This commentary got provoked by this video:
Incredible dishonest cutting & editing of Jordan Petersons Vice interview -todoke, 2018-02-24
The content of the video is an interview of Jordan Peterson conducted by VICE news. They heavily edited the original interview, and the uploader has put in commendable effort to show us exactly what they edited out, with a direct before-after comparison.
My comment sprang from an assertion made by the interviewer, which in itself ran counter to his overall argument. And yes, my ending line IS a frustration point for me.
10:10 : "You know it when you see it" >> So you agree that it is subjective. Now what if different people happen to "know" it at different times? What if the woman dressing and/or behaving provocatively in the workplace manages to fool herself into believing she isn't doing so but her colleagues think she does? If her right to "know it when I see it" is valid, why isn't anyone else's? Conversely, what if the woman is "feeling" that her colleague is desiring her but the thought has never crossed the colleague's mind? Don't women like being seen, like other people getting attracted to them? Doesn't a significant part of their self-worth assessment come from whether they got noticed that day? Haven't women confessed inasmuch in candid times? Isn't our culture and literature replete with that longing? What if a mistaken brush by the body is interpreted by this woman, who's on the lookout for confirming cues, as a confirmation that the colleague IS trying to get at her? Speaking of which, why do women even think that circumstantial physical contact is a viable tactic for men to wriggle their way into their pants, as opposed to a formal proposal for a date? Could it be because they have been complicit in that? [Addendum: Could it be because that's what THEY have been doing, are used to and hence expect it of others?] Could it be because they have been favouring men directly making physical contact and "wriggling in" at the "right opportunity" over and above men respectfully approaching and making a formal proposal?
Addendum: Do you want a harmonious workplace that's safe for both sexes instead of only one? Then imagine a world where women get turned OFF by men who deliberately touch them and try to wriggle their way into their pants. Imagine living in a world where immoral and opportunistic behaviour hasn't consistently been rewarded by women.
And.. here's another comment that came out after finishing watching the video:
Dear Feminsts and SJWs, Jordan Peterson's core argument is : WE DON'T KNOW enough yet to be able to slam ARBITRARY RULES with disastrous real life consequences in workplaces and campuses and dictate from on top what is and isn't sexual harassment. Your position is : You are CERTAIN that each and everything you deem to be harassment and microaggressions is exactly that, depending on only YOUR subjective perspectives. And you are demanding that each and every thing you have claimed be absolutely overturned, else each and every thing you have claimed is absolutely true. You have taken an all-or-nothing extremist stance whereas rational dialogue is all about rejecting the all-or-nothing stance and getting into nuance and specifics. If you don't budge from your extremist stances, you're going to end up with nothing. Workplaces will STOP HIRING WOMEN, period. This is how you will accomplish White Sharia : an absolute division of society along gender lines.
And another:
The top-down application of ruthless laws that have the potential of destroying the lives of innocents, versus allowing society room and time to reason its way through the complex situation [and the rules stick to basics where there IS consensus]. Straight-jacketing versus evolution. That's what this culture war is about, that's what the resistance to militant feminism is about. It's not about legitimizing oppression of females as the SJWs are putting it.
Addendum: Do you want a harmonious workplace that's safe for both sexes instead of only one? Then imagine a world where women get turned OFF by men who deliberately touch them and try to wriggle their way into their pants. Imagine living in a world where immoral and opportunistic behaviour hasn't consistently been rewarded by women.
And.. here's another comment that came out after finishing watching the video:
Dear Feminsts and SJWs, Jordan Peterson's core argument is : WE DON'T KNOW enough yet to be able to slam ARBITRARY RULES with disastrous real life consequences in workplaces and campuses and dictate from on top what is and isn't sexual harassment. Your position is : You are CERTAIN that each and everything you deem to be harassment and microaggressions is exactly that, depending on only YOUR subjective perspectives. And you are demanding that each and every thing you have claimed be absolutely overturned, else each and every thing you have claimed is absolutely true. You have taken an all-or-nothing extremist stance whereas rational dialogue is all about rejecting the all-or-nothing stance and getting into nuance and specifics. If you don't budge from your extremist stances, you're going to end up with nothing. Workplaces will STOP HIRING WOMEN, period. This is how you will accomplish White Sharia : an absolute division of society along gender lines.
And another:
The top-down application of ruthless laws that have the potential of destroying the lives of innocents, versus allowing society room and time to reason its way through the complex situation [and the rules stick to basics where there IS consensus]. Straight-jacketing versus evolution. That's what this culture war is about, that's what the resistance to militant feminism is about. It's not about legitimizing oppression of females as the SJWs are putting it.
