Intellectual Dark Web

[aRdja]

17 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

Appreciate the lengthy response but unfort I’ve just landed in Lisbon, will get to this later today or in the evening. However in short, with all due respect, in this discussion I have very little interest in you as a poster, in that I don’t picture you to be this Peterson fan-boy you seem to think I do, I don’t picture you at all. 
 

I almost always ‘play the ball’. I have massive issues with Jordan Peterson blaming victims of sexual harassment (Yes NV, including rape, as it is a form of sexual assault), saying that if you wear make-up, high-heels, and red-lipstick then you’re somewhat complicit. I think it’s absolute bullshit. Will elaborate further.

[Numero Veinticinco]

If you can't differentiate between firstly, harassment and assault, and secondly talking about somebody's lipstick and rape, there's going to be zero chance that you change your mind or see any kind of sense. I don't give a flying fuck about Peterson, but the things people will make up to throw at him is quite impressive. There's massive hypocrisy on here. I'm against people making shit up about what Corbyn really meant when he said something, I'm against making shit up about Priti Patel when she said something, and I'm against making shit up about Peterson when he said something. If you have an issue with what he actually said, that's reasonable. Having an issue with what he didn't say, then talking about taking him at his word is fucking ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme. 

[SasaS]

16 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Appreciate the lengthy response but unfort I’ve just landed in Lisbon, will get to this later today or in the evening. However in short, with all due respect, in this discussion I have very little interest in you as a poster, in that I don’t picture you to be this Peterson fan-boy you seem to think I do, I don’t picture you at all. 
 

I almost always ‘play the ball’. I have massive issues with Jordan Peterson blaming victims of sexual harassment (Yes NV, including rape, as it is a form of sexual assault), saying that if you wear make-up, high-heels, and red-lipstick then you’re somewhat complicit. I think it’s absolute bullshit. Will elaborate further.

 

I didn't mean you are compiling my profile and picturing and fantasizing about me in my chinos (that's more clogypop), I mean that you have no interest in what the actual ball is, you think you have a killer forehand and you just make up the ball and its position so you can hit it.

[Bjornebye]

So this Peterson fella and NV think if a girl wears a skirt and lipstick she is game and viRdjil reckons she isn't all the while we all wank over SasaS?

 

Am I getting this right? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

So this Peterson fella and NV think if a girl wears a skirt and lipstick she is game and viRdjil reckons she isn't all the while we all wank over SasaS?

 

Am I getting this right? 

No. NV thinks he didn't blame rape victims for being raped. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No. NV thinks he didn't blame rape victims for being raped. 

He did though didn't he? Whats your favourite Lost Prophets song? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

He did though didn't he? 

No.

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

No.

Can you prove this? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Can you prove this? 

Yep.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

Yep.

Good for you. I don't believe you though. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Good for you. I don't believe you though. 

I'm entirely comfortable with that. 

[Bjornebye]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I'm entirely comfortable with defending someone who blames rape victims because they were 'asking for it'. 

So it seems. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

8 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

So it seems. 

It's true though, isn't it? Women who get raped are pretty much the ones who want to be raped anyway. You know, the ones wearing lipstick. That's what me and my olk' pal Peterson say. If they've got tits, rape it. Rape apologist over here. 

[Bjornebye]

3 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It's true though, isn't it? Women who get raped are pretty much the ones who want to be raped anyway. You know, the ones wearing lipstick. That's what me and my olk' pal Peterson say. If they've got tits, rape it. Rape apologist over here. 

You make me sick 

[moof]

If you follow his line of thought to it’s logical conclusion, it’s clear that he’s implying if you dress provocatively, wear makeup and high heels, you are at least in part complicit in your own sexual harassment/assault/rape - because men are hard wired to chase after women who present themselves as sexually available. 

[Strontium]

I don't think that's a logical conclusion at all. Sexual signalling is used to help facilitate consensual encounters, whether that be in humans or other animals.

[Bjornebye]

 

 

 

 

[moof]

It’s also consistent with his general views on women and traditional gender roles 

[3 Stacks]

3 hours ago, viRdjil said:

I almost always ‘play the ball’.

Credit to you, big man.

[Numero Veinticinco]

45 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

I don't think that's a logical conclusion at all. Sexual signalling is used to help facilitate consensual encounters, whether that be in humans or other animals.

Even if there is a logical conclusion, it doesn't mean you can't have nuance in your view. For example, you can support a woman's right to choose, but you can also support a cut off date. Jumping to the view that he blames the victims for rape is pretty grim and laced with partisan dislike of the person. Anybody who blames the victim for rape is fucking disgusting, but surely there can be room for opinions on work place attire and what is and isn't appropriate. I don't even agree with him, but I mean, nobody would advocate women being able to wear just see-through underwear to work. Why not? Are you saying if she wears that you would blame her for being raped!?!11lol! No. Of course not. It's so hard for people to get outside of their own prejudice and dislike, or even their own partisan positions. This place, reflective of the wider country as a whole, has become so divided and entrenched that there's virtually no point in discussing or trying to convince anybody of anything because logic, reasoning, and even common sense are second place. 

 

That's what bores me. Not the picking up on it. Each to their own, I guess. 

[Bjornebye]

34 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Even if there is a logical conclusion, it doesn't mean you can't have nuance in your view. For example, you can support a woman's right to choose, but you can also support a cut off date. Jumping to the view that he blames the victims for rape is pretty grim and laced with partisan dislike of the person. Anybody who blames the victim for rape is fucking disgusting, but surely there can be room for opinions on work place attire and what is and isn't appropriate. I don't even agree with him, but I mean, nobody would advocate women being able to wear just see-through underwear to work. Why not? Are you saying if she wears that you would blame her for being raped!?!11lol! No. Of course not. It's so hard for people to get outside of their own prejudice and dislike, or even their own partisan positions. This place, reflective of the wider country as a whole, has become so divided and entrenched that there's virtually no point in discussing or trying to convince anybody of anything because logic, reasoning, and even common sense are second place. 

 

That's what bores me. Not the picking up on it. Each to their own, I guess. 

We have a new contender to the biggest hypocrite on the site crown. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

2 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

We have a new contender to the biggest hypocrite on the site crown. 

Nonsense. 
 

Out of interest, have you ever made a constructive post that’s on topic, replying to the post content, or has it always been the cunty sniping that aims to derail? You’ve been on the site years, surely there’s one? 

[Bjornebye]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Nonsense. 
 

Out of interest, have you ever made a constructive post that’s on topic, replying to the post content, or has it always been the cunty sniping that aims to derail? You’ve been on the site years, surely there’s one? 

Probably. Somewhere. 

 

Ok I will retort to your previous post. 

 

I see fuck all wrong with women wearing see-through underwear to work. Live and let live. 

[Duff Man]

It's fairly standard reactionary/socially conservative stuff, dressed up in pseudo intellectual bullshit. If he was a Brit he'd probably be writing for the Times, and occasionally doing QT when Melanie Phillips was ill. The idea that's he's a new or important thinker is fucking wild. Even the self-help stuff has been knocking around for decades.

[VladimirIlyich]

What did this fella actually say about the make up and short skirts etc? Is there a text or article of what he literally said?