U of T profs alarmed by Jordan Peterson's plan to target classes he calls 'indoctrination cults'

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

Did you used to go by another name?

JustJack!, Cerberus, Spike~, MJ421, HollandScotts, and numerous others I can't remember. I'm hoping a decade is long enough for a do over. How many owners has this place has since Erwin?

Nonsense...companies can play at diversity all they like...all that matters is competence. If a company doesn't hire the best and brightest...then those applicants go elsewhere...and the company suffers for it. They can diversify to a point, simply for public relations, but eventually they'll have to hire those who are capable.

You know about that Equifax hack? Their chief IT security person was a female diversity hire who wasn't qualified to be in charge of securing the credit data of 130 million Americans. Lets see if Equifax suffers for it. I bet they get a slap on the wrist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In the Illuminati Card Game, it's known as the 'Bamboozling Offensive"

Nice to see you're getting your strategical insights from card games.

You can trivialize it all you want. But you have 2 growing factions pitting themselves towards a civil war. And the instigating factor is the regressive/progressive, post modernist, ethical and cultural relativist, neo-Marxist, open borders, islamophilic, globalist left that is instigating the current culture war, which will inevitably progress into civil war once enough lines have been drawn and crossed. I'd like to prevent that. But if not, I know which side I can stand seeing win, and which side I absolutely can not abide winning this culture war.

In another thread, you called for the execution of Chicago's mayor and the walling up of the state of California. Ever think that maybe some of those "radical leftists" have a point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

JustJack!, Cerberus, Spike~, MJ421, HollandScotts, and numerous others I can't remember. I'm hoping a decade is long enough for a do over. How many owners has this place has since Erwin?

What happened to all those other aliases?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Lol no....all this time?

Edit- did you imagine me as a particularly contentious/quarrelsome woman?

Didn't put much thought into it.

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

What happened to all those other aliases?

Ran afoul of certain folks. I think the exploits of I'lddie4him were finally revealed some time ago.

 

[Ana the Ist]

JustJack!, Cerberus, Spike~, MJ421, HollandScotts, and numerous others I can't remember. I'm hoping a decade is long enough for a do over. How many owners has this place has since Erwin?



You know about that Equifax hack? Their chief IT security person was a female diversity hire who wasn't qualified to be in charge of securing the credit data of 130 million Americans. Lets see if Equifax suffers for it. I bet they get a slap on the wrist.

I think you're missing the point...
Does she still work for Equifax? How have Equifax's competitors been faring since the hack debacle?

 

[The~Cerberus~Infinite]

I think you're missing the point...
Does she still work for Equifax? How have Equifax's competitors been faring since the hack debacle?

Competitors? I never signed up for any of these lunatics. They just started collecting my data one day and calling a credit report. It's a triopoly. Not a free market. It's not even a market.

I don't know if she still works there, I'll see if I can find out. I know they tried scrubbing her from the records.

 

[*Starlight*]

You've never been leered at, have you? the "something" becomes pretty obvious.

Well, people get stared at usually when there's something interesting about them. The more interesting, the more people would stare. It can be a matter of being very attractive physically, or it can be a matter of going outside in a banana costume. Both things will probably make some people stare at you.

You're not suggesting that it would make you uncomfortable, would it? Why not, then, open yourself up to the same treatment from my gay friends? I'm sure they'd find you genuinely attractive, and would relay to me (who could then in turn relay to you) what they would happily do if given the opportunity (consent being assumed)... there's certainly nothing wrong with that, now is there?

The most wrong thing with that is that we seem to be getting totally off topic, because it has nothing to do with staring. This experiment would do literally nothing to prove the idea that "men stare at women to claim social dominance".

On a semi-related note, you're probably old enough to remember the controversy about gays in the military -- I recall a lot of people arguing against it based on what might happen if they trained, bunked, showered, etc... with their heterosexual counterparts. A similar argument was made concerning openly gay athletes in professional team sports.

...what do you suppose all the panic was about?

I suppose it was simply that those arguing against it had a really negative view of gay men, probably kind of similar to how many radical feminists have a negative view of men in general (like viewing men as rapists, molesters, oppressors of women).

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, people get stared at usually when there's something interesting about them. The more interesting, the more people would stare. It can be a matter of being very attractive physically, or it can be a matter of going outside in a banana costume. Both things will probably make some people stare at you.

And assuming one isn't wearing a banana costume (or something equally obvious)...

The most wrong thing with that is that we seem to be getting totally off topic, because it has nothing to do with staring. This experiment would do literally nothing to prove the idea that "men stare at women to claim social dominance".

Nothing to do with staring? What do you think those gentlemen plan to do with your photo?

I suppose it was simply that those arguing against it had a really negative view of gay men, probably kind of similar to how many radical feminists have a negative view of men in general (like viewing men as rapists, molesters, oppressors of women).

And would you agree that those views are equally wrong?

 

[*Starlight*]

And assuming one isn't wearing a banana costume (or something equally obvious)...

Then it's probably the first thing I mentioned, that a person is very attractive. Or do you mean someone who doesn't look especially attractive and also isn't wearing anything that attracts attention? I'd say that such a person is much less likely to be stared at.

Nothing to do with staring? What do you think those gentlemen plan to do with your photo?

You mentioned at least 3 things:

1. Staring
2. Passing them around
3. Relaying their comments about them to me.

Out of these 3 things, only one is staring.

And none of them is about claiming social dominance over another person. I guess you could make a convoluted argument that point 2 infringes on someone's privacy, and in very specific cases spreading someone's photos around could be used to establish social dominance over another person (by blackmail, releasing their embarrassing photos publicly, etc). But this has nothing to do with anyone's gender, or with staring, so it's totally unrelated to the idea that "men stare at women to claim social dominance".

And would you agree that those views are equally wrong?

Yes, of course.

 

[Rion]

And assuming one isn't wearing a banana costume (or something equally obvious)...



Nothing to do with staring? What do you think those gentlemen plan to do with your photo?



And would you agree that those views are equally wrong?

I believe that the famous phrase is "No means no" so perhaps we can change from you trying to get another user's personal pictures and return to the topic, por favor?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then it's probably the first thing I mentioned, that a person is very attractive. Or do you mean someone who doesn't look especially attractive and also isn't wearing anything that attracts attention? I'd say that such a person is much less likely to be stared at.

You mentioned at least 3 things:

1. Staring
2. Passing them around
3. Relaying their comments about them to me.

Out of these 3 things, only one is staring.

point taken -- and it does bring up the issue I do have with the original passage that needs to be clarified. The staring in and of itself is not the act of dominance. It is the act of letting the other person know you're staring at them is the issue.

After all, we're taught from an early age that it's not polite to stare -- why? Because to stare is to send a message (accidentally or deliberately) that you are something for my entertainment. I will look, but not engage verbally, because what interests me does not require any interpersonal interaction. It is rude because it reduces you to a thing for me to be entertained by... and if I deliberately show you that I am staring at you (as opposed to quickly looking away before you notice), I'm sending the message that I don't care that I'm being rude to you... because the opinion of my entertainment doesn't matter.


In that context, I would certainly say that the passage was poorly written and needs to be edited.

Yes, of course.

I always found it quite interesting -- the (heterosexual) men were uncomfortable with the notion of the (homosexual) men staring at them with desire, and were dealing with the (real or imagined) fear of unwanted sexual advances, possibly including sexual assault. There is a very large segment of the population who deal with these issues on an all-too-regular basis: women.

Seems to me that the biggest objection, then, was men being forced into women's social position. What does that say about the social positions?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe that the famous phrase is "No means no" so perhaps we can change from you trying to get another user's personal pictures and return to the topic, por favor?

But it is on topic -- perhaps if you were to read the thread you'd see the connection.

...or perhaps not.

 

[*Starlight*]

point taken -- and it does bring up the issue I do have with the original passage that needs to be clarified. The staring in and of itself is not the act of dominance. It is the act of letting the other person know you're staring at them is the issue.

That might be true, but that's not what that textbook says.

After all, we're taught from an early age that it's not polite to stare -- why? Because to stare is to send a message (accidentally or deliberately) that you are something for my entertainment. I will look, but not engage verbally, because what interests me does not require any interpersonal interaction. It is rude because it reduces you to a thing for me to be entertained by... and if I deliberately show you that I am staring at you (as opposed to quickly looking away before you notice), I'm sending the message that I don't care that I'm being rude to you... because the opinion of my entertainment doesn't matter.


In that context, I would certainly say that the passage was poorly written and needs to be edited.

In this case, I agree. But the passage, as it is now, is openly sexist and misleading. It could be changed from "men stare at women to claim social dominance" to "people sometimes stare at others to intimidate them by showing that they don't care about being rude to them", and then it would be ok. If there really is concrete evidence for that, they could add something like "studies show that this behavior is more common among men than women".

I always found it quite interesting -- the (heterosexual) men were uncomfortable with the notion of the (homosexual) men staring at them with desire, and were dealing with the (real or imagined) fear of unwanted sexual advances, possibly including sexual assault. There is a very large segment of the population who deal with these issues on an all-too-regular basis: women.

Seems to me that the biggest objection, then, was men being forced into women's social position. What does that say about the social positions?

I don't think it's about social positions, it's more a result of gender stereotypes that men are perverts and molesters. That's what causes some men to be wary of gay men, and some women to be wary of heterosexual men.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That might be true, but that's not what that textbook says.

I just said that's why I disagree with the textbook. The passage was well-intentioned, but poorly written.

I don't think it's about social positions, it's more a result of gender stereotypes that men are perverts and molesters. That's what causes some men to be wary of gay men, and some women to be wary of heterosexual men.

You don't think there's a connection between gender stereotypes and social positions? Don't you think that gender stereotypes are one of the reasons social positions are what they are? Men are leaders; women are followers. Men are dominant; women are submissive. Men are active, women are passive.

Consider for example the issue of homosexuality in general. Most Christians are opposed to it because the Bible condemns it. (and it does, quite explicitly; I'm not going to violate forum rules by even attempting to argue against what it says).

However, you'll notice that the Bible only ever condemns male homosexuality; IIRC, the issue of lesbanism is mentioned only once, in passing, (I forget exactly where), and not necessarily condemned. Why? Because they frankly didn't care what women did. In the patriarchal society of the Jews and early Christians (I know the word "patriarchy" gets used and abused by feminists, but in this historical context, that's exactly what it is), the very thought of a man assuming a woman's role (epecially regarding sex) was utterly degrading and the ultimate humiliation. What women did -- so long as they remained faithful and didn't call the legitimacy of heirs into question (let us remember, that marriage was originally instituted for exactly that purpose) -- didn't even register.

I would suggest that it's the same case in the showers and locker rooms -- if the gender stereotypes get flipped, so then do the social positions.

 

[Rion]

Beware the modern-day heretic hunters | Coffee House

 

[*Starlight*]

I just said that's why I disagree with the textbook. The passage was well-intentioned, but poorly written.

The thing is, I'm not really convinced that it was well-intentioned. There has been a lot of weird "gender war" type ideas (that put men and women on opposing sides) floating around recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the author of that textbook honestly believed that men are "oppressors" of women, so that the passage simply reflects his beliefs.

You don't think there's a connection between gender stereotypes and social positions? Don't you think that gender stereotypes are one of the reasons social positions are what they are? Men are leaders; women are followers. Men are dominant; women are submissive. Men are active, women are passive.

I don't think the connection between these stereotypes and social positions is that strong. It's true that having a high social position can sometimes help someone do something bad to another person and get away with it, but it's also possible for a homeless person under a bridge to assault and rape someone who has a much higher social position, as long as the victim isn't some kind of president who always walks with bodyguards.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The thing is, I'm not really convinced that it was well-intentioned. There has been a lot of weird "gender war" type ideas (that put men and women on opposing sides) floating around recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if the author of that textbook honestly believed that men are "oppressors" of women, so that the passage simply reflects his beliefs.

If the author -- or in this case, the author's source, since it was cited -- honestly believes that, then the intention is not malicious. We should always endeavor to tell what we believe to be the truth, should we not?

I don't think the connection between these stereotypes and social positions is that strong.

But it is strong. How many female presidents can you name? How many women have even attempted to run -- Hillary Clinton being of course the most recent example. Victoria Woodhull is the only other one I can think of, and that's going back over 100 years. Do women simply not want to be President? Why not?

Quick -- name as many CEOs and financial geniuses you can -- I'll bet you come up with a lot more men than women. Do you suppose they're just not interested in wealth and success?

I can run off a dozen action heroes in popular culture -- Wayne, Eastwood, Stallone, Schwazenegger, Willis, Smith, Bronson, Connery, etc... off the top of my head. You could probably add a dozen more without breaking a sweat.

How many action heroines? Well now, not so easy, is it?

Why is that?

 

[Rion]

So I'd wager this is the kind of stuff that Peterson is upset with:

But it is strong. How many female presidents can you name? How many women have even attempted to run -- Hillary Clinton being of course the most recent example. Victoria Woodhull is the only other one I can think of, and that's going back over 100 years. Do women simply not want to be President? Why not?

...*cough*

List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates - Wikipedia

I can run off a dozen action heroes in popular culture -- Wayne, Eastwood, Stallone, Schwazenegger, Willis, Smith, Bronson, Connery, etc... off the top of my head. You could probably add a dozen more without breaking a sweat.

How many action heroines? Well now, not so easy, is it?

Why is that?

Easy for me: Angelina Jolie, Milla Jovovich, Linda Hamilton, Sigourney Weaver, Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Maggie Q, Scarlett Johansson, and Michelle Rodriguez. Of course, if you go to Asian filmography, there's actually quite a few. Probably in part because of the stunts and method of the 'action' and partly because Eastern films tend to be more tragic and not just CGI and explosions. This latter part is also why fewer women like Western action films in comparison to men.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So I'd wager this is the kind of stuff that Peterson is upset with:

I'd wager it, too. Peterson is a panicky little man, however, so I see no need to overindulge him.

...*cough*

List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates - Wikipedia




Easy for me: Angelina Jolie, Milla Jovovich, Linda Hamilton, Sigourney Weaver, Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Maggie Q, Scarlett Johansson, and Michelle Rodriguez. Of course, if you go to Asian filmography, there's actually quite a few. Probably in part because of the stunts and method of the 'action' and partly because Eastern films tend to be more tragic and not just CGI and explosions. This latter part is also why fewer women like Western action films in comparison to men.

I'd wager you're smarter than *starlight*