SasaS

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.

It's an exercise in futility but one last time, you don't seem to read my posts or have any interest in the points I am trying to make, you just have some vague idea I am not your ideological sojourner so you are firing your salvos in some general direction of me hoping or assuming that I'm some kind of Peterson's fan boy and am arguing points you need me to argue because you feel you could then easily shoot them down with ammo ideology has provided you. We started by you stating he is blaming rape victims and being responsible for violence perpetrated by incels (you didn't specify what incidents you had in mind). In the dialogue you have provided and video you have shared (which I think I saw most of or t least controversial chunks when it came out) he doesn't do that. As far as I recall they are discussing the notion of sexual harassment in the workplace, Peterson is trying to drag the interviewer into a discussion of complexity of male-female relations in the workplace, lack of rules, he is trying to give him an example of flirting to which interviewer offers a claim he does not flirt and would not know how to flirt, despite being married (I guess he filled out a form on a computer and received his match). The interviewer is in turn trying do drag Peterson out from his typical debating practices (say something, step back, stare at the opponent, make him insecure by reductio ad absurdum of his point then say something silly which is difficult to argue etc) and offers him the sentence about hypocrisy of sexual harassment complainants, which Peterson accepts and proceeds with the conditions and explanations and so on. From this context it's pretty clear they are talking about rules about unwanted sexual advances, where Peterson makes his assertion about "serious women" (I don't know what that is either) being hypocritical if they come to the workplace basically all tarted up (my interpretation) and than complaining of unwanted sexual advances (which would be the most common type of harassment in the workplace): I disagreed with him on that, I provided an explanation why, and added that I can understand the underlying logic of that argument and tried to give an example of a difference (as I see it) between different spaces (workplace and a night club) where I think different rules of what would constitute unwanted sexual advances (as the form of harassment I think they are talking about) apply. I sort of agree with Peterson that there are no clear rules, or at least, the rules are constantly changing and that the sexual dynamic and tension between men and women is a complicated thing.

Sorry but, what on earth are you talking about?

I get this sexualised atmosphere business from the interview... I am starting to get a feeling you are not making the tiniest bit of effort to at least try to understand any of my points.

Whatever you need to dress me in, baby, in your fantasies.

I don't and I explained that I don't and why I don't, also, what I think he is talking about (from his interviews and other views expressed by people that agree with him on some points) is sexualised atmosphere in the workplace, to which women contribute to by using lipstick, high heals etc (i.e. tools of accentuating your sexuality, as he explained, red lips which simulate sexual arousal etc). So what I think he is saying is, if you don't want a sexualised atmosphere in the workplace, lets all get rid of these tools, men and women. If you don't want to get rid of it, then don't complain if people behave as they think they are being incited to behave. As I sad, I don't agree with him (completely) but I do understand that point of view and also, "sexualised atmosphere" would not mean grabbing someone, physically assaulting, but an atmosphere in which inappropriate comments are made or women are treated as if they are not colleagues of professionals but as potential sexual partners, which is by far the most common complaint in the workplace. Similarly, if you go out to a nigh club or something, it is widely accepted that in that situation, you are looking for a sexual partner so it would be hypocritical of you if you are offended if someone approaches you and tries to chat you up.

A fashion historian will probably tell you that throughout history, men mostly dressed to project status and women to seduce. This is the part where (most) women are "trapped", in that they are expected to seduce because fashion industry is geared toward it, even if they may not be too keen on seduction in a particular (office) situation. This is what Peterson in that interview fails to acknowledge. Now, if you, for example, dress in a low-cut dress where the low-cut dress is not expected or appropriate, people might stare. That's not sexual assault. It would be hypocritical to make a big fuss over it, because you knew they would stare. From that to having your balls fondled by your boss in the urinals is quite a stretch, but, whatever works for you.

This is going to be tough for customs officers.

I don't agree "with him", nor do I think this is what he is saying. He is making a (rather flawed) point about hypocrisy in the workplace, where he is pretending not to understand that part of accentuating your sexuality (in workplace, for women) is set our by cultural expectations, not necessarily a choice and also that this is not an invitation to unwanted sexual advances. He does it for the sake of arguing (here it is where I can sort of agree with him) that it may be seen as hypocritical in certain contexts to dress provocatively and than be outraged when it elicits some kind of a (verbal or other non-tactile) reaction. It is a long stretch from this to blaming victims of rape, a stretch you are (as usually) more than happy to make. I don't think even Peterson would be that addicted to courting controversy or that inclined to stubbornly dig in against an interviewer he doesn't like to allow himself be caught doing that.

This is a joke right, not the beginning of another 3-page debate over literalities?

I somehow don't think this would stand in court as evidence that he is blaming the rape victims.

There may be higher courts like the ECJ. Oh, wait...

I don't disagree with most of this. I think the article is overselling the various benefits part, as in having and eating the proverbial cake. It either has a benefit for the society which comes with a cost, or is a moneymaking operation, in which case the end user (ant the employees) may not see much difference. It is not going to be better in every conceivable way, that is just another (ideological) dogma.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the problem is "just" poor management. The point was raised to counter the Thatcherite doctrine of "public sector inefficient/private sector efficient". In case of the postal service the article may be misleading the public then, if I am not mistaken postal services are losing money on traditional services (letters, etc) and make money on commercial delivery services and by using its network of offices to offer other profit making services (selling other stuff). The benefit of public ownership is that loss-making areas (remote, sparsely populated) still get serviced (which privately owned enterprise would try to avoid or expect to government to subsidize), but this would hardly be a money making operation (paying for itself over a relatively short period of time). As the article says, Parliament would set the terms by which shareholders would be reimbursed. They are not "selling" their shares, as if the company were still privately owned. Can the shareholders not sue in that case? I would. I mean, if you can nationalise them at the price your set yourself, yes, they will all be profitable, at least those that are already breaking even and at least for a while, because the parliament will set the price that will ensure that. Future investment would come from Government, either from funds generated by the "company" itself (which are currently frittered away on share dividends) or from savings achieved (for example, by reducing the administrative costs caused by the fragmentation of rail) or by the National Investment Bank (which Labour are looking to establish) or from general taxation (recognising the societal benefits of such investment). But this should be factored in when listing savings and/or benefits, periods in which the government plans to recoup the initial investment. You cannot say we will spend 3 billion and it will pay for itself over 8 years in profit and leave out the fact you intend to increase the capital of the company by additional 3 billion through investments (regardless of the source of the funding). That's more political dogma rather than economic reality. Efficient businesses mostly behave the same regardless of who owns them, provided they are allowed to operate as efficient businesses. This would exclude excessive political influence, but once the owner (state) begins pressuring investment decisions, pricing and wages decisions, employment decisions etc. economic efficiency goes out the window.

I don't fully understand the (economic) logic of some of this argument, for example if Royal Mail is now run so badly as a privately held assed that it halved in its value, why would you think the reason for that is just poor management, which the government would do much better? Are private owners stupid, but the government would be smart and savvy? If the companies listed are so profitable, why would the shareholders sell them at the price below expected market value (30% premium on average value over a certain period)? Why is the (future) government so confident it would run these companies more efficiently than they are run now? Efficiency usually means constant cost cutting and innovation, governments typically have other priorities. All future investments needed would have to come either from companies, which would eat into their profits and / or increase their debt or from the owner (the government). There will also be constant political pressure on the government to keep the price for end users low. Where do the listed saved amount come from, are they current subsidies or profit these companies pay to shareholders? "Bringing these assets into public ownership would not only pay for itself, it would have huge benefits for the environment, society and economy. Benefits like transparency, democratic accountability, lower bills and fares, more investment, more care and better services. " These seem to be somewhat conflicting concepts and / or good wishes or just empty rhetoric. Environment benefits are not linked to ownership control but to regulation, lower bills and fares but with more investment and better services sounds a bit harrrypottery. State-owned companies are usually hotbeds of corruption and political influence on business decisions, not transparency and democratic accountability. If you have natural monopolies, it makes sense that they are held by the government, because a natural monopoly like the grid should not be making profit for private investors but this is just a link in the supply chain. And what is 21st century public ownership?