Jump to content

General Random Conversation..


Scottish Mag
 Share

Recommended Posts

Did you not think the bit where he asks her why she won't abandon her own privilege, since it comes from, as she defines it, a patriarchal tyranny, is sort of a game ended for her patriarchy argument? She acknowledges that she personally has done well out if the system but refuses to make any personal sacrifice towards 'balancing the system' through her own actions. She suggests progressive taxation which, sure, is fine. But doesn't consider it reasonable to abandon her many advantages as a well educated, white, middle class woman.

 

So why does she expect anyone else to do the same? He didn't nail her on that but he fucking should've. It's all fine calling for the patriarchy to be torn down unless she herself has to sacrifice something, at which point she's where she is because of competence and not privilege.

 

I'm only 20 mins in but while she handles herself better than Newman and Peterson is a bit all over the place, that was a huge own goal from my point of view. I think he won the patriarchy argument on the strength of that alone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also thought the 'good luck with that' comment was a put down rather than a conceding of ground but will rematch to check.

 

He looked shaky on some bits for sure though. The identity politics bit was just silly. Tribalism is a form of identity politics, he's just characterizing it as different so that he can draw a distinction between the right and the left.

 

Both sides fuck around with identity politics so i disagree with him there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The patriarchy argument, I’m on the fence. Probably slightly more in his camp when it comes to equality of opportunity v outcome and positive discrimination.  

He doesn’t have much of an answer to the notion that marriage and women changing their name was about ownership of women, which historically it was of course. 

Peterson is an oddball man. Just watched it to the end. He makes some thought provoking points but he’s a climate change sceptic and he loses several points for me due to his religious beliefs. While he claims to despise the alt right, it’s not hard to see why they latched on to him. He even defends Tommy Robinson at the end. Very interesting watch though. Two intellectual heavyweights facing off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

Also thought the 'good luck with that' comment was a put down rather than a conceding of ground but will rematch to check.

 

He looked shaky on some bits for sure though. The identity politics bit was just silly. Tribalism is a form of identity politics, he's just characterizing it as different so that he can draw a distinction between the right and the left.

 

Both sides fuck around with identity politics so i disagree with him there. 

I think he said it because he didn’t have another answer, a sign she won that particular argument.

Hving sat through 90 minutes of this i know who represents my world view better and who I’d rather have a pint with and it ain’t JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think that was really a serious argumentative contention from her, the identity politics bit. She just gave him enough rope to hang himself. Not like her world view came out on top, it was just that his stupid attempts to protect the right wing end up trapping him. It's annoying when he departs from reason for politics but I'm used to seeing it from all sides so while disappointing it's no real surprise.

 

You've latched on to her being a social democrat as an identifying label but how much do you really agree with from what she said? I'm going to watch more tomorrow and then we can spar about it ;)

 

I thought she lost the patriarchy thing comfortably though. What about the point where she introduces the idea of partriarchies that are dominated by women and he's challenges her on whether that would still be a patriarchy at all? And she says yes, and then loses the argument on the basis that all hierarchical structures are patriarchal on her opinion. Which basically means that the patriarchy is a system of order, by her definition. So what, she wants a feminist anarchy? 

 

Then she moves to the piece by piece examples of oppression of women and sure, he has to concede that there are examples of this but counters with many gender specific issues that affected men. Wars for instance. And men were also owned for much of history, by the rich. 

 

It fascinates me how people let the rich off as an identity group. Probably because we're all aspirational and want to be rich, even the feminists.

 

Anyway that was only 20 mins of review so i need to watch more. Hope it's clear i dont agree with everything he says at face value though, he has become far too embroiled in the weaponising of culture issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, strawb said:

Having a drink before flying makes you feel completely shite when you land. Have a sleeping tablet 

Aye, it does. And blame the stupid twats who can’t rein it in rather than the government 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said:

Get the GP to prescribe you some Diazepam. Take 10mg when you get on the plane 

 

That seems to have become harder to get than it used to be, Mrs A got some last year no bother but they wouldn't give it to her a month or so ago to fly out here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, people have been v. generous with my various fundraisers in the face of donation fatigue these last few years so it's nice to be able to give as well. Asking just after payday doesn't hurt, either. :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's (Bannon) debating the speech writer for George W in Toronto tonight. Big furor over giving him a(nother) platform to share his views. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/debating-steve-bannon-s-right-to-speak-1.4886886

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-munk-debates-stephen-bannon-and-david-frum-set-to-spar-on-the-future/

 

i don't get why people think he shouldn't be allowed to speak, freedom of speech is there to protect the right to dissent, as long as he doesn't advocate hate or violence let the douche bag speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paraplegic man drags himself through airport http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45765767

 

Seems a bit feckin daft to me, mind. 

The airport offered an apology and offered to take him through on a wheelchair, pushed by a member of staff. 

He refused, and is now attempting to sue the airport. 

 

Seems like a bit of a throbber, tbh. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ewerk said:

He supports racists, that’s enough reason to no platform him for me.

he does for sure, and fair point, but freedom of speech is about hearing unpopular as well as popular views.  i agree that if he spouts anything that qualifies as hate speech or advocates violence he should be shut down.  the gentleman he is debating is going to mop the floor with him in this debate, and I feel like censure of unpopular views would/could be more common if his cronies stay in power.  

Edited by tooner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.