The Jordan Peterson Thread - V2 -

[TheGreatA]

What do this even mean? "90% of the men in the world struggle to co-exist with women", struggle not to harass them? Life is a struggle bro, but i for one Think we should be able to co-exist without harassing each other. And i get it if you are a lonely guy no one likes......then The struggle probably real hard.

"The last French monarchs also believed everything to be fine, all the way up to the gallows" we used to live in Caves too, things evolve.....

Ultimately our only purpose of existence, that can be said to have scientific merit, is the furthering of our genes and spawning new generations of people.

To act as if men (or even women) do not struggle and have to compromise from their existence, with restrictions imposed on their ability to pursue relationships in the presence of the other gender, that's simply buffoonery.

I would "get it", if we had a system which regulates relationships (forced marriages, etc. as some of the more undeveloped countries have), but I do not get it when we behave based on a "free market" system where men and women must act on their own to find partners, unregulated by society. You must enable individual people to take initiative on the opposite sex, if that is the case.

We are essentially saying that we do not socially determine partnerships, but we do impose social regulations on people's ability to find a partner. One, or the other, has to give, because it creates a scenario where many men and women will be left without partners. That's something that a society cannot afford and that is something which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, for examply in my own country which has a below replacement birth rate (even with increased immigration), and a larger and larger contingent of single males or females without partners.

I have no problem with movements such as #MeToo, and the restriction of sexual liberty, but we must atleast have a clue on what it entails to restrict people's sexuality, and how the ensuing problems can be solved.

 

[HOLA]

Sure he did. And his warnings weren't paid any heed to back then, and they sure as hell won't be paid any heed to now.

He was a man who was incapable of living with the idea that there was no moral determinant over mankind's actions, thus he desperately clung onto Christian faith, despite all the evidence against. The "villains" of his books, were a vehicle to project his own thoughts and the conclusions that he would come to (beyond Christian morality), revolutionary and nihilistic (as was the common intellectual tradition of Russian youth at the time).

After having observed what happened in Russia and Eastern Europe historically, I find it quite easy to abandon such faith. There is no merit to weak structures that cannot be upheld for the long-term, and which insult the population's intelligence. The moral structure must be founded anew. These new morals must be such that they cannot be merely "abandoned" as a man would abandon an old coat, as Christianity was, on the weight of the overwhelming, unquestionable empirical evidence in favour of them.

The times have moved on from when Christianity was relevant, but there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, of course. Some of the morals do have merit, just not in the manner that they are explained.

Stavrogin was a villain (not sure why that was in quotations) because he killed people, raped kids, and generally had no morals, and only cared about himself. I don't think he needed to find Jesus like FD, but a little bit more empathy and selflessness would have been ok.

 

[HOLA]

Ultimately our only purpose of existence, that can be said to have scientific merit, is the furthering of our genes and spawning new generations of people.

To act as if men (or even women) do not struggle and have to compromise from their existence, with restrictions imposed on their ability to pursue relationships in the presence of the other gender, that's simply buffoonery.

I would "get it", if we had a system which regulates relationships (forced marriages, etc. as some of the more undeveloped countries have), but I do not get it when we behave based on a "free market" system where men and women must act on their own to find partners, unregulated by society. You must enable individual people to take initiative on the opposite sex, if that is the case.

We are essentially saying that we do not socially determine partnerships, but we do impose social regulations on people's ability to find a partner. One, or the other, has to give, because it creates a scenario where many men and women will be left without partners. That's something that a society cannot afford and that is something which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, for examply in my own country which has a below replacement birth rate (even with increased immigration), and a larger and lager contingent of single males or females without partners.

I have no problem with movements such as #MeToo, and the restriction of sexual liberty, but we must atleast have a clue on what it entails to restrict people's sexuality, and how the ensuing problems can be solved.

So Newton, who died a virgin, lived a life without meaning?

Anyway, I dunno what the big deal is. Keep your dick in your pants during work, don't get cum stains on the spreadsheets, and save it for after work? If you were just working with a bunch of guys I guess you wouldn't be spending that time mating anyway.

 

[TheGreatA]

Stavrogin was a villain (not sure why that was in quotations) because he killed people, raped kids, and generally had no morals, and only cared about himself. I don't think he needed to find Jesus like FD, but a little bit more empathy and selflessness would have been ok.

He wasn't a villain because of that. Those were merely the outward results of his inner struggles, exaggerated for the purpose of the story. He was a villain, atleast in Dostoyevsky's books, because of his nihilistic, criminal philosophy. Yet he wasn't even the greatest villain of the story, and had atleast some redeeming qualities. Some qualities that Dostoyevsky came to admire during his stay in a Siberian labour camp for "revolutionary actions". The strength of individual character that the criminals possessed, in going against all the systems that had been built to keep them in check, through mental and physical punishment. Dostoyevsky felt, that if guided towards a more fulfilling purpose, this strength of character would be seen as heroic rather than criminal.

Stavrogin was merely a depiction of a "heroic individual" guided by a terrible philosophy, in Dostoyevsky's eyes.

The biggest villain of the story was a man who himself did nothing immoral physically, outside of prompting others with speeches. As he took no guilt in the results of his intellectual "work", he ended up fleeing and getting away from trouble with no consequences, while Stavrogin, as a result of his guilt for having physically taken part in such actions, ended up killing himself. There was atleast a partial redemption on the part of Stavrogin, none on the part of Verhovensky.

The story was written, in part, to contrast the guilt, shame and responsibility felt by men who actually take part in "revolutionary activities", as well as the lack of it, on the part of those who simply prompt and incite others.

 

[TheGreatA]

So Newton, who died a virgin, lived a life without meaning?

Anyway, I dunno what the big deal is. Keep your dick in your pants during work, don't get cum stains on the spreadsheets, and save it for after work? If you were just working with a bunch of guys I guess you wouldn't be spending that time mating anyway.

I'm not saying that it is necessarily the only meaning in life. But it most certainly the one with the most scientific merit. The one that everything comes down to, at the end of the day. The rest of our purpose is the end result of having fulfilled that original purpose, of furthering generations, to the point where more and more advanced civilizations and lifestyles can develop.

It might not be a big deal to you because you've removed yourself from thinking about the social consequences. "Get a grip of yourselves, and move on", right? That's what all societies since the beginning of dawn, have said to the populace. Acclimate yourselves to the society, don't have the society acclimate to the people. That's usually the way that we've gone on about it.

If our culture grows more and more infertile and socially detached, then that is going to be a pretty big problem in my view. These matters need to be resolved societally, instead of casting off the males (and women) who do not acclimate themselves to modern society as having "incompetent genetic potential" to survive. Any time that a man, or a woman, feels that he has no viable options to form relationships, it becomes a problem that reflects on the rest of society. The problem is often the society's creation, not so much the individual's.

In America, I think, some of the consequences have been felt, thoroughly. I'd prefer to avoid them.

 

[jimmas99]

Ultimately our only purpose of existence, that can be said to have scientific merit, is the furthering of our genes and spawning new generations of people.

To act as if men (or even women) do not struggle and have to compromise from their existence, with restrictions imposed on their ability to pursue relationships in the presence of the other gender, that's simply buffoonery.

I would "get it", if we had a system which regulates relationships (forced marriages, etc. as some of the more undeveloped countries have), but I do not get it when we behave based on a "free market" system where men and women must act on their own to find partners, unregulated by society. You must enable individual people to take initiative on the opposite sex, if that is the case.

We are essentially saying that we do not socially determine partnerships, but we do impose social regulations on people's ability to find a partner. One, or the other, has to give, because it creates a scenario where many men and women will be left without partners. That's something that a society cannot afford and that is something which is becoming a bigger and bigger problem, for examply in my own country which has a below replacement birth rate (even with increased immigration), and a larger and lager contingent of single males or females without partners.

I have no problem with movements such as #MeToo, and the restriction of sexual liberty, but we must atleast have a clue on what it entails to restrict people's sexuality, and how the ensuing problems can be solved.

I don't get your Point at all, its like you are living in a totally different Culture than i am ( i know you don't. You are finne i am svenne) .

"To act as if men (or even women) do not struggle and have to compromise from their existence, with restrictions imposed on their ability to pursue relationships in the presence of the other gender, that's simply buffoonery"

You can pursue relationships with people you work with, you never fucked a co-worker? well i have. There is a way to pursue people you like even if you work with them, the way is not to grab them by their pussy and promise a raise if they blow you...... There are tells if someone likes you or not.

Let me ask you. How do you pursue a partner if you only work with men or alone at home? There are places that you can go to to meet women you know?

My simple Point is:

To ask men or women not to sexually harass co-workers at work is not a restriction of sexual Liberty.

To say that women with make up is "asking for it" is something i thought we have moved on from in western society.

Struggle not to act on attraction they feel towards female coworkers is what he meant, I believe.

You can act on it, but grabbing them by their tits is not the way to go. And if you don't find consent, move on........

 

[TheGreatA]

I don't get your Point at all, its like you are living in a totally different Culture than i am ( i know you don't. You are finne i am svenne) .

You probably don't get my point because you live in a culture. I've quit living in a culture.

You can pursue relationships with people you work with, you never fucked a co-worker? well i have. There is a way to pursue people you like even if you work with them, the way is not to grab them by their pussy and promise a raise if they blow you...... There are tells if someone likes you or not.

You're assuming because you have done it yesterday, that you can do it tomorrow. That might be a pretty big false conclusion to come to.

Harvey Weinstein also thought that grabbing women by the boobs was acceptable for a long time. Then it ended up that it wasn't, and now he's fucked. In that case he ought to be fucked. But in your case, you shouldn't be fucked.

I'm here to push the tide back, to the extent that people like you, aren't going to be fucked, just for screwing around in the work place.

The nature of social movements is such, that if they are allowed to go forward without being critically evaluated, without a pushback of any kind, they tend to stretch themselves to the extreme end.

That's why men such as myself are required to put "checks" on how far such movements can extend to.

Let me ask you. How do you pursue a partner if you only work with men or alone at home? There are places that you can go to to meet women you know?

How do you pursue partners if a society is segregated by genders? That is easy, the society simply regulates partnerships, through forced marriages, families making marriage pacts etc.

When a society is not segregated by genders, which we've come to see as the norm, any time taken away from the men and women to pursue possible relationships, is time lost to further one's genetic potential. If we ban workplaces as acceptable environments to form partnerships, then it inevitably means that nearly 1/3rd of a man's or woman's regular day, is restricted from such pursuits.

That's going to lead to a lot of men and women losing out on potential relationships, even if they can still pursue them outside of that environment.

In current light, as a culture lacking fertility as it is, I'm not sure that is really a good way to resolve the problem.

To ask men or women not to sexually harass co-workers at work is not a restriction of sexual Liberty.

It is. Sexual harassment, unfortunately, is a consequence of sexual liberty, and a sexualized environment. We cannot stamp out harassment without restricting sexual liberty and protesting overtly sexualization of culture. The worst thing we can do, is to act as if restrictions somehow enhance liberty. We must be more honest than that. Something the ideological left, in particular, has a lot of problems with. Bans on speech, behaviour, etc. are being hailed as "liberal policies", which they are not.

We just need to come to acknowledge that sometimes restrictions and a lack of liberty, are necessary, for people to be able to co-exist peacefully. The restrictions are applied because the people have proven themselves incapable of acting properly in a liberated state.

We only need laws because people have a tendency to break laws. If people were able to operate morally and harmoniously without laws, we wouldn't need them.

To say that women with make up is "asking for it" is something i thought we have moved on from in western society.

It's not that they are "asking for it". But women wearing make up, is done for the purpose of enhancing their sexual appeal. That is known.

But the work environment is not a place where sexual relations are to be furthered, as we've come to generally acknowledge. Why is it that the man's advances are put in a negative light, but not that of the women's? Shouldn't there be some sort of an "equal" critical evaluation of whether women are sexualizing the work place themselves? Why is it only the man that are expected to be held up to "chivalrous" standards of conduct, while women can continue to behave lewdly?

All of that will inevitably lead to an outcry on the part of the "wronged" males. Don't expect men to give up something without taking something away from the women, in turn.

 

[jimmas99]

You probably don't get my point because you live in a culture. I've quit living in a culture..

That explains a lot.

You're assuming because you have done it yesterday, that you can do it tomorrow. That might be a pretty big false conclusion to come to.

Harvey Weinstein also thought that grabbing women by the boobs was acceptable for a long time. Then it ended up that it wasn't, and now he's fucked. In that case he ought to be fucked. But in your case, you shouldn't be fucked.

Harvey didn't Think it was OK to act that way to women he held Power over, he thought he could get away with it. There is a difference...

I'm here to push the tide back, to the extent that people like you, aren't going to be fucked, just for screwing around in the work place.

The nature of social movements is such, that if they are allowed to go forward without being critically evaluated, without a pushback of any kind, they tend to stretch themselves to the extreme end.

That's why men such as myself are required to put "checks" on how far such movements can extend to..

Thank you, im not sure what the hell you are doing but you actually sound pretentious enough to believe you are making a difference.

How do you pursue partners if a society is segregated by genders? That is easy, the society simply regulates partnerships, through forced marriages, families making marriage pacts etc.

When a society is not segregated by genders, which we've come to see as the norm, any time taken away from the men and women to pursue possible relationships, is time lost to further one's genetic potential. If we ban workplaces as acceptable environments to form partnerships, then it inevitably means that nearly 1/3rd of a man's or woman's regular day, is restricted from such pursuits.

That's going to lead to a lot of men and women losing out on potential relationships, even if they can still pursue them outside of that environment.

In current light, as a culture lacking fertility as it is, I'm not sure that is really a good way to resolve the problem...

That's not what I was asking. How do you pursue partners if you only work with men or alone at home? There are other places than work to pursue partners

I don't know how it is in Finland but here we are not banned to have partnerships with co-workers. Just act professional at work.

It's not that they are "asking for it". But women wearing make up, is done for the purpose of enhancing their sexual appeal. That is known.

But the work environment is not a place where sexual relations are to be furthered, as we've come to generally acknowledge. Why is it that the man's advances are put in a negative light, but not that of the women's? Shouldn't there be some sort of an "equal" critical evaluation of whether women are sexualizing the work place themselves? Why is it only the man that are expected to be held up to "chivalrous" standards of conduct, while women can continue to behave lewdly?

All of that will inevitably lead to an outcry on the part of the "wronged" males. Don't expect men to give up something without taking something away from the women, in turn.

Seriously do you work somewhere, With colleagues?

Do you go outside? Have you seen a woman without makeup? Do you have/had a girlfriend?


Women put makeup on to look presentable just like men at work try to look presentable (not to get fucked). Make up is put on in a lot of different degrees, usually women put enough make up on to look "fresh" but not enough to look like they going out with friends. And if you are going around with a booner looking at co-workers with rouge on i don't know what to tell you.

You seem to be an really smart guy, but maybe you have outsmarted yourself. Can we at least agree on that women with make up and high heels should be able to work with men, without being harassed?

And try to live a Little in the real World ,in the "Culture" .Life is short and its not that bad here in the culture, You live in Finland so enjoy living in one of the best places in the World a Little. You seem strung up.

 

[TheGreatA]

That explains a lot.



Harvey didn't Think it was OK to act that way to women he held Power over, he thought he could get away with it. There is a difference...



Thank you, im not sure what the hell you are doing but you actually sound pretentious enough to believe you are making a difference.




That's not what I was asking. How do you pursue partners if you only work with men or alone at home? There are other places than work to pursue partners

I don't know how it is in Finland but here we are not banned to have partnerships with co-workers. Just act professional at work.



Seriously do you work somewhere, With colleagues?

Do you go outside? Have you seen a woman without makeup? Do you have/had a girlfriend?


Women put makeup on to look presentable just like men at work try to look presentable (not to get fucked). Make up is put on in a lot of different degrees, usually women put enough make up on to look "fresh" but not enough to look like they going out with friends. And if you are going around with a booner looking at co-workers with rouge on i don't know what to tell you.

You seem to be an really smart guy, but maybe you have outsmarted yourself. Can we at least agree on that women with make up and high heels should be able to work with men, without being harassed?

And try to live a Little in the real World ,in the "Culture" .Life is short and its not that bad here in the culture, You live in Finland so enjoy living in one of the best places in the World a Little. You seem strung up.

Try to spend a little less time on writing about "me" and my estimated qualities as a man, and put a little more effort into addressing the content of my replies.

Who I am has no meaning whatsoever to this conversation, no more than who you are. I could certainly make all sorts of suggestions about what type of a person you are, but again, that has no meaning to the conversation. As a Swede, you should know that you ought to not make it about who you are, because the fact is that the much of the world is already predisposed to think about you in a certain way (feminist, progressive, blah blah, etc.), which will serve to discredit your arguments. So you don't want to go down that route.

Women putting make-up to be "presentable" is just one thing that can easily be "critically evaluated" at a further date. Certainly, there are already many women within our countries who believe that putting on a hijab and not using make-up, is what is presentable, while anything beyond that only serves to sexualize the workplace. And this is the women that believe that, not the men.

You can heckle the sexually frustrated, inept men all you want (a caste of people that is quickly growing), but the crude reality is that in this world, there are far more repressed men, than otherwise. Go anywhere outside of your bubble and you'll realize that. And as a student of some history atleast, I know damn well what kind of damage repressed people can cause, at the end of the day. It's not an issue that I treat lightly, even if I may poke my own fun at it every once in a while. At the base level, it becomes an existential problem for these people, as they cannot find any sort of a continuation for their lives in the form of families, relationships, children. No continuity, no meaning, nothing to live for, beyond carnal pleasures, which intensify increasingly as their purposeless existence goes on, until reaching the point of self-destruction.

I'm looking at a country whose native population, of only a few million, is rapidly aging and dying off. I find it difficult to enjoy that. No amount of material wealth serves to fulfill a spiritual void, resulting from the lack of continuity for a people.

There is this tendency among a lot of people, to impose systems on others, and then wonder why nobody wants to jump on the ship that they've built, that's heading towards an iceberg. Any system that produces as many unhappy, frustrated, infertile, irresponsible, socially inept and outcast people, as ours, is a system that I ultimately cannot subscribe to. Thus, I've become its critic. There must be some enormous problems with it, if these people are its products.

 

[jimmas99]

Try to spend a little less time on writing about "me" and my estimated qualities as a man, and put a little more effort into addressing the content of my replies.

Who I am has no meaning whatsoever to this conversation, no more than who you are. I could certainly make all sorts of suggestions about what type of a person you are, but again, that has no meaning to the conversation. As a Swede, you should know that you ought to not make it about who you are, because the fact is that the much of the world is already predisposed to think about you in a certain way (feminist, progressive, blah blah, etc.), which will serve to discredit your arguments. So you don't want to go down that route.

Women putting make-up to be "presentable" is just one thing that can easily be "critically evaluated" at a further date. Certainly, there are already many women within our countries who believe that putting on a hijab and not using make-up, is what is presentable, while anything beyond that only serves to sexualize the workplace. And this is the women that believe that, not the men.

You can heckle the sexually frustrated, inept men all you want (a caste of people that is quickly growing), but the crude reality is that in this world, there are far more repressed men, than otherwise. Go anywhere outside of your bubble and you'll realize that. And as a student of some history atleast, I know damn well what kind of damage repressed people can cause, at the end of the day. It's not an issue that I treat lightly, even if I may poke my own fun at it every once in a while. At the base level, it becomes an existential problem for these people, as they cannot find any sort of a continuation for their lives in the form of families, relationships, children. No continuity, no meaning, nothing to live for, beyond carnal pleasures, which intensify increasingly as their purposeless existence goes on, until reaching the point of self-destruction.

I'm looking at a country whose native population, of only a few million, is rapidly aging and dying off. I find it difficult to enjoy that. No amount of material wealth serves to fulfill a spiritual void, resulting from the lack of continuity for a people.

There is this tendency among a lot of people, to impose systems on others, and then wonder why nobody wants to jump on the ship that they've built, that's heading towards an iceberg. Any system that produces as many unhappy, frustrated, infertile, irresponsible, socially inept and outcast people, as ours, is a system that I ultimately cannot subscribe to. Thus, I've become its critic. There must be some enormous problems with it, if these people are its products.

Wow you are serous, didn't mean to offend you .A lot of your Points seems to me being personal opinions that I simply disagree on.

Feel free to make suggestions about what type of a person I am, it would only be interesting to me.

Im sure living in my bubble and working with women works just fine for me and my colleges. Im only suggestion is that maybe you also living in a bubble.

"There is this tendency among a lot of people, to impose systems on others, and then wonder why nobody wants to jump on the ship that they've built, that's heading towards an iceberg. Any system that produces as many unhappy, frustrated, infertile, irresponsible, socially inept and outcast people, as ours, is a system that I ultimately cannot subscribe to. Thus, I've become its critic. There must be some enormous problems with it, if these people are its Products"

How do you come to this conclusion? Was people happier 100 years ago?

 

[WhitebeltXL]

I'm about half an hour in and Brand has been far better in this interview than the mess he made out of trying to debate Sam Harris. Seems more interested in exploring JBPs ideas so far.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

I'm about half an hour in and Brand has been far better in this interview than the mess he made out of trying to debate Sam Harris. Seems more interested in exploring JBPs ideas so far.

Yeah he's way better with Peterson. With Sam Harris he kept on interrupting and he was wilder like he was on drugs.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I'm about half an hour in and Brand has been far better in this interview than the mess he made out of trying to debate Sam Harris. Seems more interested in exploring JBPs ideas so far.

In the Harris podcast Brand seemed like a slightly wittier Deepak Chopra. So much nonsense I had to skip through the podcast at times.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

In the Harris podcast Brand seemed like a slightly wittier Deepak Chopra. So much nonsense I had to skip through the podcast at times.

He seemed hyperactive at times and constantly changed subject when he'd hit an ideological brick wall (especially about Islam) and revert to cheap jokes and funny voices. He's much more grounded in this one with Peterson, and fair play to him for giving Peterson a fair shake, unlike recent left leaning interviewers.

 

[Gunny]

I'm about half an hour in and Brand has been far better in this interview than the mess he made out of trying to debate Sam Harris. Seems more interested in exploring JBPs ideas so far.

I listened to the whole thing and would hold this up as an example of how the left ought to go about disagreeing with JP. Brand pushed him on the areas where they didn’t see eye to eye but made room for the possibility that JP might have a reasoned response with an ethic that it is ultimately ok for two people to have a civil disagreement. Contrast this to the Cathy Newman or Vice piece (or myriad campus protests) where a civil disagreement clearly isn’t enough - they had a consuming NEED to take JP down. And Peterson himself is good enough a polemicist and decent enough a human being that all those efforts repeatedly blow up in the leftists’ faces and propel his status even higher.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

I listened to the whole thing and would hold this up as an example of how the left ought to go about disagreeing with JP. Brand pushed him on the areas where they didn’t see eye to eye but made room for the possibility that JP might have a reasoned response with an ethic that it is ultimately ok for two people to have a civil disagreement. Contrast this to the Cathy Newman or Vice piece (or myriad campus protests) where a civil disagreement clearly isn’t enough - they had a consuming NEED to take JP down. And Peterson himself is good enough a polemicist and decent enough a human being that all those efforts repeatedly blow up in the leftists’ faces and propel his status even higher.

The Vice and Channel 4 interviews/attempted hatchet jobs come across as trying to tear him down, control the narrative and/or goad him into making a public image destroying statement (hence the "so you're saying" of Cathy Newman)

Early on in the Brand video, Russell clearly identifies the original Peterson/Trans/Free Speech issue that propelled Peterson to the mainstream WAS a free speech issue on the side of Peterson and wasn't born out of a hatred/ignorance of Trans people, like Cathy Newman/Channel 4 in particular tried to paint it out as.

I disagree with Brand's politics, especially in his demonisation of capitalism, western civilisation and colonialism, but he was at least willing to listen to Petersons arguments and offer his own counter whilst keeping it cordial.

Judging from the comments, This interview seems to have woken even more people up to JBP's ACTUAL opinions rather than the opinions Vice/Channel 4/Huffington Post etc., would like people to believe he holds, and that's always a good thing.

 

[Bamboozled]

I'm about half an hour in and Brand has been far better in this interview than the mess he made out of trying to debate Sam Harris. Seems more interested in exploring JBPs ideas so far.

This started out as a train wreck because it seemed like Brand was trying to figure out Peterson instead of having Peterson explain to him his stance. Once he took the emphasis off of what Jordan is and used himself Jordan used it as a teaching moment and I think the end result was pretty good.

 

[splendica]

We don't need women in the workplace at all.

In fact, I myself, without exaggerating, can probably put hundreds of women out of a job. Not because I'm a male, or because I'm particularly talented, but because I can program and repair and maintain modern machines and software.

The future is one where machines allow us to begin to think about what is convenient and comfortable for us, and will inevitably allow us to critically evaluate everything that is not convenient and comfortable.

Women and men trying to co-exist together while having to make certain compromises about their living standards, their sexuality, their liberty of expression, is one idea that might end up being tossed into the trash can of history, once we move over the phase where a mass number of people are required to labour incessantly to uphold capitalist economy. The only reason why we struggle to uphold the current structure, is because of that very fact. Not because it is moral or because it is convenient to the men or women. But because currently, it is necessary.

These so-called fascists of yours, are merely the flip side of the same coin, that we call progressivism. They are men who think of themselves, who use all means to self-empower, and want to enjoy their existence as much as possible, while critically evaluating everything that inconveniences them. No differently from identity groups on the left. They are all the same, and they are all a part of this same progression towards a future where we can all exist in a bubble of comfort, free of our "enemies", free of anything that hinders our comfortable existence, enabled by machinery.

The critical theory of the left applies on both sides, not only against white men and patriarchy, but for them. These so-called "fascists" have merely taken up the narrative on the left, and used it for their own empowerment.

I work with 2 women in the tech/Engineering sector of my company. They are, with no exaggeration the worst of the 25 or so in the department. They never take on anything with a a shred of risk and oddly the men of the department pick up the slack by habit and whatever other psychological reasons. The one women is 52 and has been with the company for nearly 30 years. Her work ethic is trash, her ability to handle stress is trash, and she does the bare minimum. The second woman is in her late thirties and has been with the company only about 3 years but is carbon copy to the first only quite a bit younger. Neither feel any fear about losing their jobs or performing at a high level, not like the men I work with do. Plus, both of their husbands work so they use their good incomes on whims more than anything: trips, frivolous spending, gambling etc.

 

[TheGreatA]

Wow you are serous, didn't mean to offend you .A lot of your Points seems to me being personal opinions that I simply disagree on.

No offense has been taken.

All I'm saying is that you probably shouldn't assume too much. Your posts tend to lend a lot of their weight, based on these assumptions.

For example, I might not be as serious as you think.

Feel free to make suggestions about what type of a person I am, it would only be interesting to me.

How should I know? I don't generally judge or make assumptions about people based on random conversations on the internet, unless I'm on the losing end of them.

Im sure living in my bubble and working with women works just fine for me and my colleges. Im only suggestion is that maybe you also living in a bubble.

Yes indeed, that is what you were suggesting. That is why I suggested that you, too, live in a bubble. Now you see how pointless that argument truly is.

"There is this tendency among a lot of people, to impose systems on others, and then wonder why nobody wants to jump on the ship that they've built, that's heading towards an iceberg. Any system that produces as many unhappy, frustrated, infertile, irresponsible, socially inept and outcast people, as ours, is a system that I ultimately cannot subscribe to. Thus, I've become its critic. There must be some enormous problems with it, if these people are its Products"

How do you come to this conclusion? Was people happier 100 years ago?

I think the people 100 years ago, if given access to all of our technological advancement and the resulting social welfare, would've been happier, yes. "Progress" has made us lose sight of a lot of what was important. We've taken too much for granted. That is why a period of "re-evaluation" about our current direction, is necessary.

 

[Bullitt68]

I haven't had time to post in here for a while, but for those of you who have seen/have weighed-in on that Vice interview, I thought you might be interested in this if you haven't already seen it: