Jordan Peterson interview on C4

dav3

Some people really don't like when the poster boy of sh*t-talking gets ridiculed.

Will peterson still be whoring himself out for money in July? Any free tickets going?

JRant

dav3 wrote: »

Some people really don't like when the poster boy of sh*t-talking gets ridiculed.

Will peterson still be whoring himself out for money in July? Any free tickets going?

Maybe some people would rather see an honest debate rather than seeing falsehoods spread in an attempt to further their own agenda.

blinding

dav3 wrote: »

Some people really don't like when the poster boy of sh*t-talking gets ridiculed.

Will peterson still be whoring himself out for money in July? Any free tickets going?

Are you Kathy Newman:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

Dyr

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It's amazing isn't it?

What isn't about this guy that has people absolutely falling over themselves to lie about him?

What I don't get is Peterson is prone to thinking out loud and throwing out theories, there's a lot you could disagree with him on but instead there's just this pavlovian response to protect the ould sacred cows

Sometimes I feel like I've had wool pulled over my eyes when an article bashing Peterson comes out, then again after a bit of research, its found to be nonsense.

Equating chaos to feminine and order to masculinity is asking for trouble though. I knew when reading his book that people would pounce on that. He uses the yin-yang ideology to explain a few things and that is where that equation comes from. He didn't create the idea. I like that he doesn't skirt around a point in case people will take it the wrong way. People are taking it the wrong way and he consistently explains his way out of any misconstructions.

johnp001

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

"Would you also agree with the converse of your statement:
"activism is grand to an extent ... dozens of people are selling activism
... Self-improvement shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't part of what O'Neill is selling"
Yes. I've said it a few times that I'm fine with both the Peterson approach and the LON approach. Self improvement and societal improvement.

And I also think the optimal solution is to work out an equitable agreement between the parents without court involvement. And at the moment we have a family court system which does not treat men's be women equally. So all the self Improvement in the world won't address that inequality.

Peterson ,when pressed, will concede that activism is sometimes called for. He then goes on to say it shouldn't be done by young people because they're too stupid and inexperienced to know anything about it. He's not selling a societal help manual, he's selling self help manual. Its fine for him to emphasise the product he's selling over the rival products, but it's not really ok for him to convince his flock that his product is the only one on the market.

I'll see if I can fish out the IMD thread. Its a hoot to see that all and any criticism comes from men. Any women who contributed were in favour of it. The conflation of anti Feminism with men's rights is interesting in and of itself.

Thanks for your reply.
Peterson argues that self-improvement, while not a replacement for societal change which he acknowledges a place for, is under-emphasized to the detriment of individuals and society, not in the sense of what people should be obliged to do morally but in the sense of what actions are likely to achieve the best outcomes for them.
This is supported by the case I tried to make that unilateral action can reduce the individual's reliance on solutions handed down by the force of law to solve the problems they perceive and that solutions agreed between involved parties are preferable to dictats from an authority without "skin in the game". Self-improvement is also beneficial in the case that unilateral actions don't achieve the desired result as they are useful (if not pre-requisite) in helping the individual refine their grievance and understand better how to bring about the change they desire multi-laterally.
I don't think you have addressed or refuted this argument in your reply.

Peterson has probably spent a lot more time among activist young people than I have so I have no reason to believe that his negative opinion of young activists (whether or not he literally calls them stupid) is anything other than his anecdotally based but honest opinion on the matter. I think he was wrong in the interview earlier in this thread to ignore the objective fact that throughout history a lot of societal change has successfully been brought about by people considerably younger than Peterson himself is now and the interviewer could have put him on the back foot quite easily by making this point.

Most interesting in your reply is the statement:

"at the moment we have a family court system which does not treat men's be women equally. So all the self Improvement in the world won't address that inequality. "

I think this makes a massive assumption that highlights the main disadvantage of an over-emphasis on activism without prior exploitation of all avenues of opportunity avaialable through unilateral action.

The statement that men and women are not currently treated equally implies that there is an objective standard of equality that is meaningful in a real-world situation such that when this state of equality would be achieved that people would generally feel that societal change was unnecessary and cease lobbying for their own interests.

I would counter that a significant proportion of people would indeed hold the opinion that men and women are not currently treated equally in the family court system (or in a large number of other contexts for that matter) to a greater or lesser degree but that there would be very little consensus as to which group was being disadvantaged, how they were being disadvantaged and to what extent.
Opinion on what the correct course of action to take to rectify the situation should be would differ even between those who broadly agreed on the direction and magnitude of the desired change. Given this situation the more introspection and unilateral efforts to come closer to compromise and mutual understanding by the advocates of different beliefs and solutions before deciding on a solution to be imposed on everyone by the law the better any outcome would be.

Conversely the less the factions involved made efforts towards mutual understanding an compromise the more divisive and more detrimental to society the efforts to lobby for the force of the law to impose faction A's solution on all those who believe it to be flawed would become.

Peterson has put together a strong case for this. The main arguments put against him (ignoring the smears which are not arguments in any sense) are the circular argument that O'Neill applied in the BBC radio interview and your argument above that because Peterson profits personally from making his argument that it is invalidated. While always useful to "follow the money" this is only a circumstantial argument and would need to be backed up with objections to at least some of the points he makes to support his position in order to be convincing.

cloudatlas

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

If the cure for men who kill women is women landing one or being assigned one then how do you explain away the results for the center of disease control study that found that 55% of women who were murdered between 2003- 2014 in the States were killed by current or former romantic partners compared with 16% of murders that were committed by strangers. Peterson wants us to believe that men kill because they don't have partners, the solution is to assign these men partners and enforce monogamy, women who didn't partner with these men because of obvious reasons should be forced to? Having a partner is not the cure. 3 incel attacks since 2009 they killed 21 people between them, far more women are killed by partners. So the cure is 'enforced monogamy' which is not going to happen. This is not helpful, this is not a way to help them, so Peterson tells them that they are entitled to women which is a message that fits in well with his biological hierarchy clap trap (he never speaks at length about 20th century history he always slips into discussions about mythology and ancient Mesopotamian), why not empathise by telling them men to approach relationships with women, how to communicate and what they may be doing wrong that means they can't form a long lasting loving relationship instead of repeating toxic modes of thought. This is not helpful.

Sorry for interrupting back to the discussion about lobsters.

johnp001

Deleted User wrote: »

Sometimes I feel like I've had wool pulled over my eyes when an article bashing Peterson comes out, then again after a bit of research, its found to be nonsense.

Equating chaos to feminine and order to masculinity is asking for trouble though. I knew when reading his book that people would pounce on that. He uses the yin-yang ideology to explain a few things and that is where that equation comes from. He didn't create the idea. I like that he doesn't skirt around a point in case people will take it the wrong way. People are taking it the wrong way and he consistently explains his way out of any misconstructions.

It is sad that just referencing concepts from prior literature is asking for trouble.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

If the cure for men who kill women is women landing one or being assigned one then how do you explain away the results for the center of disease control study that found that 55% of women who were murdered between 2003- 2014 in the States were killed by current or former romantic partners compared with 16% of murders that were committed by strangers. Peterson wants us to believe that men kill because they don't have partners, the solution is to assign these men partners and enforce monogamy, women who didn't partner with these men because of obvious reasons should be forced to? Having a partner is not the cure. 3 incel attacks since 2009 they killed 21 people between them, far more women are killed by partners. So the cure is 'enforced monogamy' which is not going to happen. This is not helpful, this is not a way to help them, so Peterson tells them that they are entitled to women which is a message that fits in well with his biological hierarchy clap trap (he never speaks at length about 20th century history he always slips into discussions about mythology and ancient Mesopotamian), why not empathise by telling them men to approach relationships with women, how to communicate and what they may be doing wrong that means they can't form a long lasting loving relationship instead of repeating toxic modes of thought. This is not helpful.

Sorry for interrupting back to the discussion about lobsters.

You've ignored everything johnp001 has posted in reply to you

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Violent attacks are what happens when men do not have partners, Mr. Peterson says, and society needs to work to make sure those men are married.

“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him,” Mr. Peterson says of the Toronto killer. “The cure for that is enforced monogamy. That’s actually why monogamy emerges.”

Mr. Peterson does not pause when he says this. Enforced monogamy is, to him, simply a rational solution. Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html

If the cure for men who kill women is women landing one or being assigned one then how do you explain away the results for the center of disease control study that found that 55% of women who were murdered between 2003- 2014 in the States were killed by current or former romantic partners compared with 16% of murders that were committed by strangers. Peterson wants us to believe that men kill because they don't have partners, the solution is to assign these men partners and enforce monogamy, women who didn't partner with these men because of obvious reasons should be forced to? Having a partner is not the cure. 3 incel attacks since 2009 they killed 21 people between them, far more women are killed by partners. So the cure is 'enforced monogamy' which is not going to happen. This is not helpful, this is not a way to help them, so Peterson tells them that they are entitled to women which is a message that fits in well with his biological hierarchy clap trap (he never speaks at length about 20th century history he always slips into discussions about mythology and ancient Mesopotamian), why not empathise by telling them men to approach relationships with women, how to communicate and what they may be doing wrong that means they can't form a long lasting loving relationship instead of repeating toxic modes of thought. This is not helpful.

Sorry for interrupting back to the discussion about lobsters.

You've ignored everything johnp001 has posted in reply to you

Wasn’t aware there was anything to respond to in there just distancing from the original article. I was told that I didn’t explain myself so I did. I note that you haven’t responded to my post, just asked me to respond to another post, is that what you do on discussion threads?

JRant

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You've ignored everything johnp001 has posted in reply to you

To the surprise of absolutely nobody. They have no interest in debate.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wasn’t aware there was anything to respond to in there just distancing from the original article. I was told that I didn’t explain myself so I did. I note that you haven’t responded to my post, just asked me to respond to another post, is that what you do on discussion threads?

This post refutes anything about enforced partnership, which you are still going on about. You are misunderstanding what was meant be "enforced monogamy". The family unit is healthy for all individuals.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Wasn’t aware there was anything to respond to in there just distancing from the original article. I was told that I didn’t explain myself so I did. I note that you haven’t responded to my post, just asked me to respond to another post, is that what you do on discussion threads?[/QUOTE

This post refutes anything about enforced partnership, which you are still going on about. You are misunderstanding what was meant be "enforced monogamy". The family unit is healthy for all individuals.

In the original article he was talking about violent men in society i then referenced a study that more women are victims of violence and death at the hands of partners and former partners then went on to advise that Peterson should take different tack when advising men who are failing as he stated at love and relationships. Peterson is nostalgic for 1950’s simplicity which was not simplistic for all involved. Nothing was refuted sorry about that. The back peddling is impressive though because Peterson very much believes what he originally said.

cloudatlas

In Peterson’s new revised version what is ‘enforced monigamy’ Equal to?

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

In Peterson’s new revised version what is ‘enforced monigamy’ Equal to?

I can understand why it can be taken as forcing women to marry men but I think it means to try stay with one partner. To create a family unit. You enforce monogamy upon yourself.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

In Peterson’s new revised version what is ‘enforced monigamy’ Equal to?

I can understand why it can be taken as forcing women to marry men but I think it means to try stay with one partner. To create a family unit. You enforce monogamy upon yourself.

Right.... and this would fix these failing men because? They don’t already have the tools to conduct normal relationships and Peterson’s advice to them is be in a relationship?

Maxpfizer

Bambi wrote: »

What I don't get is Peterson is prone to thinking out loud and throwing out theories, there's a lot you could disagree with him on but instead there's just this pavlovian response to protect the ould sacred cows

That's why I say it's more like they are actually arguing against nuanced discussion.

They don't want to have a conversation outside of "this guy is bad, don't listen to him, listen to me, if you don't agree then you are bad too".

Peterson seems to come out with a lot of stuff and a lot of of it is indeed debatable and can open up some interesting discussions.

Instead there's a weird section of the internet that just wants to destroy even the possibility of having a conversation.

So it has to be "Ermagehrd he thinks women should be forced to marry Incels so that Incels won't murder women" and it can only be that because there is a need to spin it into "no, let's not talk about this because JP is a very bad man".

I don't know why there is such an issue with angry young dudes but I feel like none of the anti-Peterson brigade have an answer either.

It just seems more like they disagree with the approach of "can't we do something to help these guys" because that implies that young white dudes could somehow be victims so it's a hard "no".

You need to find a way to stop (not help) these frustrated men while also making snide comments about "White Men".

I would say there is a difference in Petersons approach which appears to be "encouraging people to be better" and the alternative approach which is "berate people into being better".

Which is what posters seem to be missing with the comparison of Louise O'Neill and Jordan Peterson. Both of them definitely state that they want men to do better. One has the approach of "clean your room and take care of yourself take responsibility for your own improvement" the other has the approach "your room is a mess you scumbag and the government needs to sort you out".

It's very telling that it's the guy selling the self help book that these people want to destroy.

A: I will advise you on how to improve yourself.
B: I will point out everything wrong with you but will offer no solutions AND will berate anyone who advises you on how to improve yourself.

How could anyone think that B is the correct way forward here?

Maxpfizer

cloudatlas wrote: »

Right.... and this would fix these failing men because? They don’t already have the tools to conduct normal relationships and Peterson’s advice to them is be in a relationship?

So what do you advise?

You have some kind of solution?

Here's the way this appears to me.

Peterson feels like these failing men can be fixed and should be fixed. He has a range of ideas on how that could be done. He has ideas on how they could improve themselves and consequently conduct normal relationships.

You feel like they can't be fixed because they don't have the tools to conduct normal relationships. Soooo? You need to misrepresent Peterson to prove that... what? What's your goal here?

What is the point of your role in the discussion? If you and Peterson both agree that men are failing, and his approach is "help them", then what are you offering? Just keep pointing out that they are failing?

JP: Men are failing.
CA: I agree. Men are useless scum.
JP: We should help them.
CA: What? NO! EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS A-HOLE WHO WANTS TO HELP MEN! MEN DON'T NEED HELP! EVERYDAY IS INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY! REEEEEEEEEEEE!

That's my impersonation of you. :P

cloudatlas

Maxpfizer wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Right.... and this would fix these failing men because? They don’t already have the tools to conduct normal relationships and Peterson’s advice to them is be in a relationship?

So what do you advise?

You have some kind of solution?

Here's the way this appears to me.

Peterson feels like these failing men can be fixed and should be fixed. He has a range of ideas on how that could be done. He has ideas on how they could improve themselves and consequently conduct normal relationships.

You feel like they can't be fixed because they don't have the tools to conduct normal relationships. Soooo? You need to misrepresent Peterson to prove that... what? What's your goal here?

What is the point of your role in the discussion? If you and Peterson both agree that men are failing, and his approach is "help them", then what are you offering? Just keep pointing out that they are failing?

JP: Men are failing.
CA: I agree. Men are useless scum.
JP: We should help them.
CA: What? NO! EVERYONE LOOK AT THIS A-HOLE WHO WANTS TO HELP MEN! MEN DON'T NEED HELP! EVERYDAY IS INTERNATIONAL MEN'S DAY! REEEEEEEEEEEE!

That's my impersonation of you. :P

Your response is incredibly childish. Peterson’s idea condensed and revised as the posters on this forum demanded and wished is that men that are failing at loving relationships should be in a relationship, that is not a solution, that is not helpful. They need proper advice on how to conduct relationships, communicate with partners. Peterson keeps saying that he is the only one who cares about these men, not true there are support groups, counsellors they could be directed to... if Peterson really cared he would give out helpful relationship advice but he doesn’t, yet I’m criticised for pointing this out.

cloudatlas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Right.... and this would fix these failing men because? They don’t already have the tools to conduct normal relationships and Peterson’s advice to them is be in a relationship?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Anyone who can form functional adult relationships will be happier, more functional people. If they don't have the tools, they should try to develop them. I don't that's outrageously outlandish.

JRant

cloudatlas wrote: »

Your response is incredibly childish. Peterson’s idea condensed and revised as the posters on this forum demanded and wished is that men that are failing at loving relationships should be in a relationship, that is not a solution, that is not helpful. They need proper advice on how to conduct relationships, communicate with partners. Peterson keeps saying that he is the only one who cares about these men, not true there are support groups, counsellors they could be directed to... if Peterson really cared he would give out helpful relationship advice but he doesn’t, yet I’m criticised for pointing this out.

Can you give one single example/quote of Peterson claiming to be the only person who cares about these men?

Should be handy as there are soooooo many to choose from.

As far as I can tell, he argues that having a large cohort of angry disenfranchised young men is extremely bad for any society and he is not wrong.

cloudatlas

Deleted User wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Right.... and this would fix these failing men because? They don’t already have the tools to conduct normal relationships and Peterson’s advice to them is be in a relationship?

I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Anyone who can form functional adult relationships will be happier, more functional people. If they don't have the tools, they should try to develop them. I don't that's outrageously outlandish.

Peterson was addressing failed violent men in his comments inferring that being in a relationship would help them. I then argued that this would not be solution as a large percentage of women are murdered by current former romantic partners in the states and that Peterson’s advice was lacking he should address these failed men with advice on how to conduct better relationships, my original post is a page back.

Maxpfizer

cloudatlas wrote: »

Your response is incredibly childish. Peterson’s idea condensed and revised as the posters on this forum demanded and wished is that men that are failing at loving relationships should be in a relationship, that is not a solution, that is not helpful. They need proper advice on how to conduct relationships, communicate with partners. Peterson keeps saying that he is the only one who cares about these men, not true there are support groups, counsellors they could be directed to... if Peterson really cared he would give out helpful relationship advice but he doesn’t, yet I’m criticised for pointing this out.

I know it's childish. I was giving your childish, high school, "did you hear what so and so said" gossipy half-truth bullsh!t exactly the kind of respect it deserves.

You weren't pointing out that Peterson isn't giving helpful relationship advice.

This is you: Lol! Enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed, they need good partners otherwise women will go for high status men.

But that's not really what he said.

This is JP: Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

Sure you are just "pointing things out". Right?

EVERYONE sees through you and to be honest I am more interested in why you'd be doing this.

We're at the stage now where anything some random clown on The Internet says about Peterson can be easily dismissed as nonsense until such times as I am able, and willing, to look it up for myself.

You already lost this. You, and others too, already guaranteed that anything you say about Peterson can be taken with a mountain of salt.

The question of whether or not the mainstream media and people who think others are too dumb or gullible to use Google are misrepresenting Peterson has already been emphatically answered. Yes. You've been caught out so many times.

The far more interesting question is why you are doing it. Why does it matter to you that I should think this guy believes that "enforced monogamy is the cure for men who have failed" when that's actually not what he believes? Why?

cloudatlas

JRant wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Your response is incredibly childish. Peterson’s idea condensed and revised as the posters on this forum demanded and wished is that men that are failing at loving relationships should be in a relationship, that is not a solution, that is not helpful. They need proper advice on how to conduct relationships, communicate with partners. Peterson keeps saying that he is the only one who cares about these men, not true there are support groups, counsellors they could be directed to... if Peterson really cared he would give out helpful relationship advice but he doesn’t, yet I’m criticised for pointing this out.

Can you give one single example/quote of Peterson claiming to be the only person who cares about these men?

Should be handy as there are soooooo many to choose from.

As far as I can tell, he argues that having a large cohort of angry disenfranchised young men is extremely bad for any society and he is not wrong.

His analysis of how to address it is insufficient. Yeah he keeps saying, nobody cares about the men who fail implying that he does, but nobody else does.

cloudatlas

Maxpfizer wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Your response is incredibly childish. Peterson’s idea condensed and revised as the posters on this forum demanded and wished is that men that are failing at loving relationships should be in a relationship, that is not a solution, that is not helpful. They need proper advice on how to conduct relationships, communicate with partners. Peterson keeps saying that he is the only one who cares about these men, not true there are support groups, counsellors they could be directed to... if Peterson really cared he would give out helpful relationship advice but he doesn’t, yet I’m criticised for pointing this out.

I know it's childish. I was giving your childish, high school, "did you hear what so and so said" gossipy half-truth bullsh!t exactly the kind of respect it deserves.

You weren't pointing out that Peterson isn't giving helpful relationship advice.

This is you: Lol! Enforced manogamy is the cure for men who have failed, they need good partners otherwise women will go for high status men.

But that's not really what he said.

This is JP: Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

Sure you are just "pointing things out". Right?

EVERYONE sees through you and to be honest I am more interested in why you'd be doing this.

We're at the stage now where anything some random clown on The Internet says about Peterson can be easily dismissed as nonsense until such times as I am able, and willing, to look it up for myself.

You already lost this. You, and others too, already guaranteed that anything you say about Peterson can be taken with a mountain of salt.

The question of whether or not the mainstream media and people who think others are too dumb or gullible to use Google are misrepresenting Peterson has already been emphatically answered. Yes. You've been caught out so many times.

The far more interesting question is why you are doing it. Why does it matter to you that I should think this guy believes that "enforced monogamy is the cure for men who have failed" when that's actually not what he believes? Why?

Yea but these men violent or ‘failed’ aren’t able for monogamy and relationships nor should they be in one so this is unhelpful and he was addressing men who exhibit violence in the original New York Times piece. I didn’t misrepresent what he said I even quoted it.

El_Duderino 09

Bambi wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Back up the truck. Peterson said they're too stupid and inexperienced in all the ways I listed above. 'They know nothing, they have no life experience, they don't have children, don't have a degree, don't have a job, don't know how to groom themselves or present themselves'. But if they're campaigning for a hospital or school or illness (or presumably any other cause if which you personally approve) then they're grand.

If an 18 year old goes out to campaign for something you approve of, they're grand and Peterson is wrong. And the following day they campaign for something you don't approve of and and they're fools and Peterson is right. Mad old world.

I think it's time to start taking you to task for the constant editorializing
Where in that quote did he say they were stupid?

He said they 'know nothing' along with a load of other derogatory adjectives. Why did you pick the most trivial point of the quote above. Feel free to address the point of the post along with knitpicking.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its unlikely they are campaigning for anything useful , its "bring down the patriarchy" knitting hats that look like vaginas that kind of thing.

That's a complete sidestep of the issue. Before you ask what the issue is, read the post you quoted again.

JRant

cloudatlas wrote: »

His analysis of how to address it is insufficient. Yeah he keeps saying, nobody cares about the men who fail implying that he does, but nobody else does.

So no examples of him saying that then.

Dyr

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He said they 'know nothing' along with a load of other derogatory adjectives. Why did you pick the most trivial point of the quote above. Feel free to address the point of the post along with knitpicking.

Probably because every single time you get called on your editorializing you disappear for a few pages and then show up again trotting out the same lines so from here on in it's all direct quotes with proper source required for you or I don't buy it.

pumpkin4life

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He said they 'know nothing' along with a load of other derogatory adjectives. Why did you pick the most trivial point of the quote above. Feel free to address the point of the post along with knitpicking.

Knowing nothing and stupid don't mean the same things, you do know that right?

I know nothing about the history of Kenya, yet it doesn't mean that I'm stupid.