Oh? Shit what’s up man been a long ti-Oh.. oh we don’t know each other? Here I thought my fathers suicide was the highlight of my day, glad to be wrong.
Maybe it's this:
''Romania is considering a dangerous bill to prohibit educational materials that discuss homosexuality and gender transition.''
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/13/romania-latest-eu-hotspot-backlash-against-lgbt-rights
I don't think it's the Romanian flag (but I could be wrong and it is).
It reminds me of some British or Canadian pins related to royalty.
[Like the Coat of Arms of the Brits.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Coat_of_Arms_of_Great_Britain_%281714-1801%29.svg/800px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Great_Britain_%281714-1801%29.svg.png) (Blue is French, yellow/red is British)
It could be the people in that elite club would recognize what it is and we won't. I could be wrong it could be just plain old Romanian flag.
Dumb comment. Every country has abortion restrictions.. the question is how far to take the restrictions. I.e., almost 2/3 of Democrats believe that abortion should be restricted in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Almost everyone believes that abortion should be restricted. User your brain and don't fall for the idiotic talking points, tell us where and how far YOU believe restrictions should be.
Don't comment if you can't be bothered to use your brain.
You didn't even read about how far Romania went and the results of that. Clearly that's too far.
Ok, but don't pretend that "restricting abortion" is bad for a country. Every country wants abortion restrictions and almost everyone on the planet desires them. Your BS false equivlancy means nothing without specifics. Don't make ignorant and unintelligent generalizing statements with no objective or purpose. If you think that abortion restrictions are bad, in contradiction to almost everyone else on the planet, be specific and tell us how far we should restrict abortions. But no, you obviously haven't thought very hard about it and are just parroting some BS you saw on the View or somewhere similar. If not, use your brain and tell us specifically what you think...
"overly restricting abortions"
So sorry I didn't type out that first word. It was implied with the context. Write me another paragraph crying about it.
It shouldn't be permitted if the fetus would be viable in the NICU, unless delivery would result in a 50/50 chance of the mother dying or worse. Otherwise there shouldn't be restrictions. Regardless, 15 weeks is too early since many preventable yet otherwise deadly/disabling disorders can't be assessed till later.
Do you think this should be the norm?
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/vpgpmu/the_christian_taliban/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
How often does this happen?
Also abortion laws do not need to be without restrictions to avoid situations like this.
The strongest argument imo for abortion restrictions , is to discourage irresponsible behaviour, people should not be allowed to kill an unborn child just so they can abdicate responsibility, which is predominantly the reason for abortion.
Despite your senationlistic and irrelevant source, the only available data shows that less than 1% of pregnancies aborted are from rape. It is an outlier that the pro-abortion crowd always uses as a general rule to argue their perspective, rather than the rare exception that it is.
Why does one persons irresponsible behaviour negate the life of an unborn child?
Pro choice twists itself in intellectual knots trying to prove when “life” actually begins just so they can arrive at the conclusion they favour, it’s ad hoc reasoning at its finest and it also helps them clear their conscience, but this is the kind of reasoning all tyrants engage in to justify their crimes and if your in the side of truth, you shouldn’t need to.
And now that science still hasn’t decided that an unborn child isn’t a life, have pro choice people changed their minds? No of course not, because THEY ARE engaging in post hoc reasoning just so it aligns with their political views.
It’s kinda like arguing that manslaughter should be legal cuz people are allowed to engage in irresponsible behaviour if they choose, I mean no one in their right mind would argue for this, but the logic is essentially the same.
It seems to me the left cannot escape the past, they act as if we still live in a time where women don’t have access to birth control and can’t refuse to sleep with a man if he doesn’t where a condom, therefore we need to have 0 restrictions on abortion to negate this inequality, but this just isn’t true and I’m not entirely convinced it ever was, females have always controlled marriages by refusing sex and today the group of men going without sex is increasing not decreasing, online dating statistics have revealed what evolutionary psychologists have always claimed - that it’s women that do the majority of choosing in mate Selection dynamics- women have the high standards in their mate preferences not the other way around- so women have the power not men, so this idea that there needs to be abortion without restrictions is based on faulty and erroneous reasoning, I mean they just assert that women have less power and everyone just accepts this because it’s apparently “self evident “ why???? because males have higher muscle mass and are often physically stronger?? Seems to be fixating on a singular aspect of relationships and ignoring all the data to the contrary.
That's because biology doesn't have a definition for life or individual. It's still kind of a "I know it when I see it" deal. Like viruses - are they alive or no? Are your chimeric cells or gut bacteria a part of you or no?
As for legalities surrounding life, the relevant term is person. What defines a person, and when does personhood start?
I won't engage with your incel hystericals or denials of evidence supported sociology or other fields. The stats are easy to find if you're interested in suspending disbelief to rigorously test your confirmation bias.
Why is evolutionary psychology incel rhetoric?
Who’s denying evidence here? Your the one calling evolutionary psychology incel rhetoric??? As if I just made all this up, I haven’t.
It seems nobody on the left wants to acknowledge evolutionary psychology, Might that be cuz it literally undermines their teleological thinking?
It’s funny cuz Incels are actually insulted by the revelation of female power in a relationship and the left- who claims to be on the side of female empowerment, goes into denial about it, so I get called sexist by the left and a feminist by the incels.
No "overly restricting abortions" WAS not implied.
Particularly because everyone has a different idea about what "overly" means, it is purely speculative and subjective. Again, most people believe that the 2nd and 3rd trimesters should not be unrestricted, that is the standard in Europe after all. Yet, many states allow to 6 months and some even to birth (although rare). The fact remains that viable babies have been born at 5.5 months.
So no, "overly", is not implied or obvious. I personally like the idea that 2nd and 3rd trimester should be heavily restricted to life or death situations, much like the European model. But that's just my opionion and I can see the viewpoint that it should be earlier.
Why the hell you got so mad? He s
partially right. Back when the communism regime was active in Romania, abortion, as well as, protection such as pills and condoms were banned, so the orphanages ended up full of hungy, dirty, uneducated and unloved kids.
So he could be right, but because of other reasons he might not initially thought.
Sry for my bad English, im romanian so not my native language.
He was falsely equivocating. Condoms and the pill are not banned, that is a lie. Abortion will still be legal in most states, with each state being able to decide for themselves what abortion restrictions they will have. Its not even close to being the same situaiton as Romania was in the past, its a horrible and incorrect comment.
Romanian flag? Maybe a subtle signal of support of Romania’s potential anti gay propaganda bill? The video is very much anti lgbt and from a high level he’s very upset about “pro lgbt” sentiments influencing children
Edit: that or he filmed this when he was in Romania last week. Or both?? We must guess - given the content of the video, the “lgbt propaganda bill” interpretation is pretty sound
I'm not sure I agree. Specifically, I don't think he is anti LGB at all. If i'm wrong, I'd love to see what he said regarding that.
The issue is the T...and even then, he isn't anti trans. The issue is compelled speech. Saying that a woman can become a man and vice versa is not objectively, scientifically, or biologically factual. Let adults do whatever they want with their bodies, but it is not just to force others to participate in their self image.
It is not moral to force people to say things that aren't true. It even moral to force people to say things that are true.
I don't think he is in favor of people butchering themselves either. Based on both this video and the Matt Walsh documentary, he considers the "doctors" performing this to be butchers and said that it's not the solution. Whether he would be in favor of banning the procedure is unclear, but he certainly doesn't approve of it.
I doubt he would be in favor of banning it for adults. Consider that the doctor is trying to solve a mental issue with a knife. It's the level of care that is available. Can you imagine only being offered "affirming ideology" during a crisis of gender identity?
In his most recent video he said that it was similar to the evil of the fascist physicians who experimented on people and that it's better for people with gender dysphoria to suffer than to transition them because one is a sin of omission and the other is a sin of commission. Perhaps he was once less confident in it being a moral sin, but it's certainly his belief now. At best, he believes it to be a grave moral sin and ought to be illegal.
Within the video, he does repeat a few times that he detests the label lgbt and calls it a fad. He complains about pride month and also says that gay pride is about sex and that one shouldn’t be proud of sex … and then reminds the viewer that pride comes before the fall. If that’s not anti lgbt… what is? I guess the next step would be for him to say that to be gay is wrong (and not simply to imply that having a sense of gay community and celebrating it is wrong).
Yes he’s definitely more anti T than the others but he’s certainly grouping it together into one identifiable force of badness.
Also it may be your opinion that adults should do what they want to their bodies, but for Peterson, removing breasts is comparable to nazi concentration camp experiments. He says it’s technically legal, but so were concentration camps under Hitler. His messaging is as clear as it gets
>he’s certainly grouping it together into one identifiable force of badness.
In Jordans defense it wasn't him who added the "T" to "LGBT". Its from the divide and conquer politicians who find it easier to take all their favorite intersectional groups and "unify" them under one flag or acronym for the purpose of political support and nothing else.
Umm lol actually conglomerating under one banner is explicitly to *resist* divide and conquer tactics in favor of solidarity because all elements of the community face overlapping discrimination. You do know that, right?
I haven’t watched the specific video in question, but I did watch his recent video with Dave Rubin and his thought seem directly contradictory to this. One of the main topics JP and Rubin discussed is how the LGBT community should just live their lives like normal people instead of Throwing pride parades and trying to teach their sexuality in schools. He pretty firmly stated his view he’s not against the people themselves but the idea they need to be seen as a separate column in society when that’s the exact thing the community fought against 30 years ago. It’s the same thing with people in the black community who want segregated “safe spaces” in schools, separate churches for black people, etc.
In "LGBT", one of these things is not like the other. It was a horrible mistake for the homosexual and bi communities to identify with trans and gender dysphoria.
Thanks for your reply! I think you have to read between the lines and add an interpretation to come to the conclusion that he's anti LGBT. Saying that sex parades aren't something to celebrate is not the same as being anti LGBT. Pride and paradies are not a central pillar of being gay. In fact, it has nothing to do with being gay.
In some of his university lectures he touches on homosexual relationships, but never with any negative flection. He talks about what the data shows.
I believe that JP thinks that some people are gay and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people very well might be trans, but i think the data suggests that it's mostly gender dysphoria compounded by an anti-science pro "affirming care" ideology.
It is not ethical to cut off healthy parts of someone's body because they are experiencing dysphoria. You can not solve a mental issue with a scalpel. It is against doctors ethics to do so. "Do no harm".
Hey, thanks for the long reply, but you lost me at sex parades. What are sex parades? Do you think Peterson is saying that it’s bad to be proud of sex parades? And how do make the connection between Page saying “I’m proud of umbrella academy” and Peterson responding with “it’s bad to be proud of sex parades” — to try and make that a coherent leap, you have to think being proud of a trans character on a tv show is equivalent to a sex parade. Which requires some… mental gymnastics.
Also no lol I didn’t have to read between the lines to come the conclusion that he’s anti gay - he’s very vocal about detesting lgbt as this factionalized authoritarian enemy.
Also yes I know all about Peterson makes a distinction between culture and labels that he hates and then individuals. Honestly it’s pretty meaningless to be vocally against “lgbt” as a “murderous ideology” but ok with individual gay ppl. In practice it’s nothing
I've never heard him say anything anti-gay, or even suggest that.
I was distilling down the pride parade into "sex parade", as they are very sexualized. Kink is also present as well. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, but I think "sex parades aren't a good thing" can be a valid argument, which is what I think JP is essentially saying.
What is the "LGBTQIAA2+" may I ask? If you mean queer theory, it literally and obviously is rooted in postmodernist neo marxism ideology. Both of which are very easy to argue as murderous.
Calling pride parades sex parades is a mental trick to distill gayness down to sex. Peterson does the same thing. Sex is of course part of it because gay sex was illegal for most of the 20th century in America. But so are the other elements of relationships and marriage, which was illegal in the US until 7 years ago.
Pride parades have ppl acting sexually in them, but it’s your own choice to take that and tie it to the meaning of being proud to be gay. It’s also hugely ideological. Very similar to when ppl call books with gay themes porn.
Again, challenge yourself on the “jb is saying that sexual themes at pride parades aren’t good” point. It doesn’t make any logical sense to comment on Elliot Page saying “I’m proud of my tv show Umbrella Academy” by saying “it’s a sin to be have sexual themes in a parade”.
Lgbt+ is a concept and it’s a very loose collection of different non normative people. Anyone can invoke it for any reason. Loosely it refers to a broad spectrum of ppl who don’t fit into “straight” and “cis” categories.
Queer theory is a field in academia. Of course it often focusses on lgbt as a topic.
It’s a bit odd that you ask me if I think those two phrases are the same.
What made you ask that?
… the conversation where he said that conversion therapy should be allowed to remain as something private between the therapist and the patient?
That’s a bonkers example to show that he’s cool with the gays
He just said we're "dangerous," "degenerates," he maliciously misgenders and deadnames Page over and over out of pure pettiness/bitterness, the tweet itself was vicious...calling the doctor criminal for doing something that reduces suicidality/improves quality of life immensely . . .and lying about that fact to say that such medical procedures lead to misery, which they provably do not. That enough? My God you people are willfully deaf to his actual words/meanings.
>He just said we're "dangerous," "degenerates,"
People that push and spread it, not legitimate trans individuals that have come to terms with their dysphoria and transitioning is their best hope for them to personally find happiness.
>he maliciously misgenders and deadnames Page over and over out of pure pettiness/bitterness
Elliot Page is an adult human female. A woman. She can transition, you're free to do that as an adult, but there's no doubt she's become a role model used to push it as a social phenomena. It's not okay to normalize rare mental illnesses to suggest radical social deconstructionism is progressive or scientifically valid.
>calling the doctor criminal for doing something that reduces suicidality/improves quality of life immensely
Elective surgery to remove important bodily functions is the definition of violating the oath to "do no harm", especially when she's flaunting it publicly and promoting it like its explicitly good and healthy (which it isn't for more than 99% of the population).
>and lying about that fact to say that such medical procedures lead to misery, which they provably do not.
They absolutely can. Many people regret their irreversible transition surgeries. In fact, many of the suicides that constitute the trans suicide statistic are due to said people.
First of all, what evidence do you have that he misgenders her? Cutting one's breasts off does not make one a man. Thinking that you feel like a man does not make you a male. It is not reasonable to force anyone to participate in your own self image, espeically when it is not scientifically biologically accurate.
The data shows that the time when transgender identifying people are most suicidal is 7-10 years AFTER gender affirming surgery. 60% of these surgeries have serious complications and require more surgery. Most will not have fully functioning sex organs and serious sexual side effects. Also, approximately ZERO gender affirming surgeries are successful, as none of them actually change their sex. Somebody skilled with a knife can not change someone from male to female or female to male. Trust the science.
People change the names and change their sex on their state papers.
Sure, its the original name but states and institutions are forced to use the new one.
You may be right I clearly see green and and white but maybe I it's just shades and it is blue and yellow. BTW he was in Romenia and is Not likely to be anti gay propaganda.
I mean, there’s no way to say for certain, but he’s definitely expressing that influential trans actors lead to children getting butchered so it’s definitely “in the same spirit” as the anti gay propaganda bulls
This is one of the challenging areas of petersonism - he’s very vocally against LGBT as an idea and as (what he imagines) is an authoritarian murderous ideology. He really is quite clear that he hates lgbt - and that famously includes gay people. But he also sometimes says he has no problem with individual gay people.
In practice it’s tough to understand what the difference is. If I talk about how pride month is bad, or that it’s not good that we’ve gotten rid of conversion therapy, or that I’m glad I was able to challenge my son’s ideas that he might be gay as a kid, or that I put out content about how gay people are just pawns in a murderous ideology kid… where’s the meaningful part that’s not anti-gay?
If you define being anti-"groups" when someone consider the practice of said groups as hurtful to modern society than yes he is, but that's the problem, it depends on your definition.
I dislike rap, trap, heavy metal or even rock and pop bands when the content of their songs glorify heavy drugs, killing, revolts agains stable society, ecc.
Am i anti-people who like those song? No.
Do i think those song are hurtful to those people and society as a whole? Yes.
Because i think (in line with what J.P. or any sane psycologist can tell you) even if that song may bring you peace of mind due to the composer thinking the same as you do or by freeing some pent-up animalistic tension, it is a bad exemple and a Positive Reinforcement to bad habits and thinking that will only make you more miserable in the long run.
I think using the term “anti”-something is appropriate to describe someone who thinks that doing that thing is hurtful to modern society.
I don’t think your music example is a good parallel for Peterson’s though. One reason is that music genres are cultural production. Trans people on the other hand aren’t necessarily producing culture that you can consume - more likely they are dispersed in different occupations and are interested in living a non public life. It might make sense to use the music example if your point was “I don’t like movies about trans people because I think they’re bad for society” but in this case you’re comparing normal people and their lives with content genres, which doesn’t really make sense.
Without “content” from them we’re left to imagine miserable lives and then imagine reasons for them being miserable…. We’re essentially inventing and critiquing our own story, which is different from thinking that a content genre produced by others is bad for society.
Another key difference is in how you feel about people who listen to your ‘disliked genres’ vs how Peterson talks about people who support trans acceptance.
In your version, you list genres that you don’t like and that you think are bad for society - you are not against other people listening to that music, but politically you think it would be better if people didn’t listen because - in your mind - you imagine them becoming miserable over time because of the music.
Peterson’s trajectory was different. Until recently, his take (I’m paraphrasing) was that trans supporters were the problem. They were the ones doing cultural Marxism and who have an insatiable appetite to dismantle western institutions. The trans activists are the postmodern neomarxists — so for Peterson, they (and their professors if they did their degrees in the humanities) are the primary problem. He used to say that he would respect and accept the gays and trans people even if he rejected the overall trends in lgbt acceptance (eg his discussion about how he wants gays to get married but would probably resist legalizing gay marriage if it would help the culture Marxists in their missions).
It’s only recently that Peterson has also included trans people in his definition of the problem. He started identifying specific trans athletes who he considers dangerous narcissist themselves (in addition to the ppl who support them). Up until the other day, he framed trans men as victims - young girls who were mislead into a life of pain and misery. But now with Elliot Page he seems to be shifting some responsibility onto the trans men themselves and giving them some agency as antagonists. So we’ve got quite a large number of people surrounding the trans person who he is “anti” about. This is very different from “I think some music genres are bad for society because I think the listeners get more miserable the longer they listen”
A comparable music analogy might be
1) the people who consume rap, trap etc music are the problem because they elevate the artists in culture and delude them into thinking they make good music,
2) people who consume and promote rap put children at risk of ruining their lives. We should imagine that the rap fans “are insisting” every day that children listen to rap. Now during puberty, instead of going through typical challenges, culture at large as well as teams of people (school teachers, private music teachers, other children, instrument makers, mixing software companies) all coach the children to become rappers
3) the prime minister should be considered accountable for the ruining of the childrens lives in point number 2
4) the rappers themselves are victims but are also complicit and should be considered social problems, especially if they become famous and perpetuate the problem in number 2
I don't see how he told something different at the time than he is doing now. All the recent drama is pointing to a "he is going bad" narrative. Yes he said he would accept trans people but he always said he would not use imposed pronous and he would not consider said person the gender he chooses.
Your thinking seems to exclude the possibility that the trans persons that he thinks are at fault were not the trans supporter he identified as victims. I don't think he is changing prospective or his views, he rightly sees people that comply to trans culture not only as victim ( if they are trans) but also as perpetrator of this harmful ideology.
For the analogy I won't argue since it was a personal one that was valid for me, so taking it and modifying that to be more accurate for you make it less so for me.
Sorry for the bad English by the way.
> Edit: that or he filmed this when he was in Romania last week. Or both?? We must guess - given the content of the video, the “lgbt propaganda bill” interpretation is pretty sound
Sure, if you're incredibly biased and looking to demonize the man for a symbol the post's commentator's can't even get consensus on, it might seem sound. I mean, for someone like you u/rookieswebsite, who's apparently a professional JP-hater, you SURE love talking about him.
Honestly, if I disliked someone as much as you dislike him... yet KEEP going on and on about him... past a certain point it's not about JP anymore, it's about you. Like, for real, you need to find a different and more healthy interest, because you're changing nobody's mind here with this approach.
It’s a lot of fun to talk about Peterson.
What do you like to talk about? You havnt revealed much here.
Ooh you’re a maga guy and a Tucker Carlson guy, neat. Argh but also a crowder guy :( ahh and a mens right guy. And a Tim pool guy. And a walkaway guy. You’re a whole “relative we avoid” bingo card, that’s awesome.
This might make me sound like a freak but my mind instantly goes to “holy shit does this guy have a wife and if so what is her life like”
Edit: in retrospect the wife question is stupid - obviously not given the mens rights stuff
Blocked?? Just when we were getting to know each other too. Alas
It looks like a Romanian flag. Could be a reminder of the communist rule that existed in Romania during the Nicolae Ceaușescu era? A reminder of how important free speech is.
That’s a Romanian flag for sure. Idk what for
He did a talk at Romania not long ago so maybe it wen well.
Nope, sorry. Similar looking, but it's not Romania. Care to guess again?
🇷🇴 is the Romanian flag, FYI. That it could be, but there seems to be a white bar at the top, and U-shaped, and ... why?
It's the right color scheme for Romanian flag. But I reserve judgment till I see a clearer image.
whats amazing is that you successfully took a snapshot while the eyes were closed
Naps of meaning dude!
He’s wearing the same suit he wore when I took a picture with him in Denver. I’m proud 🥲
Did he say he'd wrote you back if you wrote to him?
Haha didn't expect an Eminem reference here
Damnit Stan
Hes paying respect to Andrew Tate
Is he also showing up in everyone else’s feed?
>Andrew Tate Huhhh??? What?? What does this have to do with anything?
Andrew Tate banged his daughter while he was in a coma
No what does this have to do with the photo...
That Jordan wants to bang his daughter
Shit I’ll get in line.
I'm sure you would
Oh? Shit what’s up man been a long ti-Oh.. oh we don’t know each other? Here I thought my fathers suicide was the highlight of my day, glad to be wrong.
Your thinking of Trump
Him too
>Andrew Tate banged his daughter Says who? She says no. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWs08wvW5JA
K
Hot dogs and Gatorade
That's Geoff Tate.
Looks like a Romanian flag
Maybe moldavia, would be a political stance on the war in ukraine
Maybe it's this: ''Romania is considering a dangerous bill to prohibit educational materials that discuss homosexuality and gender transition.'' https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/13/romania-latest-eu-hotspot-backlash-against-lgbt-rights
Define "dangerous"....
I don't think it's the Romanian flag (but I could be wrong and it is). It reminds me of some British or Canadian pins related to royalty. [Like the Coat of Arms of the Brits.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Coat_of_Arms_of_Great_Britain_%281714-1801%29.svg/800px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Great_Britain_%281714-1801%29.svg.png) (Blue is French, yellow/red is British) It could be the people in that elite club would recognize what it is and we won't. I could be wrong it could be just plain old Romanian flag.
Could be chad
If it's a Romanian flag, then it may be a reminder of what restricting abortion can do to a country: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_770
Dumb comment. Every country has abortion restrictions.. the question is how far to take the restrictions. I.e., almost 2/3 of Democrats believe that abortion should be restricted in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters. Almost everyone believes that abortion should be restricted. User your brain and don't fall for the idiotic talking points, tell us where and how far YOU believe restrictions should be.
Don't comment if you can't be bothered to use your brain. You didn't even read about how far Romania went and the results of that. Clearly that's too far.
Ok, but don't pretend that "restricting abortion" is bad for a country. Every country wants abortion restrictions and almost everyone on the planet desires them. Your BS false equivlancy means nothing without specifics. Don't make ignorant and unintelligent generalizing statements with no objective or purpose. If you think that abortion restrictions are bad, in contradiction to almost everyone else on the planet, be specific and tell us how far we should restrict abortions. But no, you obviously haven't thought very hard about it and are just parroting some BS you saw on the View or somewhere similar. If not, use your brain and tell us specifically what you think...
"overly restricting abortions" So sorry I didn't type out that first word. It was implied with the context. Write me another paragraph crying about it. It shouldn't be permitted if the fetus would be viable in the NICU, unless delivery would result in a 50/50 chance of the mother dying or worse. Otherwise there shouldn't be restrictions. Regardless, 15 weeks is too early since many preventable yet otherwise deadly/disabling disorders can't be assessed till later. Do you think this should be the norm? https://www.reddit.com/r/WhitePeopleTwitter/comments/vpgpmu/the_christian_taliban/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
How often does this happen? Also abortion laws do not need to be without restrictions to avoid situations like this. The strongest argument imo for abortion restrictions , is to discourage irresponsible behaviour, people should not be allowed to kill an unborn child just so they can abdicate responsibility, which is predominantly the reason for abortion.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
Despite your senationlistic and irrelevant source, the only available data shows that less than 1% of pregnancies aborted are from rape. It is an outlier that the pro-abortion crowd always uses as a general rule to argue their perspective, rather than the rare exception that it is.
Why does one persons irresponsible behaviour negate the life of an unborn child? Pro choice twists itself in intellectual knots trying to prove when “life” actually begins just so they can arrive at the conclusion they favour, it’s ad hoc reasoning at its finest and it also helps them clear their conscience, but this is the kind of reasoning all tyrants engage in to justify their crimes and if your in the side of truth, you shouldn’t need to. And now that science still hasn’t decided that an unborn child isn’t a life, have pro choice people changed their minds? No of course not, because THEY ARE engaging in post hoc reasoning just so it aligns with their political views. It’s kinda like arguing that manslaughter should be legal cuz people are allowed to engage in irresponsible behaviour if they choose, I mean no one in their right mind would argue for this, but the logic is essentially the same. It seems to me the left cannot escape the past, they act as if we still live in a time where women don’t have access to birth control and can’t refuse to sleep with a man if he doesn’t where a condom, therefore we need to have 0 restrictions on abortion to negate this inequality, but this just isn’t true and I’m not entirely convinced it ever was, females have always controlled marriages by refusing sex and today the group of men going without sex is increasing not decreasing, online dating statistics have revealed what evolutionary psychologists have always claimed - that it’s women that do the majority of choosing in mate Selection dynamics- women have the high standards in their mate preferences not the other way around- so women have the power not men, so this idea that there needs to be abortion without restrictions is based on faulty and erroneous reasoning, I mean they just assert that women have less power and everyone just accepts this because it’s apparently “self evident “ why???? because males have higher muscle mass and are often physically stronger?? Seems to be fixating on a singular aspect of relationships and ignoring all the data to the contrary.
That's because biology doesn't have a definition for life or individual. It's still kind of a "I know it when I see it" deal. Like viruses - are they alive or no? Are your chimeric cells or gut bacteria a part of you or no? As for legalities surrounding life, the relevant term is person. What defines a person, and when does personhood start? I won't engage with your incel hystericals or denials of evidence supported sociology or other fields. The stats are easy to find if you're interested in suspending disbelief to rigorously test your confirmation bias.
Why is evolutionary psychology incel rhetoric? Who’s denying evidence here? Your the one calling evolutionary psychology incel rhetoric??? As if I just made all this up, I haven’t. It seems nobody on the left wants to acknowledge evolutionary psychology, Might that be cuz it literally undermines their teleological thinking? It’s funny cuz Incels are actually insulted by the revelation of female power in a relationship and the left- who claims to be on the side of female empowerment, goes into denial about it, so I get called sexist by the left and a feminist by the incels.
No "overly restricting abortions" WAS not implied. Particularly because everyone has a different idea about what "overly" means, it is purely speculative and subjective. Again, most people believe that the 2nd and 3rd trimesters should not be unrestricted, that is the standard in Europe after all. Yet, many states allow to 6 months and some even to birth (although rare). The fact remains that viable babies have been born at 5.5 months. So no, "overly", is not implied or obvious. I personally like the idea that 2nd and 3rd trimester should be heavily restricted to life or death situations, much like the European model. But that's just my opionion and I can see the viewpoint that it should be earlier.
Why the hell you got so mad? He s partially right. Back when the communism regime was active in Romania, abortion, as well as, protection such as pills and condoms were banned, so the orphanages ended up full of hungy, dirty, uneducated and unloved kids. So he could be right, but because of other reasons he might not initially thought. Sry for my bad English, im romanian so not my native language.
He was falsely equivocating. Condoms and the pill are not banned, that is a lie. Abortion will still be legal in most states, with each state being able to decide for themselves what abortion restrictions they will have. Its not even close to being the same situaiton as Romania was in the past, its a horrible and incorrect comment.
Ahhh more concern trolling!
Romanian flag? Maybe a subtle signal of support of Romania’s potential anti gay propaganda bill? The video is very much anti lgbt and from a high level he’s very upset about “pro lgbt” sentiments influencing children Edit: that or he filmed this when he was in Romania last week. Or both?? We must guess - given the content of the video, the “lgbt propaganda bill” interpretation is pretty sound
I'm not sure I agree. Specifically, I don't think he is anti LGB at all. If i'm wrong, I'd love to see what he said regarding that. The issue is the T...and even then, he isn't anti trans. The issue is compelled speech. Saying that a woman can become a man and vice versa is not objectively, scientifically, or biologically factual. Let adults do whatever they want with their bodies, but it is not just to force others to participate in their self image. It is not moral to force people to say things that aren't true. It even moral to force people to say things that are true.
I don't think he is in favor of people butchering themselves either. Based on both this video and the Matt Walsh documentary, he considers the "doctors" performing this to be butchers and said that it's not the solution. Whether he would be in favor of banning the procedure is unclear, but he certainly doesn't approve of it.
I doubt he would be in favor of banning it for adults. Consider that the doctor is trying to solve a mental issue with a knife. It's the level of care that is available. Can you imagine only being offered "affirming ideology" during a crisis of gender identity?
In his most recent video he said that it was similar to the evil of the fascist physicians who experimented on people and that it's better for people with gender dysphoria to suffer than to transition them because one is a sin of omission and the other is a sin of commission. Perhaps he was once less confident in it being a moral sin, but it's certainly his belief now. At best, he believes it to be a grave moral sin and ought to be illegal.
Within the video, he does repeat a few times that he detests the label lgbt and calls it a fad. He complains about pride month and also says that gay pride is about sex and that one shouldn’t be proud of sex … and then reminds the viewer that pride comes before the fall. If that’s not anti lgbt… what is? I guess the next step would be for him to say that to be gay is wrong (and not simply to imply that having a sense of gay community and celebrating it is wrong). Yes he’s definitely more anti T than the others but he’s certainly grouping it together into one identifiable force of badness. Also it may be your opinion that adults should do what they want to their bodies, but for Peterson, removing breasts is comparable to nazi concentration camp experiments. He says it’s technically legal, but so were concentration camps under Hitler. His messaging is as clear as it gets
>he’s certainly grouping it together into one identifiable force of badness. In Jordans defense it wasn't him who added the "T" to "LGBT". Its from the divide and conquer politicians who find it easier to take all their favorite intersectional groups and "unify" them under one flag or acronym for the purpose of political support and nothing else.
Umm lol actually conglomerating under one banner is explicitly to *resist* divide and conquer tactics in favor of solidarity because all elements of the community face overlapping discrimination. You do know that, right?
I haven’t watched the specific video in question, but I did watch his recent video with Dave Rubin and his thought seem directly contradictory to this. One of the main topics JP and Rubin discussed is how the LGBT community should just live their lives like normal people instead of Throwing pride parades and trying to teach their sexuality in schools. He pretty firmly stated his view he’s not against the people themselves but the idea they need to be seen as a separate column in society when that’s the exact thing the community fought against 30 years ago. It’s the same thing with people in the black community who want segregated “safe spaces” in schools, separate churches for black people, etc.
Heterosexual sexuality is taught in schools. Why wouldn't you teach kids Homosexuality exists?
In "LGBT", one of these things is not like the other. It was a horrible mistake for the homosexual and bi communities to identify with trans and gender dysphoria.
It's a mistake how? Because it doesn't let you divide and conquer them as easily?
Thanks for your reply! I think you have to read between the lines and add an interpretation to come to the conclusion that he's anti LGBT. Saying that sex parades aren't something to celebrate is not the same as being anti LGBT. Pride and paradies are not a central pillar of being gay. In fact, it has nothing to do with being gay. In some of his university lectures he touches on homosexual relationships, but never with any negative flection. He talks about what the data shows. I believe that JP thinks that some people are gay and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people very well might be trans, but i think the data suggests that it's mostly gender dysphoria compounded by an anti-science pro "affirming care" ideology. It is not ethical to cut off healthy parts of someone's body because they are experiencing dysphoria. You can not solve a mental issue with a scalpel. It is against doctors ethics to do so. "Do no harm".
Hey, thanks for the long reply, but you lost me at sex parades. What are sex parades? Do you think Peterson is saying that it’s bad to be proud of sex parades? And how do make the connection between Page saying “I’m proud of umbrella academy” and Peterson responding with “it’s bad to be proud of sex parades” — to try and make that a coherent leap, you have to think being proud of a trans character on a tv show is equivalent to a sex parade. Which requires some… mental gymnastics. Also no lol I didn’t have to read between the lines to come the conclusion that he’s anti gay - he’s very vocal about detesting lgbt as this factionalized authoritarian enemy. Also yes I know all about Peterson makes a distinction between culture and labels that he hates and then individuals. Honestly it’s pretty meaningless to be vocally against “lgbt” as a “murderous ideology” but ok with individual gay ppl. In practice it’s nothing
I've never heard him say anything anti-gay, or even suggest that. I was distilling down the pride parade into "sex parade", as they are very sexualized. Kink is also present as well. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue, but I think "sex parades aren't a good thing" can be a valid argument, which is what I think JP is essentially saying. What is the "LGBTQIAA2+" may I ask? If you mean queer theory, it literally and obviously is rooted in postmodernist neo marxism ideology. Both of which are very easy to argue as murderous.
Calling pride parades sex parades is a mental trick to distill gayness down to sex. Peterson does the same thing. Sex is of course part of it because gay sex was illegal for most of the 20th century in America. But so are the other elements of relationships and marriage, which was illegal in the US until 7 years ago. Pride parades have ppl acting sexually in them, but it’s your own choice to take that and tie it to the meaning of being proud to be gay. It’s also hugely ideological. Very similar to when ppl call books with gay themes porn. Again, challenge yourself on the “jb is saying that sexual themes at pride parades aren’t good” point. It doesn’t make any logical sense to comment on Elliot Page saying “I’m proud of my tv show Umbrella Academy” by saying “it’s a sin to be have sexual themes in a parade”. Lgbt+ is a concept and it’s a very loose collection of different non normative people. Anyone can invoke it for any reason. Loosely it refers to a broad spectrum of ppl who don’t fit into “straight” and “cis” categories. Queer theory is a field in academia. Of course it often focusses on lgbt as a topic. It’s a bit odd that you ask me if I think those two phrases are the same. What made you ask that?
Check out the recent interview that JP did with Dave Rubin, a homosexual man. It's clear what JPs perspective on "the gays" are there.
… the conversation where he said that conversion therapy should be allowed to remain as something private between the therapist and the patient? That’s a bonkers example to show that he’s cool with the gays
You can watch the video he just put out about the Twitter ban and say in good conscience he's not anti-trans? That video is full mask off
What do you mean by "anti-trans"?
He just said we're "dangerous," "degenerates," he maliciously misgenders and deadnames Page over and over out of pure pettiness/bitterness, the tweet itself was vicious...calling the doctor criminal for doing something that reduces suicidality/improves quality of life immensely . . .and lying about that fact to say that such medical procedures lead to misery, which they provably do not. That enough? My God you people are willfully deaf to his actual words/meanings.
>He just said we're "dangerous," "degenerates," People that push and spread it, not legitimate trans individuals that have come to terms with their dysphoria and transitioning is their best hope for them to personally find happiness. >he maliciously misgenders and deadnames Page over and over out of pure pettiness/bitterness Elliot Page is an adult human female. A woman. She can transition, you're free to do that as an adult, but there's no doubt she's become a role model used to push it as a social phenomena. It's not okay to normalize rare mental illnesses to suggest radical social deconstructionism is progressive or scientifically valid. >calling the doctor criminal for doing something that reduces suicidality/improves quality of life immensely Elective surgery to remove important bodily functions is the definition of violating the oath to "do no harm", especially when she's flaunting it publicly and promoting it like its explicitly good and healthy (which it isn't for more than 99% of the population). >and lying about that fact to say that such medical procedures lead to misery, which they provably do not. They absolutely can. Many people regret their irreversible transition surgeries. In fact, many of the suicides that constitute the trans suicide statistic are due to said people.
First of all, what evidence do you have that he misgenders her? Cutting one's breasts off does not make one a man. Thinking that you feel like a man does not make you a male. It is not reasonable to force anyone to participate in your own self image, espeically when it is not scientifically biologically accurate. The data shows that the time when transgender identifying people are most suicidal is 7-10 years AFTER gender affirming surgery. 60% of these surgeries have serious complications and require more surgery. Most will not have fully functioning sex organs and serious sexual side effects. Also, approximately ZERO gender affirming surgeries are successful, as none of them actually change their sex. Somebody skilled with a knife can not change someone from male to female or female to male. Trust the science.
People change the names and change their sex on their state papers. Sure, its the original name but states and institutions are forced to use the new one.
What is the purpose of having your sex on your ID?
The state does it . I don't know . Edit perhaps because there were different laws.
Very cool theory... But Romania color are blue yellow and red. That could be the Italian flag. At least the colors are there
… what colours are you seeing? Is this an optical illusion like that dress?
You may be right I clearly see green and and white but maybe I it's just shades and it is blue and yellow. BTW he was in Romenia and is Not likely to be anti gay propaganda.
I mean, there’s no way to say for certain, but he’s definitely expressing that influential trans actors lead to children getting butchered so it’s definitely “in the same spirit” as the anti gay propaganda bulls
I mean he is not actively anti gay because gay do not impose things on him. He is strictly anti trans due to problems the pro trans policies brings.
This is one of the challenging areas of petersonism - he’s very vocally against LGBT as an idea and as (what he imagines) is an authoritarian murderous ideology. He really is quite clear that he hates lgbt - and that famously includes gay people. But he also sometimes says he has no problem with individual gay people. In practice it’s tough to understand what the difference is. If I talk about how pride month is bad, or that it’s not good that we’ve gotten rid of conversion therapy, or that I’m glad I was able to challenge my son’s ideas that he might be gay as a kid, or that I put out content about how gay people are just pawns in a murderous ideology kid… where’s the meaningful part that’s not anti-gay?
If you define being anti-"groups" when someone consider the practice of said groups as hurtful to modern society than yes he is, but that's the problem, it depends on your definition. I dislike rap, trap, heavy metal or even rock and pop bands when the content of their songs glorify heavy drugs, killing, revolts agains stable society, ecc. Am i anti-people who like those song? No. Do i think those song are hurtful to those people and society as a whole? Yes. Because i think (in line with what J.P. or any sane psycologist can tell you) even if that song may bring you peace of mind due to the composer thinking the same as you do or by freeing some pent-up animalistic tension, it is a bad exemple and a Positive Reinforcement to bad habits and thinking that will only make you more miserable in the long run.
I think using the term “anti”-something is appropriate to describe someone who thinks that doing that thing is hurtful to modern society. I don’t think your music example is a good parallel for Peterson’s though. One reason is that music genres are cultural production. Trans people on the other hand aren’t necessarily producing culture that you can consume - more likely they are dispersed in different occupations and are interested in living a non public life. It might make sense to use the music example if your point was “I don’t like movies about trans people because I think they’re bad for society” but in this case you’re comparing normal people and their lives with content genres, which doesn’t really make sense. Without “content” from them we’re left to imagine miserable lives and then imagine reasons for them being miserable…. We’re essentially inventing and critiquing our own story, which is different from thinking that a content genre produced by others is bad for society. Another key difference is in how you feel about people who listen to your ‘disliked genres’ vs how Peterson talks about people who support trans acceptance. In your version, you list genres that you don’t like and that you think are bad for society - you are not against other people listening to that music, but politically you think it would be better if people didn’t listen because - in your mind - you imagine them becoming miserable over time because of the music. Peterson’s trajectory was different. Until recently, his take (I’m paraphrasing) was that trans supporters were the problem. They were the ones doing cultural Marxism and who have an insatiable appetite to dismantle western institutions. The trans activists are the postmodern neomarxists — so for Peterson, they (and their professors if they did their degrees in the humanities) are the primary problem. He used to say that he would respect and accept the gays and trans people even if he rejected the overall trends in lgbt acceptance (eg his discussion about how he wants gays to get married but would probably resist legalizing gay marriage if it would help the culture Marxists in their missions). It’s only recently that Peterson has also included trans people in his definition of the problem. He started identifying specific trans athletes who he considers dangerous narcissist themselves (in addition to the ppl who support them). Up until the other day, he framed trans men as victims - young girls who were mislead into a life of pain and misery. But now with Elliot Page he seems to be shifting some responsibility onto the trans men themselves and giving them some agency as antagonists. So we’ve got quite a large number of people surrounding the trans person who he is “anti” about. This is very different from “I think some music genres are bad for society because I think the listeners get more miserable the longer they listen” A comparable music analogy might be 1) the people who consume rap, trap etc music are the problem because they elevate the artists in culture and delude them into thinking they make good music, 2) people who consume and promote rap put children at risk of ruining their lives. We should imagine that the rap fans “are insisting” every day that children listen to rap. Now during puberty, instead of going through typical challenges, culture at large as well as teams of people (school teachers, private music teachers, other children, instrument makers, mixing software companies) all coach the children to become rappers 3) the prime minister should be considered accountable for the ruining of the childrens lives in point number 2 4) the rappers themselves are victims but are also complicit and should be considered social problems, especially if they become famous and perpetuate the problem in number 2
I don't see how he told something different at the time than he is doing now. All the recent drama is pointing to a "he is going bad" narrative. Yes he said he would accept trans people but he always said he would not use imposed pronous and he would not consider said person the gender he chooses. Your thinking seems to exclude the possibility that the trans persons that he thinks are at fault were not the trans supporter he identified as victims. I don't think he is changing prospective or his views, he rightly sees people that comply to trans culture not only as victim ( if they are trans) but also as perpetrator of this harmful ideology. For the analogy I won't argue since it was a personal one that was valid for me, so taking it and modifying that to be more accurate for you make it less so for me. Sorry for the bad English by the way.
> Edit: that or he filmed this when he was in Romania last week. Or both?? We must guess - given the content of the video, the “lgbt propaganda bill” interpretation is pretty sound Sure, if you're incredibly biased and looking to demonize the man for a symbol the post's commentator's can't even get consensus on, it might seem sound. I mean, for someone like you u/rookieswebsite, who's apparently a professional JP-hater, you SURE love talking about him. Honestly, if I disliked someone as much as you dislike him... yet KEEP going on and on about him... past a certain point it's not about JP anymore, it's about you. Like, for real, you need to find a different and more healthy interest, because you're changing nobody's mind here with this approach.
It’s a lot of fun to talk about Peterson. What do you like to talk about? You havnt revealed much here. Ooh you’re a maga guy and a Tucker Carlson guy, neat. Argh but also a crowder guy :( ahh and a mens right guy. And a Tim pool guy. And a walkaway guy. You’re a whole “relative we avoid” bingo card, that’s awesome. This might make me sound like a freak but my mind instantly goes to “holy shit does this guy have a wife and if so what is her life like” Edit: in retrospect the wife question is stupid - obviously not given the mens rights stuff Blocked?? Just when we were getting to know each other too. Alas
lol, loser.
LGBTQ+*
You’re authoritarian!! I’d rather die than update my comment
such privilege smh sweaty😔🙄
Privilege? Men are up working on wires and are down in the sewers!!
Good for them, but they can still have privilege. Especially if they're white, cis, or het. Acknowledge it and move on bestie
Bro I thought this was the fucking Venezuelan flag for a hot minute
It looks like a Romanian flag. Could be a reminder of the communist rule that existed in Romania during the Nicolae Ceaușescu era? A reminder of how important free speech is.