Okay @Andrew0409, you asked for an undercover operation, and you got it!
Two daring male reporters went undercover as chippendales at an illuminati type meeting disguised as a “charity fundraiser” attended by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Michel Obama, and many other rich and powerful women, obviously including Oprah. Between rounds of bidding for political influence (“Do I hear $50,000 for lunch with Secretary Clinton? Fifty K! Do I hear 55k?”), some of the cougars groped and harassed the more than 100 young men in matching jock straps, and one of them even revealed her right there in the middle of the dinner.
Replace all those prominent females with prominent males and the chippendales with (basically) Playboy bunnies, and you have, more or less, what actually came to light this week in England.
Next, it’s your turn to go undercover and expose the women who are harassing men.
(I’m only being half sarcastic btw. I know they’re out there.)
The morality police are on the march in Saudi America and Airstrip One, conducting trials by media because the standards of proof are so low and the conviction rates so high compared to actually pressing charges and holding real trials. If we’re lucky they won’t stop the purges until every man is wearing a chastity belt and has a DNA sample deposited in an international sex offenders’ database
But, I would argue this is not the topic of the discussion. These are men that are being bashed, for good reason. Just like Harvey Weinstein and many of the other serial sexual rapists and abusers that came to light in the “pound me too” campaign, they were being bashed for good reason.
This thread is about men being bashed, for no good reason. The Jordan B Peterson interview is interesting for this reason, the woman interviewing him, constantly tries to portray Jordans views as sexist. She reinterprets what he says over and over, always to make it look as if he is expressing sexist ideology and its clear, that is not what he is saying at all.
Andrew started us off in this thread with sleazy sex parties and complained that it was bad journalism because there was no exciting undercover adventure. I was responding to his complaint.
I haven’t watched the latest JP stuff yet.
And about how the two types are being conflated, of course. If you stand up for due process, you’re a misogynist. If you expose people who deserve to be exposed, you’re a misandrist. And apparently this is because we’re all living in a prison controlled by two gangs, and we need to choose a side ASAP (to continue someone’s analogy from another thread).
Well of course women should be able to speak out about abuses and men should be allowed to expect due process, both without being called names.
But I’ll help you out with this one. America (IMO anyway) has created a system where it rewards people who belong to a oppressed class of people. This has resulted in various groups searching for reasons they are being treated unfairly. For example,
Find, or observe something to be “outraged” over, say the pay gap for example.
Determine the reason for this is sexism and demand all sorts of measures taken to compensate and level the playing field.
Declare this to be settled science and anyone who disagrees is sexist.
Sit back and profit.
The problem with this is, it is not settled science at all. Sexism is only one of many factors that account for the wage gap as JP is pointing out, calling him sexist is just a way to dismiss what he is saying because if he is right, the reason for putting into place compensatory regulations and rules starts to disappear.
There is an even bigger problem IMO as well. Once this recipe for success and profit is learned, it gets applied in a massive scale and I would argue we have already seen such instances. BLM for example grew from cases like Trayvon Martin being pushed by the MSM, who I believe were deliberately focusing on these cases and giving them non stop coverage, even distorting the facts, until the black community became more and more outraged, but then were fueled even more by cash from people like Soros and Obamas slush funds like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau who were funneling hundreds of millions to left wing causes.
The largest of problems, is that this is a very poor route to create a harmonious society, you are pitting every group against each other and have everyone at each others throats, more than that, when you look at the complete ideology which includes intersectionality and all of the groups involved, you are looking at is Social conflict theory by another name.
I agree that there are complex and disturbing conflicts in the world and that it’s easy to get sucked into them.
I reckon men and women are just as susceptible to it as each other, though the predominant mechanisms may be different.
Try this:
Find, or observe something to be “outraged” over, say the metoo movement for example.
Determine the reason for this is sexism and demand an immediate end to all sorts of measures that were intended to compensate and level the playing field.
Declare this to be settled political science and anyone who disagrees is Marxist.
Sit back and wallow in pessimism and prison gang analogies.
Sorry about that last one, @politbureau, but I don’t know what else you want us to do, other than waiting for Donnie to bring about Heaven on Earth by appointing more judges like you said.
The problem isn’t that I don’t originally agree and support movements like the metoo movement. They are based on some level of benevolence so therefore hard to take a stance against once they become something else. We know from social experiments like the Stanford experiment that group mentality can easily become twisted and we are very susceptible to being influenced by the group vs going against the group. Some one original very benevolent idea that is suppose to be positive takes on more and more of what the original identity is suppose to be and no one in that movement or against that movement is now able speak against it.
Blaming sexism and the “macho environment” of political debates for Clinton losing the election. I’m pretty sure Hillary used the fact she’s a women to gain votes, and I almost fell for it supporting her in the beginning because I liked what some of what she was saying and it would be nice to see that women’s situation have improved so much that it wouldn’t out of the norm for a women president. But she lost me spewing the same things, we get it, you’re a women and electing you would show all the young girls out there that women can do anything blah blah blah. You can’t use the fact your a women to get support and blame that sexism was the reason you didn’t get elected.
…and that the Clinton Foundation was taking money from various states in the Mideast in which women are always the guilty party when raped by a man, bringing shame to their family and so forth. But, the feminists don’t wanna open up that can of worms on the CF now and its double standard. Interesting, that after Clinton lost to Trump, the coffers dried up for CF. Hmmm. no more pay-to-play?
and of course, which Clinton appointed RBG to the Supreme Court?
right there in the middle of the dinner.
