President Trump & the USA

[urban.spaceman]

 

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

At least point out that SD is a parody account - the video in question was taken from the Douglas school shooting this past February.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Milo is cack anyway.

Best he steps aside and leaves the arguments he likes to get into to the serious right leaning polemicists like Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray.

They could win elections, Milo couldn't. 

Murray labels himself a neo-con, Peterson doesn't see himself as right or right-leaning - maybe in parts, but certainly not in general. He's more centrist, and probably closer to a liberal in the classic sense, sometimes erring on the side of libertarianism even.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Murray labels himself a neo-con, Peterson doesn't see himself as right or right-leaning - maybe in parts, but certainly not in general. He's more centrist, and probably closer to a liberal in the classic sense, sometimes erring on the side of libertarianism even.

Spot on that to be honest.

Liberal means something very different now depending on what continent or country the term is. Happily withdraw my comment.

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

At least point out that SD is a parody account - the video in question was taken from the Douglas school shooting this past February.

I'd hope that anyone with a hint of sanity would realise that it is right away tbh.

That being said, Trump hasn't said much about this latest one - I wonder why?

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Murray labels himself a neo-con, Peterson doesn't see himself as right or right-leaning - maybe in parts, but certainly not in general. He's more centrist, and probably closer to a liberal in the classic sense, sometimes erring on the side of libertarianism even.

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Spot on that to be honest.

Liberal means something very different now depending on what continent or country the term is. Happily withdraw my comment.

Yeah, this is a discussion that could be done for days and everyone would have a different opinion, due to exactly what Matt says in the second sentence. Shows how difficult and foolhardy a practice political compassing can be.

I have my own issues with both Murray and Peterson concerning womens issues/misogyny, but they're different in many regards to your garden-variety social conservative.

[urban.spaceman]

49 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

At least point out that SD is a parody account - the video in question was taken from the Douglas school shooting this past February.

It's a parody account btw.

[Carl the Llama]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd hope that anyone with a hint of sanity would realise that it is right away tbh.

That being said, Trump hasn't said much about this latest one - I wonder why?

 

Yeah, this is a discussion that could be done for days and everyone would have a different opinion, due to exactly what Matt says in the second sentence. Shows how difficult and foolhardy a practice political compassing can be.

I have my own issues with both Murray and Peterson concerning womens issues/misogyny, but they're different in many regards to your garden-variety social conservative.

Now there's something to unpack. What has Jordan Peterson done that classes as misogynistic? I know he's a bit of an inspiration for many from the mgtow/incel crowd and I've seen a lot of mainstream sources calling him a hero of the alt right (because he spoke out against mandatory speech laws) but from what I've seen of him actually talking for himself those people are misinterpreting his words.

[MC Prussian]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'd hope that anyone with a hint of sanity would realise that it is right away tbh.

That being said, Trump hasn't said much about this latest one - I wonder why?

Because he's under threat from left, right and center. And somewhere, somehow, I'm sure there's another backstabber just around the block.

Too busy having to take care of an exit strategy, no more time to discuss current topics. Guy's having a hard enough time to fence off any more incriminating revelations as it is.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Now there's something to unpack. What has Jordan Peterson done that classes as misogynistic? I know he's a bit of an inspiration for many from the mgtow/incel crowd and I've seen a lot of mainstream sources calling him a hero of the alt right (because he spoke out against mandatory speech laws) but from what I've seen of him actually talking for himself those people are misinterpreting his words.

Well, the primary thing is that he has espoused "enforced monogamy" ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html ) as a means of stopping "incels" and other guys who believe they're entitled to women stop shooting places up and seems to venerate the 50's household as an ideal social model for everyone...that seems pretty misogynist to me.

"When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable."

There's more on it in the article itself.

 

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Because he's under threat from left, right and center. And somewhere, somehow, I'm sure there's another backstabber just around the block.

Too busy having to take care of an exit strategy, no more time to discuss current topics. Guy's having a hard enough time to fence off any more incriminating revelations as it is.

Then he should have thought about that before running for the job. That's what being a statesman is.

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, the primary thing is that he has espoused "enforced monogamy" ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/style/jordan-peterson-12-rules-for-life.html ) as a means of stopping "incels" and other guys who believe they're entitled to women stop shooting places up and seems to venerate the 50's household as an ideal social model for everyone...that seems pretty misogynist to me.

"When Mr. Peterson talks about good women — the sort a man would want to marry — he often uses these words: conscientious and agreeable."

There's more on it in the article itself.

Peterson himself discussed his experience with Nellie Bowles (the author) in an interview online at some stage. He wouldn't go into much detail, but from what I remember, he claimed that she gave him a more sympathetic or understanding vibe during the interview, then went the opposite direction with the piece she wrote.

Here's more on that:

Seems to me Ms. Bowles has her own little agenda...

She did something similar in an interview with Steve Jobs' daughter recently, portraying him as some kind of a male monster.

Edited 27 August 2018 by MC Prussian

[Milo]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Milo is cack anyway

?

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Now there's something to unpack. What has Jordan Peterson done that classes as misogynistic? 

Basically used fact, evidence and logic to show how ridiculous it is to claim that the sexes can be equalled through social engineering, no matter how much those intent on doing it want to do so.

In addition to that used fact, evidence and logic to show up a female reporter in that brilliant Cathy Newman interview. 

A terrible man.

[leicsmac]

25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Peterson himself discussed his experience with Nellie Bowles (the author) in an interview online at some stage. He wouldn't go into much detail, but from what I remember, he claimed that she gave him a more sympathetic or understanding vibe during the interview, then went the opposite direction with the piece she wrote.

Here's more on that:

Seems to me Ms. Bowles has her own little agenda...

She did something similar in an interview with Steve Jobs' daughter recently, portraying him as some kind of a male monster.

Interesting. He wouldn't be the first person to be hit pieced, but then many a true word is taken out of context too.

My own subjective view remains the same: that he could well hold views that are misogynist and at the very least what he says appeals to VERY certain misogynists.

 

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Basically used fact, evidence and logic to show how ridiculous it is to claim that the sexes can be equalled through social engineering, no matter how much those intent on doing it want to do so.

In addition to that used fact, evidence and logic to show up a female reporter in that brilliant Cathy Newman interview. 

A terrible man.

Does it follow from this first paragraph that enforced traditional gender roles are a good thing then?

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Does it follow from this first paragraph that enforced traditional gender roles are a good thing then?

Well no, why would it?

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Interesting. He wouldn't be the first person to be hit pieced, but then many a true word is taken out of context too.

My own subjective view remains the same: that he could well hold views that are misogynist and at the very least what he says appeals to VERY certain misogynists.

We are digressing from the main subject here again.

In short, Peterson simply quotes studies on marriage done in the past few decades which state that marriage acts as a remedy for men in general, as married men are less likely to be violent, ferocious or dangerous to society as opposed to single (heterosexual) men constantly competing with each other for women on the relationship carousel.

I‘m not sure how you can dispute that or read anything misogynistic into this, unless you‘re a (hardcore) feminist... and/or lesbian.

Which Nellie Bowles is:

Quote

"I'm a lesbian from San Francisco. I'm not a men's rights activist," Bowles says

https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/06/15/watch-new-york-times-tech-reporter-nellie-bowles-says-startups-dont-think-enough-about-their-cultural-impact/.

 

 

Edited 27 August 2018 by MC Prussian

[urban.spaceman]

55 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Peterson himself discussed his experience with Nellie Bowles (the author) in an interview online at some stage. He wouldn't go into much detail, but from what I remember, he claimed that she gave him a more sympathetic or understanding vibe during the interview, then went the opposite direction with the piece she wrote.

Here's more on that:

Seems to me Ms. Bowles has her own little agenda...

She did something similar in an interview with Steve Jobs' daughter recently, portraying him as some kind of a male monster.

There was also a heavily edited interview with Vice in which he was credited as saying some misogynistic things, yet there's also a "clean" edit in which he was actually saying it hypothetically rather than sincerely...

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Peterson himself discussed his experience with Nellie Bowles (the author) in an interview online at some stage. He wouldn't go into much detail, but from what I remember, he claimed that she gave him a more sympathetic or understanding vibe during the interview, then went the opposite direction with the piece she wrote.

Here's more on that:

Seems to me Ms. Bowles has her own little agenda...

She did something similar in an interview with Steve Jobs' daughter recently, portraying him as some kind of a male monster.

Frightening how they can do this to people. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Well no, why would it?

Fair enough, I would think that believing the sexes cannot be equalled would imply also that as a result that there are roles that should be stuck to, but I might be wrong on that.

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

We are digressing from the main subject here again.

In short, Peterson simply quotes studies on marriage done in the past few decades which state that marriage acts as a remedy for men in general, as married men are less likely to be violent, ferocious or dangerous to society as opposed to single (heterosexual) men constantly competing with each other for women on the relationship carousel.

I‘m not sure how you can dispute that or read anything misogynistic into this, unless you‘re a (hardcore) feminist.

 

 

That's fair enough and I've no doubt those studies has truth to them, but it then rather begs the question as to why exactly the onus should be on women to attach themselves to men in the form of marriage rather than men take responsibility for their own actions re violence?

Perhaps that expectation that women should do the work in this case because men aren't inclined to is itself misogynistic?

Edit: and yes, to remain on topic I repeat what I said earlier: if Trump can't stand the heat of dealing with the mass shooting problem in the US then perhaps he should never have ventured into the kitchen.

Edited 27 August 2018 by leicsmac

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough, I would think that believing the sexes cannot be equalled would imply also that as a result that there are roles that should be stuck to, but I might be wrong on that.

That's fair enough and I've no doubt those studies has truth to them, but it then rather begs the question as to why exactly the onus should be on women to attach themselves to men in the form of marriage rather than men take responsibility for their own actions re violence?

Perhaps that expectation that women should do the work in this case because men aren't inclined to is itself misogynistic?

You're somewhat meddling with two separate topics. And let's not forget women can be violent, too. They just don't use the same force as men do, and come up with different tactics (gossiping, verbal attacks).

Who says the onus is on women? I haven't seen anybody coming up with these claims - apart from feminists and/or lesbians. Which are both very much minorities in the grand scheme of things.

You could ask a thousand women and a vast majority of them would concur, as well.

In reality, men are the ones competing for women, because by nature, more men than women are born on average (105 men to every 100 women).

Why women should favour marriage? Because it's a bloody nightmare having a child and being a single (female) parent? In an open relationship, both man and woman can sleep around as they like, with little to no repercussions. If you don't like it, you simply split. Having a child changes it all - for the disadvantage of women. Because men can simply vanish, denying all responsibility (no legal bindings). Women are left with picking up the pieces, trying to lead a relatively happy life, despite all the weight on their fragile shoulders. I have a few of these examples in my circle of friends. And I suppose everybody does. It's hard for the women affected not to become bitter about their situation. The best they then can hope for is finding a single man who is understanding (or naïve) enough to support a family with a child that isn't his own. Well...

Married men, however, clearly need to be more cautious - because a divorce isn't particularly lucrative in financial terms for them. Married women, however, at least have that safety.

 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

You're somewhat meddling with two separate topics. And let's not forget women can be violent, too. They just don't use the same force as men do, and come up with different tactics (gossiping, verbal attacks).

 

 

 

Interesting debate, this. I'll try to address each part in turn.

You're absolutely right that words can carry as much weight as a blow in the right situation that a punch can, and some women are better at it than many men. That, however, doesn't change the balance of power in practically all decision-making in places all over the world.

15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

Who says the onus is on women? I haven't seen anybody coming up with these claims - apart from feminists and/or lesbians. Which are both very much minorities in the grand scheme of things.

You could ask a thousand women and a vast majority of them would concur, as well.

 

1

Come on, it doesn't even need to be said, the implication is as clear as the nose on your face. If you state that men have a propensity for violence, ferocity and danger that can be tempered by marriage and you propose that as one of the only or clearest solutions to the problem, the obvious implication is that women should do that duty rather than follow their own free will in order to solve the problem. Not acknowledging that is blatantly disingenuous for anyone vaguely educated on the matter.

I'm sure a lot of women like the idea of settling down with a husband and good for them - I'm glad they'll be happy with doing it, but I'm really not on board with (and here's that term again) "enforced monogamy", even if the enforcement isn't mandated by law and is merely snide asides from those who "know better".

27 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

In reality, men are the ones competing for women, because by nature, more men than women are born on average (105 men to every 100 women).

 

 

I honestly don't like appeals to nature. Extinction is a really natural thing, should we be encouraging that?

If anything, we should be looking to get over our natural tribal instincts if we intend to survive long-term.

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Why women should favour marriage? Because it's a bloody nightmare having a child and being a single (female) parent? In an open relationship, both man and woman can sleep around as they like, with little to no repercussions. If you don't like it, you simply split. Having a child changes it all - for the disadvantage of women. Because men can simply vanish, denying all responsibility (no legal bindings). Women are left with picking up the pieces, trying to lead a relatively happy life, despite all the weight on their fragile shoulders. I have a few of these examples in my circle of friends. And I suppose everybody does. It's hard for the women affected not to become bitter about their situation. The best they then can hope for is finding a single man who is understanding (or naïve) enough to support a family with a child that isn't his own. Well...

Married men, however, clearly need to be more cautious - because a divorce isn't particularly lucrative in financial terms for them. Married women, however, at least have that safety.

 

2

I certainly agree that having a child changes matters to the disadvantage of women for the reasons you specify.

However, I might posit that a better solution to that is offering better options for independence for single parents, rather than pushing marriage and the nuclear family as the be all and end all of bringing up children.

[MC Prussian]

@leicsmac  - we're vastly digressing now and should either stop it here or open a new thread altogether. Just for the sanity of others.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

@leicsmac  - we're vastly digressing now and should either stop it here or open a new thread altogether. Just for the sanity of others.

That's fair enough mate

On topic, McCain with a little barb from beyond the grave: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45323772

And a rather sad tale all round, though hardly the first or the last of its type: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45323933

[Wymsey]

Trump won't be attending John McCain's funeral.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45323772

[Captain...]

 

15 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

In reality, men are the ones competing for women, because by nature, more men than women are born on average (105 men to every 100 women).

Whilst kinda true, women live longer and men have a higher chance of dying young in America.

The actual stats from 2010:

Sex ratios

As of 2010:

At birth: 1.048 male or female

Under 15 years: 1.04 male or female

15–64 years: 1 male or female

65 years and over: 0.75 male or female

Total population: 0.97 male or female

 

The idea that men are competing for women is pretty outdated, we don't live in a rutting stag survival of the fittest world. There could 100 women to every guy, but if that guy is a bellend they are not going to marry and or sleep with them. I agree that a healthy marriage and a stable relationship and family is very important to the emotional and mental health of someone, but it is not a right it is something that is earned by showing that you can be a good husband, father, human being. Also read wife, mother human being as the same goes for women. The problems occur when the scumbag guy and the scumbag girl find they have no other  choices and are pressurised by the societal norms to find a partner, get married, have kids and end up with each other. A marriage is not automatically a healthy, stable and loving institution because they said a few words and signed a bit of paper. Bad marriages can be even more damaging than never having any relationship.

 

There is no one hit fix to anything and to propose one is dangerous and to sell the myth that marriage or or sex or religion or anything else will fix you is very damaging. 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

It is becoming more and more apparent that every time he makes a speech, Trump is more concerned about himself, than he is about the American people, and America itself. His transparent lack of tact and fact, oozes from his naivety, over the most simplistic issues. This guy is definitely a dangerous moron. God help America!