I guess I can't expect more maturity from a 16 y/o cool young dude here, and Etoilet is doing the same thing he did with gamergate. You didn't explain anything, you jumped through logical hoops while crying "you don't understand", cherry picking an aspect of the argument to justify your adherence to it, while ignoring discussion about anything too unsavoury. It is his chosen retort for critique of every misogynistic subculture this guy becomes enamoured with.
I've never really engaged with this before, but I find the fascination with Peterson more interesting than gg drama. There is some personal vestment, an ex-partner of mine is enamoured with him, as are a few friends. Before he was an internet sensation a few people I respect referenced his lectures to me, I also dated a practicing clin psych for a few years (never spoken to her about Peterson though) and am generally interested in the field he specialises in. I am familiar enough with his work. Of course, I choose the arguments to critique which I find toxic. If you're only saying misogynistic stuff 5% of the time, you're still a misogynist.
He is talking about parameters of civility in discussion. He is making the argument that men are used to that civility being established by the mutually understood possibility of violence. In order to avoid violence, which neither side wants, we do not trespass certain boundaries in our discussions.
This is what I mean, you are either being wilfully ignorant or you're a complete imbecile. The premise, central point, and conclusion all develop towards his clearly stated conclusion for that "little tirade" that Feminism is toxic for society, and eroding it's masculine power because a) women are becoming less (or simply were never
) intimidated by male violence, and b) less traditionally feminine thus, difficult to control and dangerous to society.
If you've seen how women actu towards each other, you'll notice that they are more willing to tresspass into cruelty. (Hang around some high school girls. Perhaps the most verbally cruel group of people you'll find.) And if women want to improve discussions across genders then they have to face that behavior among other women. Unfortunately, in his experience, the women who can converse civilly and respectfully are also too busy with their jobs or daily lives to spend time dealing with those who cannot control themselves and act cruelly towards others.
Here is the inherent misogyny, you provide a derogatory anecdote for a basic stereotype as some inavoidable truth. Like Peterson you sprinkle half truths, and facile observation with anecdotes, it's an adversarial ruse. There is no clear dilineation between sane and crazy in his argument outside of his anecdote, and a clin psych should know better than to fuck with this sort of rhetoric.
I know how to stand up to a man that's unfairly trespassing against me. I know this because the parameters, the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse we know what the next step is.
This is the problem, I know how to stand up to a man that's unfairly trespassing against me. I know this because the parameters, the parameters for my resistance are quite well defined, we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse we know what the next step is.
That's forbidden in, in discourse with women. And so I don't think men can control crazy women, i don't think, i really don't believe it (high pitched kermit sound). I think that they have to throw their hands up in, in, in. in, in. what. in. in. It's not even disbelief, it's that the cultural. There's no step forward that you can take under those circumstances because if the man is offensive enough and crazy enough they, they, the reaction becomes physical right away, or at least the threat is there. And when men are talking to each-other in any serious manner that threat of physicality is always there. Especially if it's a real conversation, and it keeps the thing civilised to some degree.
This ignores the fact that women are far and away the victims of violent assault, not perpetrators. Particularly Sexual violence and partner violence. The spectre of violence is absolutely a part of male - female interaction, how could it not? The taboo that men shall not harm women is not upheld, and the punishment for assault would be the same regardless of gender in most situations in modern society. At least where I'm from, assault is serious regardless of the genders involved. This is a fallacy.
Y'know if you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you're talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect. Por ejemplo; there's a women in Toronto who's been uh, organising this movement, let's say against me and some other people who are going to do a free speech uh, uh, event and she managed to organise quite effectively, and she's quite um offensive you might say. She compared us to NAZIS for example, which y'know, publicly, using the Swastika which isn't really something I was all that fond of. But i, i, i'm defenseless against that kind of FEMALE insanity. Because the, techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me.
This anecdote, used to further relate his previous point is telling, and he speaks very literally. It is difficult to find find any charitable interpretation here; "I'm defenseless against that kind of female insanity. Because the, techniques, that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me." How he is possibly defenseless, there is no societal taboo against physically defending yourself against women, he can call the police, he has the same rights whether it is a man or a woman. Still, he insists he could not employ his techniques to control the situation because because this woman will not acknowledge his perceived threat inherent to male interaction. Does he really believe assault would solve the situation? Has he ever actually resorted to assault to solve this sort of conflict? Though it's tangential, I genuinely doubt it. Pretty sure Peterson imagines himself as Seagal here infiltrating the AntiFa protest movement. This is clearly delusional.
So I don't know, it seems to me that it isn't men that have to stand up and say enough of this, even though that's what they should do. It seems to me it's sane WOMEN who have to stand up against their crazy sisters, and say look, enough of that, enough MAN HATING, enough PATHOLOGY, enough bringing disgrace on us as a, as a, gender. But, the problem there, and I'll stop my little tirade, is that most of the women I know who are SANE, are busy doing SANE THINGS. Right? They're off, they have their career, they have their family, they're quite occupied, they don't seem to have the time, or maybe even the interest to go after their CRAZY HARPY SISTERS, and so I don't see any regulating force without that terrible femininity. And it seems to me to be (*pause* jazz hands) invading the culture, and undermining the masculine POWER of the culture in a way that's... I think... FATAL."
One question; How can you say he is simply talking about parameters of civility in discussion? He is clearly drawing a point about how women are destroying the social fabric of our society. It's there, plainly stated. Lack of femininity, their inability to adhere to the same conversational parameters (simply one point in the conclusion here) and general insanity are leading society to a fatal conclusion. A fatal conclusion that is being spearheaded by Crazy Harpy Women.
