Has political correctness actually gone mad?

[Charlie Foley]

I thought Cathy Newman was really shocking in that interview. I don't pretend to be an expert on what Peterson discusses at all, there are times I find him very impressive and times I find him quite frustrating. But Newman was really poor, I don't understand the "she was asking him tough questions which is good" line because the questions she asked, or her constant "so you're saying," just showed her up to be not listening to him, not understanding him (even points that weren't so difficult to understand!) or just trying to push her own narrative. Peterson gave an interview since where he said it felt like she was trying to interview the villain she hoped she could portray him as (paraphrasing there).

The sad thing nowadays is that we treat public figures like that like a sports team. "they're on my side so they're right!" Twitter or YouTube comments are a cesspit of people saying "look at this video of X, he totally owns Y!" And X may be really intelligent and articulate. And X's followers seem to try and live their online persona at least vicariously through X. "X is smart and I like X, I'm so much smarter than everyone who agrees with Y!"

So you'll get people who really don't compare to Peterson intellectually treating his intelligence or articulation, where he displays those traits, as their own. You'll also get people who disagree with him siding with Newman just as she's the one going against Peterson. What's really unfortunate with that is that there are perfectly legitimate arguments (as far as I can see!) to make against Peterson's beliefs. Some have been expressed in this thread! I appreciate that would make it more a debate, but as she tried to hit him with counterpoints it went down that road a bit anyway. But, I don't really see what's so impressive about an interviewer spending 30 minutes repeating "so what you're saying is " and then not even coming close to what he said. It's how I feel talking to one acquaintance of mine, incredibly frustrating. And I think it actually weakens her cause/argument, as seen in much of the negative reaction.

 

[Charlie Foley]

In reference to post #4154:

Am I being a humourless, elitist twat for thinking the following 'poem' (by an award-winning poet) is just awful? Should all who consider themselves writers, poets, musicians be heard or read?:

Spoiler

Bums

People talking every day about
The topic of the year
Is it fun to shake about or just a thing for us to jeer at
Have I seen the videos?
Do I think that they’re ok?
People asking me about bums
Everyday
Anaconda bums from Nikki Minaj
Kim Kardashian’s new photoshoot
Is it racist, is it class?
JLo’s and Iggy’s latest dance
Pretending to be lesbians
Female bums,
oiled and greased,
more striptease for MTV
Is J-Lo’s bum too old? we cry
Is Iggy’s bum too white?
But J-Lo’s 43 they say
As we slag her off all night
Then Meghan Trainer steps up and it’s all about the bass again
And the beats are so damn good and the lyrics stick inside your head
Conversations starts again
Fleshy bits are better
Her mum says men don’t like it thin
Questions, comments flooding in
Is it all about the bass, is it all about the bass?
Can Miley Cryus twerk
Has that girl got no damn taste?
Everyday I get the same discussions bouncing in my face
Is it female liberation to dance the way you want
Or is it corporate US making money selling women’s bodies
Is it wrong?
Is it positive for girls with bigger bums>
Is it just a bit of fun
Is it fair?
Isss itttt faiiiiirrr?
And truthfully my answer is I just don’t fecking care.
It’s a bum.
I have one.
My mum does too.
Sits on hers 60 hours a week
A nurses bum with aching cheeks
My mum has a flat bum, bonier than me
My daughter says her bum is the best bit of her body
Cos it’s soft
My gran has got a bum
It sits alone a lot
My friend has got a doctor’s bum that never ever stops
Before my granddad died he had a bum
Ghandi did as well
There’s a bum between the legs of the president of Brazil
That woman, running a massive fecking country over there
Most people’s bum have hair on
Though we don’t like to admit it
The first women into space covered her bum with a padded spacesuit
When Rosa parks sat on a bus her bum refused to move for bums more light
And she was taken with all the other bums who marched for civil rights
Happy people have bums
Depressed people do as well
If you do not wipe your bum, your bum will really smell
You use you bum to run
You also use your bum to sit
Having a slightly smaller bum does not make you a skinny bitch
Having a slightly larger bum does not make you a big booty ho
Last weekend 40,000 bums sat on seats waiting for a goal from the England Women’s football team who used their butt muscles to kick and pass
The Williams sisters use their bums to move from side to side very fast
So when you ask me what I think of female bums, I like them, I think they’re great
I wish there were more of them in parliament, businesses and sports games
And men’s bums too, in case you wonder, I like them just the same
Like a personal piece of fat for everyone to sit on when you’re drained
Saves you carrying a cushion or a pillow in your bag
And if your bum is fit and healthy
It’s the best you’ll ever have

Related article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets

That's shit

 

[Bobcat]

In reference to post #4154:

Am I being a humourless, elitist twat for thinking the following 'poem' (by an award-winning poet) is just awful? Should all who consider themselves writers, poets, musicians be heard or read?:

Spoiler

Bums

People talking every day about
The topic of the year
Is it fun to shake about or just a thing for us to jeer at
Have I seen the videos?
Do I think that they’re ok?
People asking me about bums
Everyday
Anaconda bums from Nikki Minaj
Kim Kardashian’s new photoshoot
Is it racist, is it class?
JLo’s and Iggy’s latest dance
Pretending to be lesbians
Female bums,
oiled and greased,
more striptease for MTV
Is J-Lo’s bum too old? we cry
Is Iggy’s bum too white?
But J-Lo’s 43 they say
As we slag her off all night
Then Meghan Trainer steps up and it’s all about the bass again
And the beats are so damn good and the lyrics stick inside your head
Conversations starts again
Fleshy bits are better
Her mum says men don’t like it thin
Questions, comments flooding in
Is it all about the bass, is it all about the bass?
Can Miley Cryus twerk
Has that girl got no damn taste?
Everyday I get the same discussions bouncing in my face
Is it female liberation to dance the way you want
Or is it corporate US making money selling women’s bodies
Is it wrong?
Is it positive for girls with bigger bums>
Is it just a bit of fun
Is it fair?
Isss itttt faiiiiirrr?
And truthfully my answer is I just don’t fecking care.
It’s a bum.
I have one.
My mum does too.
Sits on hers 60 hours a week
A nurses bum with aching cheeks
My mum has a flat bum, bonier than me
My daughter says her bum is the best bit of her body
Cos it’s soft
My gran has got a bum
It sits alone a lot
My friend has got a doctor’s bum that never ever stops
Before my granddad died he had a bum
Ghandi did as well
There’s a bum between the legs of the president of Brazil
That woman, running a massive fecking country over there
Most people’s bum have hair on
Though we don’t like to admit it
The first women into space covered her bum with a padded spacesuit
When Rosa parks sat on a bus her bum refused to move for bums more light
And she was taken with all the other bums who marched for civil rights
Happy people have bums
Depressed people do as well
If you do not wipe your bum, your bum will really smell
You use you bum to run
You also use your bum to sit
Having a slightly smaller bum does not make you a skinny bitch
Having a slightly larger bum does not make you a big booty ho
Last weekend 40,000 bums sat on seats waiting for a goal from the England Women’s football team who used their butt muscles to kick and pass
The Williams sisters use their bums to move from side to side very fast
So when you ask me what I think of female bums, I like them, I think they’re great
I wish there were more of them in parliament, businesses and sports games
And men’s bums too, in case you wonder, I like them just the same
Like a personal piece of fat for everyone to sit on when you’re drained
Saves you carrying a cushion or a pillow in your bag
And if your bum is fit and healthy
It’s the best you’ll ever have

Related article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...-attacking-amateur-work-by-young-female-poets

That looks like slam poetry, which is more of a performing art really, it does not really translate well into paper as classical forms would do. Regarding the article, Watts is free too criticize these up and coming female poets if she wants, that's fine

Personally i think it's incredibly refreshing too see poems that are a social commentary rather than some post-modern drivel that is so full of metaphor and symbols that even after careful analysis, it hardly makes sense

 

[BennyBlanco]

So this video has been going pretty viral the past day or two, probably due to how much of a shit show it was on her part. It seems to have backfired tremendously on the host. I think it's a very interesting video, and if you watch it, check out his Twitter page afterwards to see how the Guardian chooses to cover it, it's total parody just like the host herself.

Late to the party but thanks for posting. Can't stand C4 "interviews" at the best of times but that is something else.

 

[Adebesi]

I usually like Cathy Newman, I've never seen her give an interview like that before.

 

[Wibble]

Did you watch it? The banning of certain newspapers, people and ideas (i.e. Conservatives on social media) - I think that's rather draconian, especially for a University where I think every single random and even extreme view should be heard. Might be extreme to someone, might not be to someone else. Heck I guess even thinking about women getting equal rights and blacks being on par with whites was regarded as extreme once upon a time...

I don't think giving a platform to everyone is an absolute duty of a University. Personally I'd tend towards free speech but you shouldn't give platforms to people with vile views.

 

[Adebesi]

When I was at school / Uni there used to be truisms like "I don't like what you say but Ill fight for your right to say it" and "the best ways to fight bad ideas is to debate them in public."

I think we were right then.

And I do think it's particularly egregious to censor non violent speech at a Uni, in particular, where the whole point is supposed to be the exchange and challenging of ideas.

 

[2 man midfield]

I don't think giving a platform to everyone is an absolute duty of a University. Personally I'd tend towards free speech but you shouldn't give platforms to people with vile views.

Your definition of vile might be hugely different from someone else's.

 

[Steven Seagull]

I would allow basically anything. In fact I would have thought booking as many disagreeable people as possible would be beneficial to students. It would help them hone their arguments against such people and decide for themselves. Inciting violence is obviously off the table.

 

[Javi]

I thought Cathy Newman was really shocking in that interview. I don't pretend to be an expert on what Peterson discusses at all, there are times I find him very impressive and times I find him quite frustrating. But Newman was really poor, I don't understand the "she was asking him tough questions which is good" line because the questions she asked, or her constant "so you're saying," just showed her up to be not listening to him, not understanding him (even points that weren't so difficult to understand!) or just trying to push her own narrative. Peterson gave an interview since where he said it felt like she was trying to interview the villain she hoped she could portray him as (paraphrasing there).

The sad thing nowadays is that we treat public figures like that like a sports team. "they're on my side so they're right!" Twitter or YouTube comments are a cesspit of people saying "look at this video of X, he totally owns Y!" And X may be really intelligent and articulate. And X's followers seem to try and live their online persona at least vicariously through X. "X is smart and I like X, I'm so much smarter than everyone who agrees with Y!"

So you'll get people who really don't compare to Peterson intellectually treating his intelligence or articulation, where he displays those traits, as their own. You'll also get people who disagree with him siding with Newman just as she's the one going against Peterson. What's really unfortunate with that is that there are perfectly legitimate arguments (as far as I can see!) to make against Peterson's beliefs. Some have been expressed in this thread! I appreciate that would make it more a debate, but as she tried to hit him with counterpoints it went down that road a bit anyway. But, I don't really see what's so impressive about an interviewer spending 30 minutes repeating "so what you're saying is " and then not even coming close to what he said. It's how I feel talking to one acquaintance of mine, incredibly frustrating. And I think it actually weakens her cause/argument, as seen in much of the negative reaction.

Agreed. Lots of strawmen being used there.

On the other end I thought that you could see quite well when Peterson left his academic territory when he compared the transgender activists with Mao because they have the same philosophy which imo is a poor statement as in way to unprecise and potentially dangerous. He was going from this laid back, science based (from what one can observe by the interview) argumentative guy to a complete parody of it in a matter of seconds.

 

[Oscie]

I would allow basically anything. In fact I would have thought booking as many disagreeable people as possible would be beneficial to students. It would help them hone their arguments against such people and decide for themselves. Inciting violence is obviously off the table.

Which is fine, but many who hold your view (not necessarily yourself included) wouldn't agree that Islamist extremist should also be allowed to address universities on the proviso that their stay the right side of the incitement of violence rule. There exists both the benefit of allowing students to hone their arguments against those promoting hatred of the west/black people/women/homosexuals/the disabled but also the risk of indoctrinating students into hatred of those groups.

Does something only become unacceptable if it explicitly incites violence? Should the intelligence services be okay with mosques or events at universities with guest speakers being held where preachers are whipping up anti-British/anti-western sentiment if those engaging in such activity are not directly inciting violence or would you say it's good that these young Muslims are exposed to such extreme views so that they had an opportunity to hone their conscientious objections to them?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Which is fine, but many who hold your view (not necessarily yourself included) wouldn't agree that Islamist extremist should also be allowed to address universities on the proviso that their stay the right side of the incitement of violence rule. There exists both the benefit of allowing students to hone their arguments against those promoting hatred of the west/black people/women/homosexuals/the disabled but also the risk of indoctrinating students into hatred of those groups.

Does something only become unacceptable if it explicitly incites violence? Should the intelligence services be okay with mosques or events at universities with guest speakers being held where preachers are whipping up anti-British/anti-western sentiment if those engaging in such activity are not directly inciting violence or would you say it's good that these young Muslims are exposed to such extreme views so that they had an opportunity to hone their conscientious objections to them?

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

 

[Silva]

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

Students tend to be ahead of the curve on no-platforming though. Someone isn't being told they're not welcomed because some middle manager is deciding they shouldn't be associated with the university, it's because the students have decided they don't want to listen to them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Students tend to be ahead of the curve on no-platforming though. Someone isn't being told they're not welcomed because some middle manager is deciding they shouldn't be associated with the university, it's because the students have decided they don't want to listen to them.

Which students? All of them? Or just the ones that shout the loudest?

Some animals are more equal than others, evidently.

 

[Silva]

Which students? All of them?

The ones who have power to invite/disinvite people to events.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

The ones who have power to invite/disinvite people to events.

Well, exactly.

 

[Silva]

Well, exactly.

It's pretty easy to start a society at a university. If a student or group of students want to do something, i.e start a society that invites homophobic speakers, they usually can.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

My previous comment comes across as pretty glib but it's disingenuous to ignore the fact that - a lot of the time - people get no-platformed because a small minority of students kick up an almighty fuss and the powers that be (whether student or faculty) get brow-beaten into backing down, for the sake of avoiding any further controversy.

So the rest of the student body have somebody else deciding what sort of ideas they should and shouldn't be exposed to. And that's clearly a patronising and paternalistic approach, irrespective of the semantics behind the decision-making process.

 

[Oscie]

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

I think you're right and I've never been convinced that censorship has ever done anything other than give succour to what it is you're trying to censor. Yet on the flip side I think lack of some kind of subjective filtering does lead to an over-representation of extremist views, which can be dangerous. As much as I'd want my child to know of these other views and to (hopefully) see how misguided they are through logic, argument and reasoning, I'd also not be keen on my child being indoctrinated into a world where racism and other forms of bigotry were simply just opposing views. Would this not desensitise young people.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think you're right and I've never been convinced that censorship has ever done anything other than give succour to what it is you're trying to censor. Yet on the flip side I think lack of some kind of subjective filtering does lead to an over-representation of extremist views, which can be dangerous. As much as I'd want my child to know of these other views and to (hopefully) see how misguided they are through logic, argument and reasoning, I'd also not be keen on my child being indoctrinated into a world where racism and other forms of bigotry were simply just opposing views. Would this not desensitise young people.

That's a very good point and I'd be in the same boat as you on this one. It's hard to know where to draw the line.

 

[SteveJ]

That looks like slam poetry, which is more of a performing art really, it does not really translate well into paper as classical forms would do. Regarding the article, Watts is free too criticize these up and coming female poets if she wants, that's fine

Personally i think it's incredibly refreshing too see poems that are a social commentary rather than some post-modern drivel that is so full of metaphor and symbols that even after careful analysis, it hardly makes sense

Yeah, it's rather ironic that, in truth, so many people in the literary business have been guilty of donning the emperor's new clothes when they fit...and when that guise attracts customers. After all, everyone involved writes or publishes with a paying readership in mind.

 

[Grylte]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

 

[Adebesi]

The genie is out of the bottle, though. They're going to be exposed to those view, online or in person, whether or not the views are challenged and held up to scrutiny as part of a debate in a public forum. Personally, I would find the absence of any kind of public challenge/debate far more of a worry than the possibility that some students may be exposed to them for the first time in this context.

The idea that you can "protect" naive and vulnerable students from exposure to ideas that might warp their fragile minds by no platforming controversial speakers is - apart from anything else - incredibly patronising and paternalistic. Which is one of the many ironies this issue throws up, considering how the people behind no platforming tend to regard paternalism as a Very. Bad. Thing. in any other context.

It should really be called parentalism.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

 

[Adebesi]

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

Judaism has always been a bit of an anomaly in that respect. The "Jews" are a race in a way that Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc are not.

 

[FlawlessThaw]

Judaism has always been a bit of an anomaly in that respect. The "Jews" are a race in a way that Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc are not.

To get your perspective, in what way?

 

[Adebesi]

To get your perspective, in what way?

Im not on firm ground here at all, its just what I remember being taught. If I remember correctly it has to do with the fact that the Jewish people originally came from a specific place (Israel) and then were dispersed around the world. So its messy. Someone who converted to Judaism would not change race, they would be taking on a religion. But there is a Jewish race in the sense that Judaism is passed down the maternal line - you are Jewish if you mother is Jewish. You can be an atheist Jew.

As I said this is not something I know much about, but that is what I remember being taught.

 

[2cents]

I agree with your broader point as those that make the distinction between Islam and Muslims shouldn't be considered racist at all. But do you consider being negative towards Judaism as racist? Because the long held belief is anti-semitism = racist.

I don't think anti-semitism has much to do with criticism of Judaism as a belief system. It's the view that the Jewish people embody, as a collective, certain essential characteristics which drive their collective action. So pretty much standard racism. I find the little I understand of Judaism as a religion to be completely wacky, don't think that makes me an anti-semite.

 

[2cents]

Im not on firm ground here at all, its just what I remember being taught. If I remember correctly it has to do with the fact that the Jewish people originally came from a specific place (Israel) and then were dispersed around the world. So its messy. Someone who converted to Judaism would not change race, they would be taking on a religion. But there is a Jewish race in the sense that Judaism is passed down the maternal line - you are Jewish if you mother is Jewish. You can be an atheist Jew.

As I said this is not something I know much about, but that is what I remember being taught.

It's a tricky one, my understanding is that while it is generally accepted that most Jews have some kind of descent going back to the Middle East circa 1,000 - 500 BC or something like that, there have been some waves of conversions over the centuries, and a lot more intermarriage than has been traditionally recognized. I seem to remember reading that with Ashkenazi Jews

I really doubt many people would consider these three Israeli politicians to be of the same race, but I'm not sure everyone agrees what exactly they mean by 'race':

 

[Wibble]

Your definition of vile might be hugely different from someone else's.

True but most of the sort of people who I'm talking about are so beyond the pale that their own mothers think they are cnuts.

Of course Uni's sometimes get it wrong but it is their venue to get it wrong. They aren't stopping anyone from expousing an opinion, just not validating it with a platform.

 

[Synco]

Why do people consider being negative against a religion, especially Islam, racist?
Sure, most religions are geographical (or how to say it), but there are muslims, christians, etc of all races.

It can be racist because "race" itself is just an arbitrary pretext for what racism is really directed at. It's just what gave racism its name in the light of the historical dominance of biological race ideology. Today, for example, an equally essentialist understanding of "culture" has often taken the place of "race". It serves the same function as old "race"-based racism, but is nowadays deemed more acceptable.

The pretext could be really anything that fits the purpose of stereotyping ethnically or religiously defined groups, in order to justify hate, exclusion, violence, or simply feel superior to "half-civilized savages".

That said, I don't consider well-founded criticism towards Islam, or any other religion, racist at all. Religious criticism is a very justified & necessary thing, as is pointing out culturally established bigotry and violence. At the same time, criticism of religion is another possible and often used excuse for modern "raceless" racism. But the difference between these two uses is mostly not that hard to spot.

 

[SteveJ]

The guy in the 2nd photo looks a bit like Jose.


"There'll be more biting political comment from Steve later. Now, here's Trixy McBoobs with the weather."

 

[Wibble]

It's pretty easy to start a society at a university. If a student or group of students want to do something, i.e start a society that invites homophobic speakers, they usually can.

At my work it takes minutes to fill out a simple form.

 

[Siorac]

The guy in the 2nd photo looks a bit like Jose.


"There'll be more biting political comment from Steve later. Now, here's Trixy McBoobs with the weather."

Jewsé Mourinho.

 

[Adebesi]

It's a tricky one, my understanding is that while it is generally accepted that most Jews have some kind of descent going back to the Middle East circa 1,000 - 500 BC or something like that, there have been some waves of conversions over the centuries, and a lot more intermarriage than has been traditionally recognized. I seem to remember reading that with Ashkenazi Jews

I really doubt many people would consider these three Israeli politicians to be of the same race, but I'm not sure everyone agrees what exactly they mean by 'race':

Absolutely. I think most people accept Jewishness is a bit of an anomaly, part race, part religion, both and neither. It cant really be defined for the reasons you gave. But it is definitely not the same as other religions.

 

[2 man midfield]

True but most of the sort of people who I'm talking about are so beyond the pale that their own mothers think they are cnuts.

Of course Uni's sometimes get it wrong but it is their venue to get it wrong. They aren't stopping anyone from expousing an opinion, just not validating it with a platform.

Well I agree there. I don't think any uni should obligated to host anyone as such. Their gaff, their rules. It's just a bit sad that some students want to ban speakers with conservative but perfectly legitimate political views. It's a bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" to yourself. I say that as someone left leaning myself too. I don't think there's anything wrong with hearing alternative viewpoints.

 

[Grylte]

It can be racist because "race" itself is just an arbitrary pretext for what racism is really directed at. It's just what gave racism its name in the light of the historical dominance of biological race ideology. Today, for example, an equally essentialist understanding of "culture" has often taken the place of "race". It serves the same function as old "race"-based racism, but is nowadays deemed more acceptable.

The pretext could be really anything that fits the purpose of stereotyping ethnically or religiously defined groups, in order to justify hate, exclusion, violence, or simply feel superior to "half-civilized savages".

That said, I don't consider well-founded criticism towards Islam, or any other religion, racist at all. Religious criticism is a very justified & necessary thing, as is pointing out culturally established bigotry and violence. At the same time, criticism of religion is another possible and often used excuse for modern "raceless" racism. But the difference between these two uses is mostly not that hard to spot.

I work with lots of muslims, of litterally ever skin colour and origin, i think most of them are cnuts because the way they use their religion to defend how they do their job. I have heard stories from my customers where they have experienced some ridicolous stuff, because the collegue of mine they met, couldn't help them cause they were gay, had a dog, had perfume on, and stuff like that.
Also want to mention how they totally ruined the door on my work place's toilet, cause they have to shower in the sink before they pray, and spilled water all over it for a long time.
These things affect me, my employer, and the whole business, in a bad way.
I could not care less where they are from or what colour their skin is, which is what i learned racism is about.
But if i say anything, i'm told i'm racist.... really....?

 

[Charlie Foley]

Agreed. Lots of strawmen being used there.

On the other end I thought that you could see quite well when Peterson left his academic territory when he compared the transgender activists with Mao because they have the same philosophy which imo is a poor statement as in way to unprecise and potentially dangerous. He was going from this laid back, science based (from what one can observe by the interview) argumentative guy to a complete parody of it in a matter of seconds.

Agreed. I think to give him his due, I've seen him get to points like that in interviews where he announces he's getting to that point, the limit of his knowledge/expertise, and is getting increasingly likely he'll say something wrong. No way he could be that honest with Newman as she would have twisted that too. He also would most likely feel he wasn't yet at that point when he said the bit about Mao!

 

[Adebesi]

The Mao thing was just one of her more successful straw men. There is more to Mao than the people he killed. His analogy wasnt meant to suggest feminism will lead to mass murder, it was about controlling thought. It may be a clumsy analogy - its always a risk to use mass murdering dictators for this purpose - but in other instances people understand analogies are not meant to be perfect comparisons, they compare very specific aspects of different situations.

 

[Synco]

I work with lots of muslims, of litterally ever skin colour and origin, i think most of them are cnuts because the way they use their religion to defend how they do their job. I have heard stories from my customers where they have experienced some ridicolous stuff, because the collegue of mine they met, couldn't help them cause they were gay, had a dog, had perfume on, and stuff like that.
Also want to mention how they totally ruined the door on my work place's toilet, cause they have to shower in the sink before they pray, and spilled water all over it for a long time.
These things affect me, my employer, and the whole business, in a bad way.
I could not care less where they are from or what colour their skin is, which is what i learned racism is about.
But if i say anything, i'm told i'm racist.... really....?

Have work to do now, I'll answer later.