How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
Post Reply
User avatar
BridgeConsoleMasher
Overlord
Posts: 11630
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by BridgeConsoleMasher »

CmdrKing wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 2:34 am The trouble with Lobster Daddy is, like almost all commentators on the right, he's a grifter. He's here to sell his books and draw in a certain sort of mindset to the larger movement, and to that end he goes after soft targets: dumb kids who use the terminology and concepts of feminism, socialism, or other progressive movements in a limited, selfish way. Understanding the depth and complexity of systemic oppression is hard and seeing how your own life or your various identities help or hinder you within those systems is a lot to take in. But pointing out the daily ways other people don't measure up? Why that gives you a power to *judge* others. That's intoxicating, and if you're not starting from a place of high empathy turns toxic real fast. And thus if you've been passed an audience who haven't been introduced to this material and are instead on the receiving end?
I don't find his analysis of social systems particularly wrong though.

Then on the matter of soft targets. He brings up the nature of their discourse generally in interviews I've seen, but as I was getting at, he doesn't explicitly conflate this with broader progressive ideologies and movements. And is the climate of that kind of discourse really something that should be avoided for talking about as a product of the left? I personally like to set myself to understand people's respectable position in a genuine manner, but I'm not sure I have to dismiss the notion that people on the left can get provocative. Systemic oppression can be a considerably sensitive topic, but he's not exactly making videos about passionate college students getting carried away in auditoriums.
..What mirror universe?
User avatar
CmdrKing
Captain
Posts: 902
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:19 pm

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by CmdrKing »

That's the brilliance of Peterson's grift: he doesn't typically say anything specific about any particular people of movements. Makes him hard to pin down, and he gets say what he's saying without saying it, while leaving space in the devotee's mind to argue around any counterarguments toward his overall philosophy.
(Which is why I'm not really talking about any of his specific videos or books, but rather common arguments from his base.)

Speaking of:
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:06 am
I don't find his analysis of social systems particularly wrong though.
Do you mean his talk about hierarchies being natural occurrences here?
Antiboyscout
Captain
Posts: 1158
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:13 am

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by Antiboyscout »

CmdrKing wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:40 pm Do you mean his talk about hierarchies being natural occurrences here?
What are pack dynamics?
User avatar
Riedquat
Captain
Posts: 1897
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:02 am

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by Riedquat »

Yukaphile wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:04 am Because it's equality. Because some men think women are so frail and weak men are as Schwarzenegger compares to a dwarf when you compare men and women.
On average women are physically weaker than men.
Also, only people who think Feminism is dead are those men and women who say, "You girls got your equal rights, what are you bitching and complaining about now?" In other words, being uppity and not knowing their place, which is just as misogynistic as anything else women have had to endure throughout history. Especially so-called "egalitarian" women. Seriously, I know women who call themselves egalitarians who are THE most pro-male women possible. I don't even consider them females so much as honorary males given how they think in male terms and take men's side most of the time and think men are "the true victims" now.
What's that got to do with being happy that someone's getting the crap kicked out of them?
User avatar
clearspira
Overlord
Posts: 5653
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 12:51 pm

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by clearspira »

Riedquat wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 6:35 pm
Yukaphile wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 1:04 am Because it's equality. Because some men think women are so frail and weak men are as Schwarzenegger compares to a dwarf when you compare men and women.
On average women are physically weaker than men.
That was not Yuka's point.
User avatar
BridgeConsoleMasher
Overlord
Posts: 11630
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 6:18 am

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by BridgeConsoleMasher »

CmdrKing wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 3:40 pm That's the brilliance of Peterson's grift: he doesn't typically say anything specific about any particular people of movements. Makes him hard to pin down, and he gets say what he's saying without saying it, while leaving space in the devotee's mind to argue around any counterarguments toward his overall philosophy.
(Which is why I'm not really talking about any of his specific videos or books, but rather common arguments from his base.)
Except conversely I can't really keep blaming him for people getting pissed off about something he said, only for him to clarify it later and we're all back to square 1. You can talk about right-wing internet trolls that he enables with 4 minute sensationalist videos, but I've seen him on several accounts dissociate with them as far as he's selling self-help books.
Speaking of:
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 4:06 am
I don't find his analysis of social systems particularly wrong though.
Do you mean his talk about hierarchies being natural occurrences here?
Not specifically, but of course that's not barred for speculation. I've dug up on it for a bit and can find sense if he's rebutting against Marxist schools of thought that it's a product of westernism, and/or it fitting into a more recent narrative of his that I noticed where he talks about historical tendency for social systems to adopt it prior to advents in technology that help us modernize.

If he's used it as a means of dismissing problematic facets of hierarchies, that's a different thing.
..What mirror universe?
User avatar
Madner Kami
Captain
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 2:35 pm

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by Madner Kami »

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: Wed Dec 26, 2018 11:13 pmApologies. I wasn't sure if you were checking for instance workplace oriented policies, saying that feminism has gone too far in exlusivising women as sufferers of patriarchy.
Still not quite sure what you are aiming at (are you a native english speaker or a learned one, like me; just out of curiousity, because I feel there's a language-disconnect here), but I'll attempt to answer nonetheless:

I don't really think that the rules are set up to exclusively benefit women, nor are they intended to do so. Every such rules I've seen are written in such a way that they apply to everyone (at least in my company and I have to assume that this is true at large). However, societal conditioning leads to an imbalance in reporting and, by extend, a disconnect in societal perception and as far as I can see, that is true for every situation where men and women work or interact together. The consequential statistical bias makes it's way into public perception via news-papers and so on and by consequence, you get head-lines or text-snippets that imply that women are the sole victims and men the sole perpetrators, when in reality, neither part of the population is exclusively victim and exclusively perpertrator. And this statistical and perceptual bias is regularly used as a basis for arguementation, which is my beef with current feminist politics or at least those parts of feminism who are the most vocal. However, I am quite aware that not all "feminists" are made the same and that there are considerably more balanced participants out there.

Did I answer your question sufficently?
"If you get shot up by an A6M Reisen and your plane splits into pieces - does that mean it's divided by Zero?
- xoxSAUERKRAUTxox
User avatar
Yukaphile
Overlord
Posts: 8778
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:14 am
Location: Rabid Posting World
Contact:

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by Yukaphile »

Exactly what clearspira said. And it's not really about physical power. We do not live in a hunter-gatherer society 10,000 years ago, as SF Debris said. It's about the training and the tools you have. Or as Ra's al Ghul puts it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRC9XsuqTj8
"A culture's teachings - and more importantly, the nature of its people - achieve definition in conflict. They find themselves, or find themselves lacking."
— Kreia, Knights of the Old Republic 2: The Sith Lords
User avatar
Karha of Honor
Captain
Posts: 3168
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:46 pm

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by Karha of Honor »

Yukaphile wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 8:50 pm Exactly what clearspira said. And it's not really about physical power. We do not live in a hunter-gatherer society 10,000 years ago, as SF Debris said. It's about the training and the tools you have. Or as Ra's al Ghul puts it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRC9XsuqTj8
Why would anyone care about some fictional assassin?
Image
User avatar
CmdrKing
Captain
Posts: 902
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:19 pm

Re: How does MeToo mesh with the legalise prostitution movement?

Post by CmdrKing »

BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: Thu Dec 27, 2018 7:55 pm

Except conversely I can't really keep blaming him for people getting pissed off about something he said, only for him to clarify it later and we're all back to square 1. You can talk about right-wing internet trolls that he enables with 4 minute sensationalist videos, but I've seen him on several accounts dissociate with them as far as he's selling self-help books.

Not specifically, but of course that's not barred for speculation. I've dug up on it for a bit and can find sense if he's rebutting against Marxist schools of thought that it's a product of westernism, and/or it fitting into a more recent narrative of his that I noticed where he talks about historical tendency for social systems to adopt it prior to advents in technology that help us modernize.

If he's used it as a means of dismissing problematic facets of hierarchies, that's a different thing.
That's sorta what I mean. He keeps his principles vague enough that while he implies many terrible things, if called he can deflect and claim a softer position.
Which goes back to my earlier position that the best approach is to limit discussion to the impact he's had on discourse or people's lives via the actions of his devotees. He can certainly disavow them, and we could argue about his intent, but the followers exist and have concrete outcomes which is easier to focus on.

Although in this instance there is the alternate approach of simply rejecting his foundational premises entirely. So tangenting off into hierarchies, we could go thusly.
They exist. The way they exist, the degree they exist, what they exist between, those can be debated, but they clearly do.
Peterson rather infamously used the example of certain species of lobsters to suggest that hierarchies exist in nature, rather than being the product of human creation (which he'd broadly suggest is a claim shared by most forms of progressive thought.) People get hung up on that, whether that's true or the nuance of the argument that they're manmade, whether the hierarchies of human societies have anything in common, whatever.

But there's an implicit premise in Peterson's argument: that because Hierarchies are found in non-human animals, they are... good? Inevitable? His position is slippery, but the function of his argument is that their existence deflects or negates the arguments for dismantling them.

But... why should that be so? That is, why should the natural occurrence of a thing have bearing on it's usefulness or desirability to human society? That something happens in nature is cause to examine why that is, how it functions, what outcomes it brings about, that is true. But uh... civilization is built on the foundation "fuck nature". Hunting paths drying up due to too big a family? Raise them yourself! Not getting enough food off these plants you were harvesting? Find teh biggest ones and get better ones next season! In a dick-waving contest with another nation with whom military conflict would be devastating? Fuck gravity, fuck vacuums, fuck the effects of negating both on the human body, we're going to the moon.
Even if humans are naturally prone to tribal behavior or forming hierarchies, we're clever bitches. We can figure this stuff out over time if we're motivated to it.

So instead we should be asking, what differences in outcomes do each have, and which is overall better. Would it be best merely to minimize them? Important questions that we aren't asking if we dismiss the entire concept as unattainable due to "human nature".
Post Reply