Intellectual Dark Web

[aRdja]

48 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

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?

 

On 15/10/2019 at 12:06, viRdjil said:

Peterson: Here’s a rule. How about no makeup in the workplace?

Vice: Why should that be a rule?

Peterson: Why should you wear makeup in the workplace? Isn’t that sexually provocative? 

Vice: No

Peterson: It’s not?

Vice: No

Peterson: Well what is it then? What’s the purpose of makeup?

Vice: (unclear) like to just put on makeup, just to…

Peterson: Why? Why do you make your lips red? Because they turn red during sexual arousal. That’s why. Why do you put rouge on your cheeks? Same reason. How about high heels? They’re there to exaggerate sexual attractiveness. That’s what high heels do. Now, I’m not saying people shouldn’t use sexual displays in the workplace, I’m not saying that. But I am saying that that is what they’re doing, and that IS what they’re doing.

Vice: Do you feel like a serious woman who doesn’t want sexual harassment in the workplace, do you feel like if she wears makeup in the workplace, is being somewhat hypocritical?

Jordan Peterson: Yeah. I do think that.

 

 

The whole interview is a carcrash, but the specific part is 5 minutes in. I hope that’s sufficient for you NV.

 

[Bjornebye]

What a horrible prick. 

[aRdja]

On 16/10/2019 at 12:05, SasaS said:

 

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.

Okay I’m back in the UK now so have a bit more time. I still believe that wrt sexual harassment, there’s never a good reason to blame a victim. Even if someone turns up to work wearing something totally inappropriate (very short skirt), it doesn’t make her fair-game for sexual harassment, rather it’d be a matter for HR to deal with. A woman should be able to wear make-up, lipstick and high heels without fear of being sexually harassed at work in this day and age surely, or worse being blamed for it if she was.

[SasaS]

3 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Okay I’m back in the UK now so have a bit more time. I still believe that wrt sexual harassment, there’s never a good reason to blame a victim. Even if someone turns up to work wearing something totally inappropriate (very short skirt), it doesn’t make her fair-game for sexual harassment, rather it’d be a matter for HR to deal with. A woman should be able to wear make-up, lipstick and high heels without fear of being sexually harassed at work in this day and age surely.

We have already agreed on this. However, the definition of "being sexually harassed" is constantly changing and it will keep on changing along with the society, gender roles etc.

[TheHowieLama]

On 16/10/2019 at 09:17, Bjornebye said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is a male bird there fella.

 

 

Peacocking is what males do. The word cock is included to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, TheHowieLama said:

 

 

That is a male bird there fella.

 

 

Peacocking is what males do. The word cock is included to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

You clearly missed the point I was making. 

[TheHowieLama]

Nope -- I didn't. 

 

Nature is probably the wrong place to look for reproductive analogies in human society. Its a jungle out there.

[Bjornebye]

7 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

Nope -- I didn't. 

 

Nature is probably the wrong place to look for reproductive analogies in human society. Its a jungle out there.

 

 

 

 

[aRdja]

 

[cloggypop]

1 minute ago, viRdjil said:

 

They might be drunk but they still won't be shagging this blert

[aRdja]

Maajid Nawaz slapped around here. Lol.

 

 

[Rico1304]

It’ll be interesting to see if that stays up.  He’s not afraid to sue. 

[moof]

Nawaz is a snivelling little rat bastard.

[aRdja]

29 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It’ll be interesting to see if that stays up.  He’s not afraid to sue. 

Main reason why people shouldn’t take any lectures of freedom of speech from the ex extremist twat.

[Strontium]

Not sure what common definition of freedom of speech includes the freedom to libel others.

[Bjornebye]

15 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Not sure what common definition of freedom of speech includes the freedom to libel others.

So Jo Swinson should be sued for constantly calling Corbyn anti-semitic then? Sound. 

[aRdja]

The way he went on about it, you could’ve sworn he was pro the concept of “the marketplace of ideas”. 

[Strontium]

17 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

So Jo Swinson should be sued for constantly calling Corbyn anti-semitic then? Sound. 

 

Nothing whatsoever stopping him from suing the thousands of people who have called him an antisemite.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Nothing whatsoever stopping him from suing the thousands of people who have called him an antisemite.

You too then. 

[Strontium]

5 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

You too then. 

 

Feel free to find a single instance of that.

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Feel free to find a single instance of that.

You know what you did pal. 

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

You know what you did pal. 

 

I know exactly. Which is why I'm asking you to show otherwise.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I know exactly. Which is why I'm asking you to show otherwise.

I don't need to. You know you have done it. Its a disgrace. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

Not sure what common definition of freedom of speech includes the freedom to libel others.

Dummy, you can say what you like about people you don’t like. But you can’t say anything about the people they like. It’s not hard. 

[moof]

Where did he libel the guy? Fucking balloons