friends is basically everytime I go out.
Retweeting is not an endorsement of the tweet itself, let alone of every single comment made by that person.
Retweeting without comment can be assumed endorsement, generally. And retweeting a group that on plenty of issues goes against your stated beliefs is, at the very least, a bad look. If I'm going to share something from someone who is ideologically opposed to me, I'd certainly want to couch it in something like 'I don't agree with them on much, but they're spot on here,' or something to that effect.
Even an endorsement of that person is not an agreement with everything he has ever said. For example, I endorsed DoM, but we disagree on plenty of stuff.
with a post of how many ridiculous things are more likely than being murdered as a woman.
There's more than just murder. Besides, even if 'drowning in your bathtub' is more likely than being murdered, that would not change the normal human reaction to it. People react more strongly to murder than they do to accidents, for very good reason!
Which I'm not, and no one should be. Identitarianism is cancer.
Hell, I bet even you would not regard yourself as 'pro-men'. Do you think laws should favor men more than you think is just? No? Then you're not pro-men at least in your own reckoning.
you shouldn't be mixing yourself up with feminists for any reason.
Wrong, you mix with whoever will help deliver victory.
I don't care if they say genocide is wrong
Neither do I, if people who say genocide is good were useful, I'd make use of them.
Yes, but murder is the only one they can't fabricate, because there has to be a corpse found. Including rapes and DV would be pouring in a dataset of 90+% fictional claims.
Yeah I'm sure of that. You just picked murder because it's the unlikeliest to occur to anyone. It's like saying: how many men in the UK are guilty of genocide? ZERO! They're all totally safe.
That's a fair point, but more a semantic issue than an argument.
Correct, I didn't really like the 'pro-men' stuff.
Wrong, you're helping rehabilitate their image. They're gaining more from the alliance than you are.
I don't think your judgment on that is accurate. Regardless, even if they gained more than I do, I'm still gaining, so there is an incentive to side with them. And I don't think their image needs 'rehabilitating'. Feminists are in charge.
As I said, I picked it because they can't fabricate the existence of a corpse.
Yes, but that coincidentally also excludes all of the crimes that women fear most and are of most risk at. Even if 0 women were murdered, that would not prove that women's fears for their safety are misplaced.
You can agree with one thing a person or group says, without supporting them. Just look at me and Dr Peterson. I agree with some of what he says I don't support him but I agree with some of what he says.
Meh feminist been demanding for women to be let into male only spaces for decades only to push men out after and now they get angry when pyschos game the system. You've made your bed, now get on your knees and suck that girldick. Press S to spit.
Regarding the first tweet: These people are so selective. If you cited statistics about women, alphabet people, or any nonwhite group, you're sexist or 'phobic' or racist.
So, men are bad because some men - a tiny fucking minority - rape. But if you use that logic to show massive and significant disproportionality in violence, sexual assault, pedophilia, or what have you, in other groups...you're the bad guy.
Also, to the group itself, and the vetting thereof...it's not even like it requires a deep dive; just look at them, and their imagery/signage. Obviously a feminist group. Peterson just continues his nosedive into absolute irrelevance. And I'm not even one of his many haters; I've defended him plenty of times, and do think he brought a lot of value in that past. But it's just that, it's in the past. Because right now he's just pathetic and completely untrustworthy.
In fairness, almost every other comparison isn't as extreme as 98%. That's pretty onesided. It's so onesided that "teach men not to rape" never could be an answer. There will always be someone. Hell, the only real solution to stop the few random men from grabbing a woman's ass is to literally have another man kick the shit out of them at literally any time because it's that predictable, that biologically ingrained, and that unavoidable.
Also in fairness, that number is completely unsourced, and there's a 98% chance it's bullshit.
I tried to find it, the closet I could do was some liberal college sheet addressing "misinformation" and going on about trans people and how victims have no responsibility to try to not prevent rape. It was poorly worded, poorly reasoned, and poorly sourced as well.
There's just no way that number makes any sense, unless they're using some very misleading definition of 'sexual assault,' and maybe the other 2% of assaulters are transwomen or something.
I think I've previously seen that it's somewhere over 80% of all acts of sexual assault are done by men, and I've never really seen any evidence that would suggest it's even close to a 50-50 split.
Physical violence is predominantly a male thing (specifically under 40), sexual violence even more so.
I didn't say it was 50-50, I said it wasn't 98-2.
Can we agree over 80%?
Potentially and, if not, very likely near there. I think people do underestimate the amount of female predators but, yes, we're in complete agreement that men do it significantly more.
shh. Daddy's busy.
Who would have thought that an "individualist" who works for Jewish nationalists would do such a thing?
Jordan Peterson accepts a job for a jew, immediately starts posting the most anti-male and pro-feminist garbage he has ever talked about...
Imp1: How do jews and JP relate?
lol.
NOT ALL WOMEN
mAh eXcEpTiOnS
Then please don't use similar argument when it comes to jews.
Just because you can find exceptions within a population doesn't discount the average result of a population.
Just because there are plenty of people not employed by jews who shill TERF crap doesn't mean there isn't a connection between jews and TERF crap.
In the case of JP, this connection is painfully obvious. Guy gets hired by a jew and starts shilling for Israel, going all anti-Iran, anti-men, pro-feminism under the guise of tradcuckerism. It's so blatant, it should be undeniable.
It's evidence that he's been a total fraud this whole time.
Jordan burned his credibility years ago when he decided to purposefully lie about his “hero” Solzhenitsyn :
https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/psychology/on-the-so-called-jewish-question/
The rise of JP is just another example as of how the right desperately lacks leaders and mainstream champions.
At the time I thought JP's rise was more connected to the fact that so many millennials and zoomers grew up without a solid father figure, because his shit seemed straight up basic stuff you should've learned with your dad or older brother.
But then as his self help author aspect faded away, he started to take on this role of mainstream spokesman of the dissident right, specially after that infamous interview.
The right is thirsting for heroes, for champions, for public faces who they perceive to be on their side. And the Jews see this. They've taken note, and they're happy to be the ones who choose and fund which individuals get the spotlight.
Pretty much all these right wing sub celebrities are either grifters or controlled opposition. The red pilled flamboyant fag, the RW tranny, the conservative black woman (or women)...
They're doing their thing, they just want to be famous (and maybe make some cash in the process). The fault here lies with social media addicted people on the right who can't stop giving these people clicks.
It’s ironic (or perhaps darkly poetic?) - his message of “Clean Your Room” echos the age-old wisdom:
Peterson brought the idea of a rational faith (oxymoron? Not in my understanding) to a generation of Nietzscheian Atheist (the modern day culturally dominant religion) untermensches.
Then, instead of actually living the message of sacrifice which he rode to fame and wealth, he tried so desperately to cling to his worldly goods that his subsequent fall is utterly undeniable.
Like you say, everyone these days (not just the right imo) seeks a savior, a messiah, to take the yoke unto themselves alone - and it’s leading to false messiahs left and right. They don’t get that when we all take the yoke together, the weight ceases to be a burden.
Idk, hope that made sense, just a seemingly interesting parallel that came to mind reading your insightful comment.
It's not a good way to start an argument calling your reader intellectually lazy. Peterson says that anyone engaging in "identity politics" must be looking for a simple explanation to blame all his problems on, whereas people I hear from come to the jewish question after rather a lot of searching. This is the libertarian-to-reactionary and Trump-to-reactionary pipeline. We tried to come up with solutions whilst holding the mainstream's values about race. We made excuses for jews that we know, saying that's one of the good ones while he acts out the things that we think of as shameful stereotypes.
How many of us actually grew up anti-jew? I know I didn't hear a peep of counter-semitism growing up.
No, I didn't come to the jewish question looking for someone to blame my problems on at all. It's not even practical to have this knowledge. Sometimes you wish you didn't know. Rather the explanations for so many things just ran together in that direction. it's called noticing, Jordan.
Ed: Wow it gets even better. If you ask about the jews, you're a Nazi, an asshole, and a low IQ. Making the anti-thinking left's argument for them there, buddy. They couldn't do it any better.
Men don't commit 98% of sexual assaults.
I think it's still in the 80's.
Sure, if you don't factor in the futility men grapple with when wondering whether to take a complaint to the police... or the discretion police have in choosing not to report a female perpetrator at all when a call is made.
The reason I say this is that an official Stats Canada report from the early/mid 2010s indicated that 418,000 men and 342,000 women self-reported being victims of spousal violence in the preceding 5 years. Yes, men were the majority of self-reported victims. However, if you look at the Ministry of Women's Issues for Ontario, statistics there suggest women represent 80% of the victims of police-reported domestic violence. Police do not report or treat male- and female-led crimes equally.
(Aside: Pair the Stats Canada figures with the 2010 CDC study on domestic violence rates in couples by sexual orientation and it will illustrate that gay men have the least amount of domestic violence and lesbians have the most, so don't bother thinking that men might be hitting each other).
Women are just as handsy as men, and they're conditioned to think their gropes are harmless and/or always wanted, and the legal system is less inclined to take their misgivings seriously. The reality is no one has the statistics on the matter, but from the context of other stats, I'm convinced male and female sexual assault rates are at parity.
Retweeting is not an endorsement of the tweet itself, let alone of every single comment made by that person.
That said, men as a group are a threat to women. Which is why women have separate facilities.
The more I experience this reality, the more I'm convinced it's women who are a threat to man not the other way around.
The strong are a threat to the weak. You get a bunch of soyboys like Tim pool and throw them in prison with rabid feminists and bull dykes and it won’t be little Tim doing the raping…
Amen to that. 👏
the fuck?
Yeah, I thought that would raise some hackles. If you're at night alone and there's a woman there, she's going to be afraid of you, even if you're a good guy. If you're a woman, then not.
Did you mean to say that "men as a group are perceived as a threat by women"? As the comments here have gone over, someone having fear does not imply a threat exists. In other words, "that sounds like a you problem."
This is complete subjective, women will inherently cling to the largest, safest person as their defense mechanism. The amount of times I’ve had a random woman I’ve never met cling to me like a drunk child after the bars close until they get a ride or find their friends is basically everytime I go out.
Retweeting without comment can be assumed endorsement, generally. And retweeting a group that on plenty of issues goes against your stated beliefs is, at the very least, a bad look. If I'm going to share something from someone who is ideologically opposed to me, I'd certainly want to couch it in something like 'I don't agree with them on much, but they're spot on here,' or something to that effect.
Even an endorsement of that person is not an agreement with everything he has ever said. For example, I endorsed DoM, but we disagree on plenty of stuff.
There's more than just murder. Besides, even if 'drowning in your bathtub' is more likely than being murdered, that would not change the normal human reaction to it. People react more strongly to murder than they do to accidents, for very good reason!
Which I'm not, and no one should be. Identitarianism is cancer.
Hell, I bet even you would not regard yourself as 'pro-men'. Do you think laws should favor men more than you think is just? No? Then you're not pro-men at least in your own reckoning.
Wrong, you mix with whoever will help deliver victory.
Neither do I, if people who say genocide is good were useful, I'd make use of them.
Yeah I'm sure of that. You just picked murder because it's the unlikeliest to occur to anyone. It's like saying: how many men in the UK are guilty of genocide? ZERO! They're all totally safe.
Correct, I didn't really like the 'pro-men' stuff.
I don't think your judgment on that is accurate. Regardless, even if they gained more than I do, I'm still gaining, so there is an incentive to side with them. And I don't think their image needs 'rehabilitating'. Feminists are in charge.
Yes, but that coincidentally also excludes all of the crimes that women fear most and are of most risk at. Even if 0 women were murdered, that would not prove that women's fears for their safety are misplaced.
Retweeting someone's tweet means you agree with everything they say? What is this leftist logic?
You can agree with one thing a person or group says, without supporting them. Just look at me and Dr Peterson. I agree with some of what he says I don't support him but I agree with some of what he says.
Oof. Another hit for the professor
Meh feminist been demanding for women to be let into male only spaces for decades only to push men out after and now they get angry when pyschos game the system. You've made your bed, now get on your knees and suck that girldick. Press S to spit.
While they are acting on the right side, I hate to interrupt them.
There is nothing wrong in re-tweeting someone who is complaining about male rapists pretending to be women and wanting women's privileges.