What did he mean by this, Veeky Forums?

>Jordan Peterson is Canada’s most infamous intellectual
>Canada's
kek, even that sounds like damning with faint praise. I mean how many Canadian intellectuals do you know of?

>he isn't a mcluhan nigga

Says a lot about Canada desu

leftism is so bad at this point that even Kermit sounds like a serious figure

>Vice
I'm not giving them clicks, what does this article say?

Peterson has controversial thoughts about gender, like men and women not having the same interests on average
I know it's so controversial.

It says jack shit, really.

McLuhan is almost not even an intellectual dude

These fags are so butthurt lmao

Die

>he's not a Frye Fanatic

literally the pewdiepie of psychology

>that last part

Shit he got triggered even more than with that uk cunt.

I got the same sentiment (and I'm no great Peterson fan). Vice has always been trash.

>women shouldn't wear make-up in the workplace
Welp, Peterson's fucked. I like him and I hate to see it but he finally slipped up and gave the bloodsuckers the soundbyte they're gonna use to nail him to a cross.
It's not even out of context. Just a bit too far out of the Overton window. he's open season now.

Who cares? He's much smarter than all of them.

>women shouldn't wear makeup in the workplace
I agree but this is asinine to say in 2018 to a bunch of liberals

I care. Now we'll never get another Newman interview because they'll have a a screw in his side they can keep turning every time they want to quote mine him for strawmen

He didn't say they shouldn't. He raised awareness of the fact that women wear make-up and high heels at the workplace despite the fact that the function of both these things is to increase sexual appeal and nothing else, meaning it is a form of increased inequality in the workplace. Anyone who has a problem with that is willfully ignoring the point of the statement.

The point is that people are going to willfully ignore the intent of his statement.
Why do you think Vice chose the bulk of his interview to focus on that directly?

Nothing's really changed then. People willfully ignore the intent of practically all his statements. And the far right does it too. It's the end goal of any ideological movement to bastardize and then assimilate what others say into itself.

>increase sexual appeal and nothing else
That's a huge simplification. Make-up is generally accepted as a slef-care practice, just like men ironing their shirts.
At this point it's more to conform with societal norms than to have sex appeal. Most women I know don't leave the house without make up because they feel naked or disheveled without it

The change is in the degrees of separation between the message and the spin. Newman looked like a fraud because she had to jump through 3 logically fallacious hoops to try to smear him. The next interviewer won't have to try nearly as hard

Except make up cost money and time. It is not practical and efficient if you remove the power of attraction it has on men. And the funny thing is that women use it primary as a tool to compete against other women. It's the peacock effect. Some woman got an an advantage in attracting the alpha males using make up. Then all woman started to use make up. Now we think it's normal.

You're conflating their origins with their current use.
How Is make-up any different than men wearing fitted suits and combing our hair for work? Is that sexual attraction or are we just peacocking for the other guys in the office?

>Use makeup and not wanting to get harassed is hypocritical
What the fuck.
Petersonfags will defend this.

His point
>egalitarian economies are new and we don't have established rules for dealing with both genders in the work place. This may be causing the issues we see in the office today.
media narrative spin and your post
>Makeup means they're asking for it
I actually disagree with him on his point but your framing is way off bass

Why wear makeup unless you want to attract men? If it's just a little makeup, who cares but if it's a lot and your tits are popping out wearing sexy makeup just means you want attention from men right? Not even that it's a bad thing, just kind of slutty

I know a girl who wears lots of make up because she has terrible acne scarring from when she was a teenager, so the reason she wears make up is not to be sexually attractive but simply to cover up her scarred red face.

Yeah, but why not just walk around with terrible acne scarring? The makeup still serves the same purpose.

Self confidence, feeling good about yourself etc etc. Don't you get a good haircut, dress well and clean your teeth when you go to work? Same story. It's cosmesis and both men and women use it.

It's a red herring. Vice probably edited it make Peterson look aggressive. A person's face plays a major role in their success in life. Beautiful people get higher wages and so on. Women understands this very well. Men, not so much. We tend to value talent and physique when judging each other.
First of all, clothing is different from shit you put on your face. Now since it's ubiquitous, women must put on makeup and it doesn't seem too strange. But if all women stop using makeup and we reset things, there will be some woman who will use it as a means to cover up and attract men and gain an advantage.

To not look like an asshat that just threw on whatever and just got out of bed? Women can still look professional and not wear make up.

That is not at all the same thing, especially since both sexes do the basic hygienic upkeep you listed

It's still hiding flaws to be more appealing whether she wants to acknowledge that or not.

It's exactly the same thing. It's called cosmesis. Women use it more than men because that's how our culture is (you may be thinking: but cultural norms don't make any sense! In that case, congrats, you are ready to join the ranks of radical feminism) but that's about it. Thinking that it's hypocritical to wear makeup and not wanting to get harassed it's completely fucking retarded. Imagine if you had a gay boss that started touching your butt because he found you sexy. What would you do? Try to stop him or just stop shaving your beard, buying good clothes and going to the gym in the hope that he stops finding you attractive? Harassing is fucking wrong and any attempt to place blame on the victim is fucking dumb. Imagine if your mother or your sister got groped at work and you just told her "lol just stop wearing makeup you fucking roastie".

Le upboated, comrade! I came here to do science and punch Nazis, and Drumpf just cut funding for science! XD!

(Edit: Thanks for the gold, kind stranger!)

Back to Veeky Forums

>back to Veeky Forums
back to Veeky Forums

I'm not trying to be facetious or polarising but can someone remind me why, in the canon of academic thought, this guy gets mentioned so much around here ??
The guy is what he is, and he's ok, but, really?

>the day user learned a new word

wut

>liberal demagogues

I know, I read it and a little bit of wee came out

Name one other canadian intellectual that is a household name, I'll wait.(I'm Canadian btw, not being biased)

Norm Macdonald

Don't make fun of me.
Well i don't dislike him but he's hardly a household name.

frbr

Taylor or McLuhan are proper intellectuals.

Whereas Peterson is pop philosophy, inspired by his academic psychology work.

Jordan Peterson is the most Veeky Forums intellectual that there is, and you guys just hate him because he reminds you too much of yourself.

>Veeky Forums is a contiguous hivemind
wew, you've swallowed the evil Veeky Forums cabal story. Are you, perchance, a redditor?

underrated false flag

>conservative piece of shit

he's publicly stated that he's a marxist waging war on identity politics because it's undermined the worker's class consciousness, but in bizarro reactionary world aka the present reality that is considered "conservative"

It isn't in the canon of academic thought, he just says some shit others have, but it's the current year+2 so you get to sit back and watch this old man regurgitating Jungian + anti SJW rambling
(You) for the false flag.

He's really cornered the market on deranged people

>there are smarter on this fucking board even

>there are smarter on this fucking board even

came here to say this

>Make-up is generally accepted as a slef-care practice, just like men ironing their shirts.
He specifically pins red lipstick and high heels in the video. A small amount of makeup on the cheeks or something is one thing, using red lipstick or wearing high heels is not "self-care" in the same sense as men ironing their shirts. Women iron their clothes as well.

No, i just mean the large use of Christianity as a fundamental part of culture, the antiSJWism and the appreciation of classical culture, which all are very prevalent ideas on this board.

the "why must you torment me with these jezebels" copypasta except serious

Jokes aside, the point is that women are a part of the inequality between men and women in the workplace. It's not all men creating that inequality.

it's a completely vapid thought whose only goal is to say "oh well both sides blah blah" in order to stop or reverse any attempts at mutual fair treatment

Mutual fair treatment involves scrutinizing both men and women for the traditions they struggle to maintain.

no, it involves being actually interested in fair treatment, something folks who start talking about lipstick and high heels aren't

>(((VICE (((news))))))

Peterson is a reactionary, that's how this whole thing started with him. His attack is justified because it is actually in defense.

>His attack is justified because it is actually in defense
the fact that something is done in defense doesn't automatically make it justified, it depends on what he's actually defending
and he's defending shit

Nigger there are places that DEMAND women wearing these.

>mahler on the bottom

So you're alright with men being told they must restrain their behavior but women not being told this?

>vice
not literature

>( cause there are smarter on this fucking board even)
I KEKKED KER, KEKKACIO

wearing lipstick and high heels isn't the same as grabbing someone's ass, or taking your dick out in front of an employee while she's in your office
nice use of motte-and-bailey btw

who is supposed to be smarter here? have you seen the room of a Veeky Forums user?

You didn't answer my question. You just threw out some bizarre equivalences no one except you is making.

Are you alright with men being told they must restrain their behavior and women not being told this?

>You didn't answer my question.
that's because, as I said, your question is a part of the motte-and-bailey tactic
right now you're in the bailey part, where you ask an innocuous question to which you know you'll get an agreement, and then you can return to the motte - defending sexual discrimination and harassment

let me make it clear to you: wearing high heels and lipstick isn't behavior that needs to be restrained.

>defending sexual discrimination and harassment
That's not the point of any of this, dude. The point is that, by continuously enabling radical left attitudes (of which radical feminism is a part of), which do not at any point seek "mutual fair treatment" between men and women, or "privileged" and "non-privileged," etc. and only call for action against the men / privileged repeatedly, you carve the path for a potential future totalitarianism. The dangerous part of democracy is its ability to swiftly turn into a totalitarian state if the law is not kept at an absolute minimum and constantly upheld by individuals who exercise modesty and humility above all else because of its design which is intended to let the majority have a say in the direction of government policies. Radical anyone whatsoever, left or right, never exhibit modesty and humility. To let radical ideas like that into politics is to unleash a devastating blow to the entire democratic system, it's like forming a crack in the dam.

>wearing high heels and lipstick isn't behavior that needs to be restrained
I agree, ultimately, but what I don't agree with is anyone's insistence that there doesn't need to be some questioning on both sides of the fence.

where on earth is this picture from

>. Don't you get a good haircut, dress well and clean your teeth when you go to work?
Yes, but I'm doing it so that i can be as attractive to women as possible.

>basic hygiene is the same thing as wearing shoes that actually harm you and are less comfortable
Ok user.

>any attempt to place blame on the victim is fucking dumb
There are very few crimes where the victim is totally without fault. There's always more they should have done. This cult of victim affirmation is nothing more than a cynical oower-grab.

>Implying that's the only kind of cosmesis men employ
What are metrosexuals

>That's not the point of any of this, dude.
I'm sure you think so, but your blathering about radical feminism in a discussion about whether lipstick and high heels are haram indicates otherwise.

>Be you
>Get shot by nigger/school shooter
>Ambulance arrives
>"Well you should have wore a bulletproof vest, you fucking moron"
>"T-thanks guys"

>cult of victim affirmation
LOL

>I'm sure you think so
I know so. The fucking lipstick and high heels shit is just a random thing Peterson threw out there during an edited interview just to introduce the concept of questioning all things which may create inequality fairly. The seriousness he meant by it is up for debate until he comments further on it.

his instagram

iirc he let his daughter practice mardi gras make up on him or some shit

You should have attended a better school.

peterson btfo

Men acting like women. And the implications of how women act is the debate here, so...