Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

Did you forget about Afghanistan then while you were trying to defend the liberal use of a brush?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120123]Genuine question The tennants of islam hold onto beliefs that subjugate women, this is a fundamental component of the religion, and it isn't "Islmaphobic" of me to talk about the actual scripture of the dogma. His take on it may be stupid but it's a genuine question that isn't being answered. I don't think his answer is correct, but why is there a protection of islam and their culture over others in the modern western world? Even criticizing the religion can land someone in the hot water of "islamaphobia" by just expressing dissent against a pretty bad religion.[/QUOTE] did the point of my post really miss your head that much or are you just taking the opportunity to start an argument in bad faith (no pun intended) about something entirely unrelated The question he posed is not ignorant because of his completely incorrect assertion about how we're apparently not allowed to talk about Islam, but rather it's sexist and short minded one that all feminists are actually just bratty women who haven't been fucked enough by masculine manly men.

[QUOTE=Streecer;53120153]did the point of my post really miss your head that much or are you just taking the opportunity to start an argument in bad faith (no pun intended) about something entirely unrelated The question he posed is not ignorant because of his completely incorrect assertion about how we're apparently not allowed to talk about Islam, but rather it's sexist and short minded one that all feminists are actually just bratty women who haven't been fucked enough by masculine manly men.[/QUOTE] The question he posed is all i'm interested in. His own "answer" to his question doens't matter to me, and and I do think he's in the wrong for stating that. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120151]Did you forget about Afghanistan then while you were trying to defend the liberal use of a brush?[/QUOTE] Do you need me to write a dissertation on how it's the west fault that Islam never made the progressive leap that christianity did for you to not be a snarky ass? Apparently so.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120158] Do you need me to write a dissertation on how it's the west fault that Islam never made the progressive leap that christianity did for you to not be a snarky ass? [/QUOTE] No, I need you to sit back and realize that you're missing the original claim in question because the word 'islam' appeared. You're so blinded by that word that you've missed the entire point of the post and instead of drug back in this God Damn argument about Islam which is about as similar as if I had asked 'What about Feminism'. This has nothing to do with his hack theories, his lack of research and most importantly fetishistic tendency to make incredibly edgy claims and then use word salad to back them up. You've only helped further muddy the thread because you're so busy trying to drag that god damn word in. His claim is that feminism, secretly, wants to be dominated by patriarchy. That feminists somehow find it everywhere because they get off on it, they get wet between their legs thinking of being oppressed. You can slide Islam out for anything else and you'll get the same question. He uses the word Islam because it easily blinds people.

Putting aside how disingenuous it is to claim that feminists avoid criticizing Islam, I just always assumed it was because feminist movements almost exclusively exist in western liberal democracies where Islam has had absolutely zero influence on the political or social culture.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120184]No, I need you to sit back and realize that you're missing the original claim in question because the word 'islam' appeared. You're so blinded by that word that you've missed the entire point of the post and instead of drug back in this God Damn argument about Islam which is about as similar as if I had asked 'What about Feminism'. This has nothing to do with his hack theories, his lack of research and most importantly fetishistic tendency to make incredibly edgy claims and then use word salad to back them up. You've only helped further muddy the thread because you're so busy trying to drag that god damn word in. His claim is that feminism, secretly, wants to be dominated by patriarchy. That feminists somehow find it everywhere because they get off on it, they get wet between their legs thinking of being oppressed. You can slide Islam out for anything else and you'll get the same question. He uses the word Islam because it easily blinds people.[/QUOTE] And I would reject that claim and say he's wrong about that. This isn't about being blinded by a word. This is about people looking at different aspects of the same thing. You get very irate and frustrated that I didn't focus on what you wanted me to focus on.

Ontop of that, they have zero influence in nations of Islam, why spend manpower on a place that will just block everything you say when you could better spend that bettering lives for people around you? Further, Islam, just like Judiasm, is now used as a dog whistle for Right Right and Neo-Nazi groups. The 'Muslims' may as well be in conjunction with 'the Jews'.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53120185]Putting aside how disingenuous it is to claim that feminists avoid criticizing Islam, I just always assumed it was because feminist movements almost exclusively exist in western liberal democracies where Islam has had absolutely zero influence on the political or social culture.[/QUOTE] Specifically in regards to his arguments revolving around the vague language in bill c-16 there's clearly some influence that he's worried about. It's unfortunate he's a nut who says truly stupid things because he has valid points that then get buried and even bringing up that someone has a valid point in that context in our current atmosphere amounts to being a vile caricature from someones imagination.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120188]And I would reject that claim and say he's wrong about that. This isn't about being blinded by a word. This is about people looking at different aspects of the same thing. You get very irate and frustrated that I didn't focus on what you wanted me to focus on.[/QUOTE] That's cool and neat question to explore, but this isn't the thread to do it. You've unintentionally followed exactly why he uses that word.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120190]Ontop of that, they have zero influence in nations of Islam, why spend manpower on a place that will just block everything you say when you could better spend that bettering lives for people around you? Further, Islam, just like Judiasm, is now used as a dog whistle for Right Right and Neo-Nazi groups. The 'Muslims' may as well be in conjunction with 'the Jews'.[/QUOTE] I feel so fucking estranged to you guys as a self avowed liberal who just happens to see different things than you, but rather than try and come to some common ground you just call me ignorant stupid and act like I want horrible realities that you don't. I don't. And the polarization at someone merely not being on your exact same page is fucking absurd.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53119458]I think it's quite clear what regrettable meant in that context, but out of everything I said thanks for nitpicking semantics to make me out as the monster I am. How [I]do[/I] I live with myself? Sometimes I wonder dude. You can find the full quote somewhere around 35min in this video [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM[/url] And then we can decide whether Peterson must be taken at face value or whether some extrapolation is allowed. It seems we need to conveniently switch between the two whenever he says some dumb bullshit.[/QUOTE] Wow, here's another gem, I'm not sure how else to interpret this: [Quote]The parameters for my resistance are quite well defined which is: We talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical... When men are talking to each other in any serious manner, that underlining threat of physicality is always there, especially if it's a real conversation, and keeps the thing civilized to some degree. If you're talking to a man who wouldn't fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you are talking to someone for whom you have absolutely no respect. [/Quote] So only discussions with people who are willing to get physical to prove their point are respectable? :what:

I...What? Why are you assuming that I hate you? Or any of us do? Because I sprinkled in curse words because I'm from fuckin' Philly?

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120210]I...What? Why are you assuming that I hate you? Or any of us do? Because I sprinkled in curse words because I'm from fuckin' Philly?[/QUOTE] No. I don't think you hate me. Your tone. How you convey literally any idea you've tried to convey to me. The amount of time people here on this very website complain about my fucking tone makes me very conscious of the effect that that has on these conversations. It's either "you agree with my logic, or you're an idiot" and there's no give to that when it's become an internalized "group" logic and it just kind of becomes a self enforcing thing.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120129]Christian Dogma also has those tenants. In most of the Bible, women are treated equally as cattle for Christ's sake. [/QUOTE] Why is it that people say this every time, as if that somehow makes it any better or different. We can't shit on one religion that's relevant to a conversation, no, we have to do it to all religions equally. Whataboutism tactics lad. These are completely different ideologies. [QUOTE=Raidyr;53120185]Putting aside how disingenuous it is to claim that feminists avoid criticizing Islam, I just always assumed it was because feminist movements almost exclusively exist in western liberal democracies where Islam has had absolutely zero influence on the political or social culture.[/QUOTE] I've not seen any feminists say it [I]personally[/I] but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison. These countries systematically oppress women and do it extremely openly. It doesn't matter that its Islam, they're still a Muslim/Arabic heavy population.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202]You're right, he's not my dad, but I agree with him on many things, and do not believe he is the "right wing evangelical sjw." you make him out to be[/quote] When I get back to my other computer, I can bring up my post I wrote to substantiate this. During gamergate we sort of defined sjws and he does a lot of the things that they did, and for the same reasons. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] The first point of criticism you offered was on his reaction to the Canadian "Islamophobia Bill". You present the bill as "a wish by Iqra Khalid to have the prime minister say "Islamophobia and racism is bad and we don't want more hate in the country" and then for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to make a study on how to reduce racism and religious discrimination." [/quote] Your post says that it is a bill, but it is a motion. That's why I described it as a wish. There's a big difference between the two since a motion is canada looking at something or saying it stands for something while a bill is canada actually doing something. This distinction unfortunately kinda kills your post which makes me feel bad that you spent so much time writing back but I'll still take the time in turn to respond. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9)[/quote] I agree with the way you phrased/understood this and you have not misrepresented me. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] His point in that video seems to be, primarily, that the word Islamophobia is, by itself, vaguely defined, and as such can potentially conceal a lot of different implicit ideological content.[/quote] Your response is a response to a bill that Jordan Peterson imagined where islamophobia is a thing we're going to use as a legal term, not a response to a motion to see what we can do to reduce discrimination, including islamophobia. It's not putting a nebulous term like islamophobia into law, it's a request for a study to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (CHPC) who are responsible, reasonable people. If the CHPC were unfair, unreasonable, extremely disingenuous and most importantly: a legislative body, it would be a good point. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202]Since Islamophobia has this status of unclear delimitation, and has not been officially defined as to exactly what actions and words would constitute such islamophobia, then his point in the video is to show that exactly the sort of edgy atheistic slurs that get hurled at Christian and Jewish sacredly held beliefs are seemingly unclearly legislated when it comes to Islam.[/quote] The delimitation we have in place right now allowed the comedy show Infoman on Radio Canada, one of our biggest TV channels to broadcast [B]ON NEW YEARS EVE[/B] a satirical ad for décapita-stop, the metal anti decapitation collar to save you from being beheaded after insulting islam. Nothing bad happened. The delimitation is fine as it is. This would actually be off-topic for m103 if Jordan Peterson wasn't here crying wolf. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202]This seems to be due to Islam having a specific word - Islamophobia. It is my belief that if this issue were addressed, and the explicitly brutal irreverance that has been shown to both Judaism and Christianity is allowed be shown to Islam, then Peterson would allow the [B]bill[/B]. He likes being very specific with his language and as such, when it comes to legal matters, it seems that he takes issue with the [B]law[/B] being so vague as to potentially make unclear the limits of criticism when it comes to Islam. The video in a nutshell is "Islamophobia is poorly defined - send the [B]bill[/B] back to the drawing board."[/quote] There is no bill. There is no law. There is a word for discrimination for judaism however, it's called antisemitism. There's also a word for the christian discrimination but I forgot it because that never happens here. Words like those gain prominence when it happens more. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] 1) As mentioned above, Peterson does not seem to be conflating so much as raising the issue of Islamophobia's vague definition. It is not clear whether those limits would be closer to one end of the spectrum, or the other. Certainly, the word Islamophobia seems to imply something over and above being a dick to religious people in general. It might appear to someone who is diligent about definition that this raises the question of "what's so special about Islam?"[/quote] In Canada, anti-muslim hate crime has seen a year-to-year rise in 2015, 2014. A symbolic gesture and a study into why it's happening is necessary. Add in Alexandre Bissonette shooting up a mosque and we would be fools to look at statistics like: [url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hate-crimes-muslims-statscan-1.4158042]Hate crimes against Muslims in Canada up 60%, StatsCan reports[/url] without doing anything. [img]https://i.cbc.ca/1.4158204.1497363652!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/statistics-canada-hate-crimes-report-2015.jpg[/img] for 3,4,5 my answer is the same, he's railing against her for using the word islamophobia while she's proposing a study of why islamophobia happens. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] 5) This kind of ties into 4. Since the definition of acceptable 'shitting on Islam' vs 'Islamophobia' is undefined, and such a bill would [B]make Islamophobia a legally sanctioned thing[/B], then he is worried that at some point someone would mistake 'shitting on Islam' for 'Islamophobia' and feel the moral superiority that one feels when they punch a nazi - a criminal. [/quote] See again, your post was dead from the start, he's just plain wrong on this and you can't say otherwise, it's not a bill it's a motion. The text in the motion was available for all to see. There's no legal sanctions for this. We're barely at the stage where we've said it's bad. Also we have real laws to stop punching, punching someone is a punishable offense. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] 6) Coming back on the shitty artsy point, this video is clearly making a point about the acceptable things to say. When he clearly implies that he wants to say "This is a picture of Mohammad" or "Mohammad was a ____", but stops, and then later fully says the sentence "Is this a picture of Mohammad?", [B]he is giving away his legalistic tendency, which is what I've been arguing about him. He is looking at this through a highly legalistic lens[/B] and there is a logical difference between the statement "This is a picture of Mohammad" and the question. The question would still technically be allowed under Sharia, and he is playing with this highly restricted form of speech in the video in order to draw out that point.[/quote] There is no law aspect to this motion. Legality is not involved, just study. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] 7) Oh boy. So, for this one, you kinda need to put yourself in his philosophical mindset. He views the past as a dead blind thing that got us here thus far, but that we must go in and revitalize it in order to make it continue to work for us in the future. He identifies as christian, but his morals are anything but exclusively that. He seems to be making a chimera of a morality out of various mythologies which he has studied and critically thought about and transformed via his own views. This is what he means by going into the past and revitalizing it, and not being stuck by the embraces of the corpses of the past.[/quote] This is entirely subjective. If you're going to read into him like a diviner reads into entrails I can't really argue otherwise but I guess that goes both ways so I'll just let go of trying to grasp what he means to form arguments when he turns on philosophy mode. [QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119202] Well, to this I will point again to my assertion that this format of video is rare for him when generally they take the form of extremely specifically articulated definitions and lines of reasoning. The video was meant to make an artsy point about free speech and legalism in the face of vague definitions. It was not a good first video for you, not because it was wrong, but because it wasn't presented in the format which he excels in.[/quote] I guess Peterson is like the game of thrones series, you have to start with him from the very start where he rails against PC pronouns, the later seasons when he starts talking out his ass about motions, bills, laws etc are just terrible and you can't get into them unless you were convinced by the start. Overall your post kinda flopped because you made the same mistake as peterson, it doesn't square with reality. Sorry it came out so harsh but idk how else to say it. Since there's been so much time between my ancient cobweb-covered post and the present day, the motion's Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage part came to its conclusion: [url]http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/news-release/9622839[/url] [url]http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/report-10/[/url] [quote]The Committee heard differing views on the use of the term Islamophobia. The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of the term is: Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.[64][/quote] We now have a definition of islamophobia, [i]which apparently we had all along[/I]. If I'd known that back then I'd have made a more effective post because not only does his argument about m103 fall flat on its face when confronted with the reality that this isn't a law, [B]his central argument is gone, there is a definition. It removes all of your concerns written above about the "law"[/B]. Here are other salient parts of the study: [quote]Public education and awareness: the Plan notes that the targeted education and awareness initiatives will be developed to increase awareness of systemic racism and how it impacts people. According to the Plan, these initiatives will focus on anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and others form of racism against racialized groups such as Sikhs.[/quote] We now either have to *ugh* have a conversation about how blacks will impose their laws on us, first nations will impose their laws on us, jews will impose their laws on us and on top of that muslims will impose their laws on us or we can reconcile with the fact that this isn't what's happening. [quote]1.4.3 Islamophobia A number of witnesses provided different definitions of the term, such as: “an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam that leads to discrimination;”[65] “anti-Muslim discrimination or hate;”[66] “a criticizing or scathing negative opinion that might directly or indirectly cause humiliation or damage to the reputation and or incite to hatred and to violence against a person or a group of persons for the only reason that they are of Muslim faith;”[67]“extends from ‘a fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims’ to acknowledge that these attitudes develop into individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that shore up specific power relations;”[68] “anti-Muslim hate;”[69] and “the irrational fear or hatred of Muslims.”[70][/quote] Everyone seems to be on the same page about islamophobia except what I assume are conservatives or peterson's fans in the media I don't want to look them up. [quote] Some witnesses disagreed with the use of the term. Michael Motsyn, Chief Executive Officer of B'nai Brith Canada, noted that the unclear definition of the term could create tension between communities. He said: The committee's work and its outcome must exercise great care in any definition of Islamophobia, if indeed any is attempted. Any definition that is vague and imprecise, that is embraced by one community but not all, or that catalyzes emotion or irrational debate on scope and meaning can by hijacked and only inflame tensions between and among faith communities in Canada and detract from the committee's objective.[71] Ali Rizvi, author, also noted that the term may have a negative impact on the Muslim community as a whole. He stated: The word “Islamophobia” is an umbrella term that also conflates legitimate criticism of Islam—as is being done by many of my fellow liberals and secular activists trying to change our societies in the Muslim world—with the demonization of Muslims, which is obviously wrong.[72] Raheel Raza, President of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, mentioned that she believed the use of the term could also limit freedom of expression. She held: I believe, though, that using the word “Islamophobia”—let me be very clear—in the motion will curtail free speech, because no other ethnic community or religious community is mentioned by name in the motion except Islamophobia.[73][/quote] Overall you did a good job of understanding me, understanding Jordan Peterson but you didn't really understand m103.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120218] I've not seen any feminists say it [I]personally[/I] but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison. These countries systematically oppress women and do it extremely openly. It doesn't matter that its Islam, they're still a Muslim/Arabic heavy population.[/QUOTE] Issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison but thats where feminists live and work. That's where they can have the most political effect. Why would a feminist who lives in America, or Canada, or the UK, who thinks these countries have problems with women in society, bother talking about Iran, Afghanistan, or Pakistan? What effect could they possibly have on these countries? And why is it seen as more likely that these feminists actually agree with tenets of Islam that endorse or allow for misogyny? Honestly after re-reading your post it doesn't even feel like you really read mine because I never stated that issues in Muslim countries regarding misogyny don't pale in comparison nor talked about Islam really at all beyond the fact that it has no power or influence in countries where feminism is prevalent.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120218] but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison. These countries systematically oppress women and do it extremely openly. It doesn't matter that its Islam, they're still a Muslim/Arabic heavy population.[/QUOTE] Why only focus on Muslim countries in that case though? Have you seen how women get treated in India? China? Huge parts of Africa that are home to various non-Muslims? Or how about North Korea, Various Latin American countries, even Eastern European? Women get treated like absolute shit all over the world. I mean, how many people cared that Trump, leader of the free world, boasted about sexually assaulting women? Pretty much no one as it had zero effect on the election and whenever feminists try attacking him over it people just say "WHAT ABOUT ISLAMIC COUNTRIES!". It's just hip to shit on Muslims right now which is why they get targeted, despite the fact women get raped to death with rods in India but because they are cool Hindu people it's all good. Even JAPAN, one of the most highly regarded countries in the world, can have some serious issues towards women.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120218]Why is it that people say this every time, as if that somehow makes it any better or different. We can't shit on one religion that's relevant to a conversation, no, we have to do it to all religions equally. Whataboutism tactics lad. These are completely different ideologies. I've not seen any feminists say it [I]personally[/I] but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison. These countries systematically oppress women and do it extremely openly. It doesn't matter that its Islam, they're still a Muslim/Arabic heavy population.[/QUOTE] His use of Islam is almost always in response used as a whataboutism. What are you talking about?

[QUOTE=GrizzlyBear;53120266]Why only focus on Muslim countries in that case though? Have you seen how women get treated in India? China? Huge parts of Africa that are home to various non-Muslims? Or [B]how about[/B] North Korea, Various Latin American countries, even Eastern European? Women get treated like absolute shit all over the world. I mean, how many people cared that Trump, leader of the free world, boasted about sexually assaulting women? Pretty much no one as it had zero effect on the election and whenever feminists try attacking him over it people just say "WHAT ABOUT ISLAMIC COUNTRIES!". It's just hip to shit on Muslims right now which is why they get targeted, despite the fact women get raped to death with rods in India but because they are cool Hindu people it's all good. Even JAPAN, one of the most highly regarded countries in the world, can have some serious issues towards women.[/QUOTE] Literally in the same post I say [QUOTE]Why is it that people say this every time, as if that somehow makes it any better or different. We can't shit on one religion that's relevant to a conversation, no, we have to do it to all religions equally. Whataboutism tactics lad. These are completely different ideologies.[/QUOTE] Applies to regions as well. Yes, you can critic those regions/groups/religions as well. But criticizing or "focusing" on one doesn't mean you don't care about those as well. It doesn't make those less valid because you only talk about one. All those regions have different issues and different reasons for being the way they are. Oppression isn't universal. North Korea and Arabic countries, China, are radically different from one another, and fit into a broader context. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120272]His use of Islam is almost always in response used as a whataboutism. What are you talking about?[/QUOTE] So we respond to whataboutism with more whataboutism uhhh

There's no proper way to argue against whataboutism because you either ask "what about" and create an opening for a poisoned well arguement or you respond with bringing in an equal subject. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] That's what makes it so powerful.

But western feminists have very, very little sway on those countries. If they shift the focus away from their local communities, they quickly lose ground and focus. They can't fight every battle at once and it's best to spend your time focusing on the most relevant ones to you before moving on. As someone who's disgusted at how the Tories treat the working class and vulnerable in my country, I also realize that the poor in countries like India and Brazil have it MUCH worse and I would obviously love to see them treated more humanely, but I have zero say on how those countries operate. I do with mine with my vote and voice, It'll not only be pointless for me to bring those groups up, it'll be counter productive since all I'm really doing is defending the Tories. Feminists tend to believe in a global sisterhood, where women worldwide unite to fight together so I'm sure western feminists do care deeply about the treatment of women in those places, after all many of them look up to Malala as a hero and idol. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] Also for what it's worth, I think you are a cool guy J!NX, but I believe Jordan doesn't actually care about how women get treated in those countries, he, like some on the right, bring them up to shift the blame on minorities within his country. That's why he doesn't shift the blame to the treatment of women worldwide.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120218]but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison.[/QUOTE] ^ [QUOTE]Whataboutism tactics lad.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120218]but it would be pretty doublethink to be a feminist and not be critical of what some of the more vicious Muslim countries do, when issues in Western liberal countries pale in comparison. These countries systematically oppress women and do it extremely openly. It doesn't matter that its Islam, they're still a Muslim/Arabic heavy population.[/QUOTE] If this was a convincing argument then the same could be leveled against jordan peterson himself as he describes himself as a free speech activist but would rather talk about tiny things in canada rather than palestinian press being silenced, russian opposition disappearing, poland censoring and shutting down a museum exposition that talks about poland's involvement in the holocaust rather than leaving it at "german death camps" etc.. This is one of the many ways that I can compare him to an sjw (more available in 5 hours when I get to that computer).

[QUOTE=_Axel;53120357]^[/QUOTE] I was literally [I]directly [/I]replying to exactly what he said. He was talking about feminists in western liberal cultures, that's what my reply was talking about. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=01271;53120360]If this was a convincing argument then the same could be leveled against jordan peterson himself as he describes himself as a free speech activist but would rather talk about tiny things in canada rather than palestinian press being silenced, russian opposition disappearing, poland censoring and shutting down a museum exposition that talks about poland's involvement in the holocaust rather than leaving it at "german death camps" etc.. This is one of the many ways that I can compare him to an sjw (more available in 5 hours when I get to that computer).[/QUOTE] I can see what you mean. Much of what he seems to talk about as far I as can tell are smaller topics that are easier to tackle. Even though the whole 'college campus movement' thing gets serious occasionally, in the grand scheme of things, it's a very small topic that will likely phase out on its one.

[QUOTE=J!NX;53120361]He was talking about feminists in western liberal cultures, that's what my reply was talking about.[/QUOTE] The point is that complaining about feminists not taking care of sexism in Islamic countries they have no influence on [i]is[/I] whataboutism.

I worry about poverty in my own country, but Africa has more poverty, so I guess I should be talking about that instead

Peterson is a dumb, whataboutist cunt who spends more time debating with weak opponents to stroke a wounded ego that probably got hurt when he was shoved into a locker as a kid. People who listen to his drivel and believe it are either willfully ignorant or malicious.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53120380]The point is that complaining about feminists not taking care of sexism in Islamic countries they have no influence on [i]is[/I] whataboutism.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't they criticize it? Just because it's far more serious there and doesn't affect them in the Western world, doesn't make it immune to criticism just because it doesn't [I]personally[/I] affect them. I don't think they should care more about those countries, I think they should care about where they are in current spacetime. But ignoring the problems there is stupid at best. You don't get to ignore reality because it doesn't affect you. I wouldn't ask them to stop protesting because it's more serious elsewhere. I'm saying that pretending it isn't a problem at all is insane.

I think the issue people have with feminism in relation to Islam is that it seems Islam is not only [i]ignored[/i] but [i]unreasonably defended[/i] by those claiming to be feminist. It's perfectly reasonable for Western people not to go on a crusade due to issues in other countries, but to act as if anyone who does criticize those issues is "Islamophobic" or a bigot is what draws ire.

[QUOTE=zupadupazupadude;53120388]I worry about poverty in my own country, but Africa has more poverty, so I guess I should be talking about that instead[/QUOTE] You can be in a countries with less issues, recognize that they exist, understand and metabolize them, work against them, and still be critical of a country with a worse version of that issue. The issue is when you complain about the issues in your country, and not only ignore but pretend that it isn't an issue in a country with more serious issues. It'd be more like "I worry about poverty in my country. Poverty in Africa isn't a problem"