Marian Finucane

Calhoun wrote: »

See Marian is giving a human trafficker some air time.

See the Trumpkins have tuned in.

alaimacerc wrote: »

See the Trumpkins have tuned in.

.......or just someone who has a different opinion to you. This must not be tolerated without insult or pigeon-holing.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Now he's yelling into the mic about how outrageous and monstrous it is that pronoun use be -- and I quote directly -- be "enforced". Right after his soliloquy about what a fine and fitting thing "enforced" -- again, his very word in this very interview -- monogamy is.

There's a law for monogamy now? Are people guilty of a hate crime if they are not monogamous? The nice thing about Peterson is that because he is careful with his language, those that wish to discredit him have to deliberately either misquote him or twist his words. 'Yelling into the mic'? It would be somewhat out of character.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Does not even have the small bit of brains...

Mutterings of the demon.

You could simply say that you don't like him because the political affiliation you identify with is against him. It would be honest and more edifying.

Love it when the extreme left show their intolerance, anyone who disagrees with me is a trumpkin or small brains ect .

As for the topic at hand, Marian had a supposed NGO member on complaining that EU governments are ensuring people coming from Libya are not coming across the dangerous Atlantic and the organizations facilitating the human trafficking gangs are being criminalized.

NGO's do not get to decide immigration policies for sovereign nations and when you facilitate the human traffickers you pretty much are one.

She also had a nice poke at our government and many of the other EU governments while barely being challenged. Would have been nice to have a strong counter point.

RandomName2 wrote: »

There's a law for monogamy now? Are people guilty of a hate crime if they are not monogamous? The nice thing about Peterson is that because he is careful with his language, those that wish to discredit him have to deliberately either misquote him or twist his words.

It's a nice thing people say of him, at any rate. Though mainly himself, and people parroting everything he says, it must be said. Be nicer if it were remotely true.

He has just, on this very programme, repeated his view that monogamy should be enforced. Either "enforced" means "enforced", or it doesn't. Either he's being coy about his authoritarianism, and wants it enforced, y'know, as in with force, or he's merely speaking of what's normative, but doing so in overwrought and hyperbolic terms.

Either way, it's deeply sloppy use of language. Hence the epic irony of him sanctimoniously preaching to his amazingly credulous followers about "precision".

The Trump of psychology, indeed.

'Yelling into the mic'? It would be somewhat out of character.

He acts "out of character" quite a bit, then. As in, in every live piece I've seen him do. Mind you, the interviewers have been women in each case. Perhaps he deals better with being interrupted, contradicted, or otherwise challenged by interlocuters he sees as his peers in the gender hierarchy.

Mutterings of the demon.

Interesting choice of words. Isn't the whole point of JBP's schtick to keep the sort of social reaction that's traditionally associated with conservative religion, supposedly plausibly secular?

You could simply say that you don't like him because the political affiliation you identify with is against him. It would be honest and more edifying.

Sure, cling to whatever comforting caricature you wish. While, hilariously, attributing that very behaviour to others.

alaimacerc wrote: »

It's a nice thing people say of him, at any rate. Though mainly himself, and people parroting everything he says, it must be said. Be nicer if it were remotely true.

He has just, on this very programme, repeated his view that monogamy should be enforced. Either "enforced" means "enforced", or it doesn't. Either he's being coy about his authoritarianism, and wants it enforced, y'know, as in with force, or he's merely speaking of what's normative, but doing so in overwrought and hyperbolic terms.

Either way, it's deeply sloppy use of language. Hence the epic irony of him sanctimoniously preaching to his amazingly credulous followers about "precision".

Okay, so I went to the trouble of looking up the podcast, and I have written the relevant transcript for our benefit


You said it was alleged that I made controversial comments, that's exactly right, you got the terminology right there. What I pointed out that social enforcement of monogamous norms is one way that societies around the world keep male aggression at bay, and that's a solid finding from a hundred years of anthropology; one that's often cited by people on the left. So what happened in that New York Times article that you're referring to was that that was taken radically out of context - and the reporter knew that perfectly well, she was a very intelligent young woman, she knew exactly what she was doing when she did that - and to make the case that monogamous social norms, which are pretty much universal around the world, by the way, even though some people have some tendency towards multiple partners, the reason that monogamous social norms emerged was partially to keep male aggression under control. That's not controversial - anybody who knows the anthropological literature understands this.

That's the purpose of it?

Well.. there's a variety of purposes but that's definitely one. Polygamous societies are way more violent. Not a little bit more violent - way more violent. Yeah, so that's part of the purpose - there's a variety of purposes: you want people to have long-term stable partners because that's probably for men and women in general -

Love?

Well, yes, that would be good if it can be managed [...] The primary reason that monogamy is enforced socially is for children, as far as I can tell, because obviously children are dependent for very long periods of time


So yeah, I'd chalk that up as you misquoting for the sake of an agenda.

alaimacerc wrote: »

He acts "out of character" quite a bit, then. As in, in every live piece I've seen him do. Mind you, the interviewers have been women in each case. Perhaps he deals

Aaahhh. I'll just pretend you didn't keep going after this point.

EDIT -

I didn't bother listening to the rest of the podcast to see whether or not this is correct, as you have proven to be incorrect on your earlier point, notwithstanding your clear bias. It is possible that that was the case in this instance, which, if true, you can claim is proof of misogyny, if you like. Or in other words, continue what you're already doing.

RandomName2 wrote: »

So yeah, I'd chalk that up as you misquoting for the sake of an agenda.

I'm sure you would. Shame you didn't demonstrate any any misquoting.

It is possible that that was the case in this instance, which, if true, you can claim is proof of misogyny, if you like. Or in other words, continue what you're already doing.

"Proof" is a big word. I'd hardly be so rash as to have any expectation of demonstrating any such in the face of raging preconceptions of his wonderfulness. And as I said, I've only heard him interviewed by women, so it's entirely possible he's just as petulant and irascible with everyone. (Or with a non-gender random biased sample.)

Ahern's v quiet has hardly said anything?

Technocentral wrote: »

Ahern's v quiet has hardly said anything?

Perhaps he's depleted his lifetime quota of bullshyt.

Вашему собственному бычьему дерьму нельзя верить - V Putin

honeybear wrote: »

Good show today but Marion took 2 breaks practically one after the other

Yeah that was kind of weird.

So it's OK to support Croatia now. During the week anyone who said they were supporting them got a bollocking for not supporting England .

Bertie supports Croatia..... the captain has to go on trial for perjury and the Croatian football association is rife with corruption..... Just saying.

honeybear wrote: »

So that’s JP! Think all the panel made good contributions. To be fair to Marion, she moderated very well.

Think I have mixed JP up-heard podcast re JP on Joe Duffy yesterday

alaimacerc wrote: »

What he did mean by it originally is anyone's guess. He's apparently claimed it's a "technical" term from anthropology. Anthropologists beg to differ. Some of his defenders have claimed it's from biology; actually, it seems to see only very incidental use there, and not in any sense other than "enforced".

Monogamy is socially enforced, in Ireland today. Maybe if you could tell me what part of this you are struggling with I could help you. If the bit you're struggling with is how to make Peterson look like a misogynist, I'd say you should first abandon this dead horse.