Putting in a new HR system at a client site. System has a gender option of: Male, Female, Non-binary third gender... not sure what it means though... also an option of 'prefer not to say'! World's gone mad.
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
Dear moron,
You're not able to argue against him either then, right?
Just call him an 'attention-hogging c**t' and a 'wanker' and hope that everyone believes you.
Jordan Peterson uses more logic in his reasoning than you ever will, mate, and you don't like that as you can't nail him down and/or pin him to your outrage wall.
Yours,
Another moron.
Okay I'm gonna watch this Jordan Peterson thing in detail and hopefully over the course of the half hour I'll find something to actually bring up.
Disclaimer - don't know who the bloke is; and I'm at work; and therefore can't watch it all right now, but gimme a bit of time over the weekend.
However I've had it on in the background and 3 minutes in he's already telling us "what women want", and that instinctively doesn't sit right.
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
Dear moron,
You're not able to argue against him either then, right?
Just call him an 'attention-hogging c**t' and a 'wanker' and hope that everyone believes you.
Jordan Peterson uses more logic in his reasoning than you ever will, mate, and you don't like that as you can't nail him down and/or pin him to your outrage wall.
Yours,
Another moron.
However I've had it on in the background and 3 minutes in he's already telling us "what women want", and that instinctively doesn't sit right.
He's actually not. He's talking from his experiences as a clinical psychologist and from the women he's had in his surgery.
You've just done what Newman does throughout, albeit on a very smaller scale.
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
Dear moron,
You're not able to argue against him either then, right?
Just call him an 'attention-hogging c**t' and a 'wanker' and hope that everyone believes you.
Jordan Peterson uses more logic in his reasoning than you ever will, mate, and you don't like that as you can't nail him down and/or pin him to your outrage wall.
Yours,
Another moron.
However I've had it on in the background and 3 minutes in he's already telling us "what women want", and that instinctively doesn't sit right.
He's actually not. He's talking from his experiences as a clinical psychologist and from the women he's had in his surgery.
You've just done what Newman does throughout, albeit on a very smaller scale.
I've only heard the first three minutes, give me a chance! And he literally uses the phrase "women want a partner who is..." or something like that.
I might have missed something in the context, who knows, but again I'll give it a watch properly later
I saw Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 News and have to say he argued his case very well. I might not agree with all he says but he's certainly worth a listen.
I'm sure there are a few people on here who you could pack neatly in to the 'weak' box that Mr Peterson so eloquently describes.
Just a shame that the rabid, post modern, third wave, man hating feminist had an unwavering agenda that she was not deviating from. Regardless that she made herself look wholly unprofessional and showed herself to be unable to grasp what people are saying in favour of pushing her own warped beliefs.
'So what you are saying is....'
WARNING. This video may be difficult viewing for some.
I'm sure there are a few people on here who you could pack neatly in to the 'weak' box that Mr Peterson so eloquently describes.
Just a shame that the rabid, post modern, third wave, man hating feminist had an unwavering agenda that she was not deviating from. Regardless that she made herself look wholly unprofessional and showed herself to be unable to grasp what people are saying in favour of pushing her own warped beliefs.
'So what you are saying is....'
WARNING. This video may be difficult viewing for some.
The interviewer has a very unfortunate tone of voice and her outrage (and failure to focus on the actual meaty stuff) contrasts with his even, measured tone. However, Peterson's talking absolute tommyrot. Let's ignore her and focus on his words.
"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? If this is his argument then he's arguing against the existence of society. "YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are! "Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" - Maybe that's a problem with an immiserated populace, a terrible education system and a complete lack of empathy towards the poor? If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. Shouldn't these young men be receiving encouragement from their parents, relatives and peers? Or is it not easier for a right-wing ideologue like you to blame strawman Marxist teachers? Fucking lunatic. "Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail. "Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities? "Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work? "The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict? "80% of the consumer decisions are made by women, so women control the market" - This feels reeeeeally fudged to me. Source? "it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL "the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
This man is pitching his tent firmly on the side of the reactionaries in the ongoing culture war. But what's at stake in this war? The crude answer is traditional male dominance, but that's a catchy distraction - it's very easy to appeal to the disenfranchised by saying that they've lost something that they should reclaim, and as for an easy culprit, that those genderqueer dorks in academia are to blame. Peterson's legion of desperate young followers don't know who their real enemies are - the people keeping them down are other men. Rich ones.
The interviewer is dreadful. I half-suspect Channel Four of knowing exactly what they were doing.
Im pretty sure that the figures he quotes, he can probably back up if asked to. But when all else fails, blame the poor interviewer, coz you woulda tore him a new arsehole wouldn't you?
The interviewer has a very unfortunate tone of voice and her outrage (and failure to focus on the actual meaty stuff) contrasts with his even, measured tone. However, Peterson's talking absolute tommyrot. Let's ignore her and focus on his words.
"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? If this is his argument then he's arguing against the existence of society. "YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are! "Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" - Maybe that's a problem with an immiserated populace, a terrible education system and a complete lack of empathy towards the poor? If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. Shouldn't these young men be receiving encouragement from their parents, relatives and peers? Or is it not easier for a right-wing ideologue like you to blame strawman Marxist teachers? Fucking lunatic. "Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail. "Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities? "Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work? "The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict? "80% of the consumer decisions are made by women, so women control the market" - This feels reeeeeally fudged to me. Source? "it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL "the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
This man is pitching his tent firmly on the side of the reactionaries in the ongoing culture war. But what's at stake in this war? The crude answer is traditional male dominance, but that's a catchy distraction - it's very easy to appeal to the disenfranchised by saying that they've lost something that they should reclaim, and as for an easy culprit, that those genderqueer dorks in academia are to blame. Peterson's legion of desperate young followers don't know who their real enemies are - the people keeping them down are other men. Rich ones.
The interviewer is dreadful. I half-suspect Channel Four of knowing exactly what they were doing.
Maybe try and set up an open forum with him where you can debate him and tell him how his extensive research, education and working experience is wrong.
I'm sure he'd concede and not make you look just as daft as Cathy Newman.
Channel 4 have pulled a blinder here in muddying the water and trying to take the heat off of the pathetic interview by making this security claim.
Have a trawl through her Twitter feed and try and find said threats. I'll wager money that you'll find people mocking her, her interview style and her inability to listen to what's being said to her. You won't find the threats that have been mentioned.
The interviewer has a very unfortunate tone of voice and her outrage (and failure to focus on the actual meaty stuff) contrasts with his even, measured tone. However, Peterson's talking absolute tommyrot. Let's ignore her and focus on his words.
"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? If this is his argument then he's arguing against the existence of society. "YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are! "Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" - Maybe that's a problem with an immiserated populace, a terrible education system and a complete lack of empathy towards the poor? If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. Shouldn't these young men be receiving encouragement from their parents, relatives and peers? Or is it not easier for a right-wing ideologue like you to blame strawman Marxist teachers? Fucking lunatic. "Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail. "Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities? "Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work? "The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict? "80% of the consumer decisions are made by women, so women control the market" - This feels reeeeeally fudged to me. Source? "it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL "the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
This man is pitching his tent firmly on the side of the reactionaries in the ongoing culture war. But what's at stake in this war? The crude answer is traditional male dominance, but that's a catchy distraction - it's very easy to appeal to the disenfranchised by saying that they've lost something that they should reclaim, and as for an easy culprit, that those genderqueer dorks in academia are to blame. Peterson's legion of desperate young followers don't know who their real enemies are - the people keeping them down are other men. Rich ones.
The interviewer is dreadful. I half-suspect Channel Four of knowing exactly what they were doing.
Maybe try and set up an open forum with him where you can debate him and tell him how his extensive research, education and working experience is wrong.
I'm sure he'd concede and not make you look just as daft as Cathy Newman.
So there's in fact no debating him, is there? Glad to see where you stand on this.
If I were to debate him I'd just ask loads and loads of questions about what his terms actually mean and where his assumptions come from. I'd try to boil it down to pure ideology. Cut through the shit and find out why he feels so threatened by women and vulnerable minorities.
Because that's really it, isn't it. What's in it for the CL posters invested in the reactionary side of the culture war? Scared you won't be able to look at Page Three any more? There's more pornography online than ever. Scared of being mocked on the internet? Happens to us all. Scared that you'll make a move on someone and get shamed on Twitter? Well maybe judge a situation before charging in cock-first, pretty basic stuff. There are no strawwoman feminists killing your fun or making your world joyless. There's more goddamn fun than ever. No, what you're really scared of is change.
The interviewer has a very unfortunate tone of voice and her outrage (and failure to focus on the actual meaty stuff) contrasts with his even, measured tone. However, Peterson's talking absolute tommyrot. Let's ignore her and focus on his words.
"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? If this is his argument then he's arguing against the existence of society. "YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are! "Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" - Maybe that's a problem with an immiserated populace, a terrible education system and a complete lack of empathy towards the poor? If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. Shouldn't these young men be receiving encouragement from their parents, relatives and peers? Or is it not easier for a right-wing ideologue like you to blame strawman Marxist teachers? Fucking lunatic. "Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail. "Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities? "Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work? "The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict? "80% of the consumer decisions are made by women, so women control the market" - This feels reeeeeally fudged to me. Source? "it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL "the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
This man is pitching his tent firmly on the side of the reactionaries in the ongoing culture war. But what's at stake in this war? The crude answer is traditional male dominance, but that's a catchy distraction - it's very easy to appeal to the disenfranchised by saying that they've lost something that they should reclaim, and as for an easy culprit, that those genderqueer dorks in academia are to blame. Peterson's legion of desperate young followers don't know who their real enemies are - the people keeping them down are other men. Rich ones.
The interviewer is dreadful. I half-suspect Channel Four of knowing exactly what they were doing.
Maybe try and set up an open forum with him where you can debate him and tell him how his extensive research, education and working experience is wrong.
I'm sure he'd concede and not make you look just as daft as Cathy Newman.
So there's in fact no debating him, is there? Glad to see where you stand on this.
If I were to debate him I'd just ask loads and loads of questions about what his terms actually mean and where his assumptions come from. I'd try to boil it down to pure ideology. Cut through the shit and find out why he feels so threatened by women and vulnerable minorities.
Because that's really it, isn't it. What's in it for the CL posters invested in the reactionary side of the culture war? Scared you won't be able to look at Page Three any more? There's more pornography online than ever. Scared of being mocked on the internet? Happens to us all. Scared that you'll make a move on someone and get shamed on Twitter? Well maybe judge a situation before charging in cock-first, pretty basic stuff. There are no strawwoman feminists killing your fun or making your world joyless. There's more goddamn fun than ever. No, what you're really scared of is change.
Assumption filled nonsense, mate.
How do you conclude that he's threatened by women and vulnerable minorities? Are you Mr Newman by any chance?
Your last paragraph is just you, yet again, going off on one because you can't debate or deny what Peterson said but, equally, you can't accept it as it goes against your beliefs. Your brain must being doing somersaults.
I have debated and denied what he said in my large post above. You, on the other hand, have not addressed anything I said there. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in your subsequent responses.
I have debated and denied what he said in my large post above. You, on the other hand, have not addressed anything I said there. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in your subsequent responses.
No hypocrisy at all. You haven't debated his points. You've spectacularly missed virtually all of them in the same way that Newman did.
And how do I conclude he feels threatened? Because he compares progressive movements to fucking totalitarian regimes and describes inclusive language as an attack
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
I have debated and denied what he said in my large post above. You, on the other hand, have not addressed anything I said there. There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in your subsequent responses.
No hypocrisy at all. You haven't debated his points. You've spectacularly missed virtually all of them in the same way that Newman did.
Keep twisting, though.
Maybe you could explain how I've missed them? Give me the same studious regard I gave Peterson, who after all, just used up half an hour of my close attention.
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
You’re such a tolerant liberal.
Sometimes you have to take some fucking names
Okay okay, but do you not think you’re fuelling the fires of the “culture war” when you call everyone who has a different opinion, a moron.
Jordan Peterson is another attention-hogging c**t from the same bracket as Milo. If you're siding with these absolute wankers in the culture wars, don't be amazed when people start thinking you're a moron
You’re such a tolerant liberal.
Sometimes you have to take some fucking names
Okay okay, but do you not think you’re fuelling the fires of the “culture war” when you call everyone who has a different opinion, a moron.
I said that people shouldn't be surprised to be thought of as morons if they parrot the hate of the alt-right. I didn't say they are morons. Just that they should expect a firm response. I'm not Red In SE8, I don't directly call everyone I disagree with a moron
Comments
Disclaimer - don't know who the bloke is; and I'm at work; and therefore can't watch it all right now, but gimme a bit of time over the weekend.
However I've had it on in the background and 3 minutes in he's already telling us "what women want", and that instinctively doesn't sit right.
You've just done what Newman does throughout, albeit on a very smaller scale.
I might have missed something in the context, who knows, but again I'll give it a watch properly later
"Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?"
Fuck sake. Come on. That is literally the worst way you can phrase that question. Better ways:
"Why should your right to freedom of speech prevail over a trans person's right to be called by their preferred personal pronouns?"
OHHHH SHIT JUST SAW HIS ANSWER
Man that's very self-righteous. "I'm only doing it in pursuit of truth"
Mate come on, you're having a giggle, referring to someone by "they/their" if they so wish is pretty easy and avoids being a dick and discourtesy.
This interview looks like it's degenerated into a shitshow by this point. My word.
- will put something more coherent up at some point but... man, this is shit both ways lol
"no partner for a woman" Hang on, is he calling gay men/bachelors useless? Is our anatomical function of reproduction our only use? If this is his argument then he's arguing against the existence of society.
"YouTube is a male domain, primarily" - Suuuuuure. Maybe the toxic comment sections you stir up are!
"Some young men never hear words of encouragement in their entire lives" - Maybe that's a problem with an immiserated populace, a terrible education system and a complete lack of empathy towards the poor? If you'd blame feminism for this then you're not only a fool but a dangerous fool. Shouldn't these young men be receiving encouragement from their parents, relatives and peers? Or is it not easier for a right-wing ideologue like you to blame strawman Marxist teachers? Fucking lunatic.
"Tumblr is primarily female" - Yet again with the generalisations! Yet again, the interviewer doesn't focus on the right detail.
"Women want men to be competent, because they want a competent partner. They can't dominate a competent partner." - This kind of social-Darwinist fucking nonsense bullshit is POISON. Firstly: what about lesbians? Secondly: what about women who view men as something other than potential partners? Thirdly: what the fuck - you're baldly saying that women innately want to be submissive to men? I could draw a million counterexamples to that - obviously men's traditional dominance is built on brute strength and testosterone-fuelled aggression, but have women really always wanted to be treated like commodities?
"Equality of outcome" - what the hell does this mean? Is an outcome when someone is employed? The result of their work?
"The domain of physical conflict is off-limits for (women)" - so, are you arguing that men shouldn't evolve to settle differences peacefully? Furthermore, you're arguing that women can't participate in physical conflict?
"80% of the consumer decisions are made by women, so women control the market" - This feels reeeeeally fudged to me. Source?
"it's been rather uncomfortable" - You're getting paid to air your views and spread your beliefs among the population. You're a popular academic. you're comparing this to the struggle of people who are ACTUALLY SUICIDAL
"the philosophy that claims that group identity is paramount is the same as that which killed millions of people in the Soviet Union and China" - The interviewer handles this terribly, but really she's right in saying he's being an alt-right troll here. He's comparing people who just want the freedom to ask others to address them in a certain manner to top-down totalitarian government, by throwing the whole lot into some vague strawman called 'identity politics'. It's fucking insane, but it's catchy, because it justifies bigotry, and people love to be bigoted.
This man is pitching his tent firmly on the side of the reactionaries in the ongoing culture war. But what's at stake in this war? The crude answer is traditional male dominance, but that's a catchy distraction - it's very easy to appeal to the disenfranchised by saying that they've lost something that they should reclaim, and as for an easy culprit, that those genderqueer dorks in academia are to blame. Peterson's legion of desperate young followers don't know who their real enemies are - the people keeping them down are other men. Rich ones.
The interviewer is dreadful. I half-suspect Channel Four of knowing exactly what they were doing.
; )
I'm sure he'd concede and not make you look just as daft as Cathy Newman.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/21/banning-jordan-peterson-causing-offence-cathy-newman-free-speech
Have a trawl through her Twitter feed and try and find said threats. I'll wager money that you'll find people mocking her, her interview style and her inability to listen to what's being said to her. You won't find the threats that have been mentioned.
A few people have already looked....
If I were to debate him I'd just ask loads and loads of questions about what his terms actually mean and where his assumptions come from. I'd try to boil it down to pure ideology. Cut through the shit and find out why he feels so threatened by women and vulnerable minorities.
Because that's really it, isn't it. What's in it for the CL posters invested in the reactionary side of the culture war? Scared you won't be able to look at Page Three any more? There's more pornography online than ever. Scared of being mocked on the internet? Happens to us all. Scared that you'll make a move on someone and get shamed on Twitter? Well maybe judge a situation before charging in cock-first, pretty basic stuff. There are no strawwoman feminists killing your fun or making your world joyless. There's more goddamn fun than ever. No, what you're really scared of is change.
How do you conclude that he's threatened by women and vulnerable minorities? Are you Mr Newman by any chance?
Your last paragraph is just you, yet again, going off on one because you can't debate or deny what Peterson said but, equally, you can't accept it as it goes against your beliefs. Your brain must being doing somersaults.
Keep twisting, though.