By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I see the rise of Tate and Peterson and the impact they are having on young men and what masculinity looks like and it scares me, this is before I even watch adolescence.
One of the things that I'm conscious of is that there are very few male role models who counter the things that they say and fewer still that will appeal to young lads of today, Louis Threoux for example, a great advocate but how many 14, 15 year old lads know who is he is, let alone listen to him?
I think about who I looked up to as a teenager and who current teenagers might listen too and I keep comming back to footballers.
I see very little on this from clubs, filled with male role models and I feel that they would be a great staring point for trying to redress some of the bile that is spewed by such people.
This might sound pie in the sky but I think there had ro be a beginning, and I think with our club, the community and the work that goes into that, it would seem as good a place as any. Maybe I'm old and out of touch (well i am) but if I was a teenage lad and Liam Delap, Omari or someone was on socials and other places speaking about how wrong this view is id take notice.
I'm inclined to email the club and ask them if they can do some messaging around the subject, partner with suitable charities and maybe from there more would follow.
Anyone have any idea who is best to email?
I appreciate I might be on a wild goose chase here but from those I know in teaching or similar roles working with young lads I really feel that is becoming more and more or anything issue with not enough push back on the narrative from those that might be listened to.
Any suggestions as to anyone I can try contacting at the club are much appreciated.
I've spent quite a bit of time today answering everybody the best I can. I was not claiming not to know about his transphobia, I was debating whether it was transphobic or what does transphobia actually mean. e.g. i think its hatred or discrimination against trans people, but others seem to use it against anyone with gender critical views.
I'm sure his view is that he would use someone's preferred pronoun out of courtesy but he would not if compelled to do so. When he was debating someone who insisted he should put 32 different pronouns onto his phone and learn them he seems more the normal person than the outlier.
I think if you're finding it hard to take me seriously then there's not really any common ground here to continue unfortunately.
You seem to flit between certainty and assumption a lot, as well as actually not knowing why he’s so reviled/ criticised. I find it really odd to be honest you can take such staunch views with so many holes in them.
Surgery is an incredibly emotive subject, but manipulation of that issue to push more insidious views and get others to normalise them is the issue. I think it’s been pointed out to you further down by the looks of it. But Peterson is openly hateful and belligerent beyond objections to surgery.
Your denial of his faults has been really fascinating to be honest. You seem to be embodying why Peterson is regarded the same as Tate quite perfectly here.
I disagree, but I respect that you have watched him and formed your conclusion, and confrontation is absolutely fine and perhaps in some cases necessary as long as its not personal or insulting.
I don't really see how appealing to the same people, whether that's true or not, is an argument for judging someone. I judge them on what they say and try to judge if they are sincere or grifting for want of a better word. I'm fairly sure its the former.
I do think if you look at some of what he is saying now, and where he is saying it, that you'd be surprised with the route he has gone down from where he was.
I do think if you look at some of what he is saying now, and where he is saying it, that you'd be surprised with the route he has gone down from where he was.
Possibly. As I said elsewhere I'm not really interested in his Biblical conversations so a lot of what I've seen is a few years old. Probably just the Piers Morgan interviews have been recent. I'm open to changing my mind if the facts change as I have with Russell Brand.
I'm not his keeper though. I'm not a disciple. Have never bought any of his books, never been to his shows. It's like ah he said something somewhere that's bad (fact not opinion of course) so that's him cancelled and that's me getting heat as guilt by association. Ironically listening to him helped me see how people use these tools, which I hadn't realised before.
Possibly. As I said elsewhere I'm not really interested in his Biblical conversations so a lot of what I've seen is a few years old. Probably just the Piers Morgan interviews have been recent. I'm open to changing my mind if the facts change as I have with Russell Brand.
I'm not his keeper though. I'm not a disciple. Have never bought any of his books, never been to his shows. It's like ah he said something somewhere that's bad (fact not opinion of course) so that's him cancelled and that's me getting heat as guilt by association. Ironically listening to him helped me see how people use these tools, which I hadn't realised before.
The pount about the biblical stuff is twofold.
1. It suggests a rather murky and questionable religious right moral imperative underlying his reasoning generally. Does he reach views on gender through logic and evidence or because he starts from a religous conviction and seeks to support it?
2. It quickly disposes of the idea that he is bright or intellectually honest or rigorous.
There was this whole debacle, and then he said he'd rather die than call him Elliot. Doesn't sound very courteous to me.
[Post edited 2 Apr 11:09]
"i would err on the side of addressing the person in the manner that they requested" and then goes on to say however he won't be compelled by law
I don't know the details of your example, perhaps he was told he must and that provoked the response, i'm not his keeper really, i just started out by saying he is nothing like Andrew Tate, which I think any person can see within 10 seconds, but then comes all the heat.
1. It suggests a rather murky and questionable religious right moral imperative underlying his reasoning generally. Does he reach views on gender through logic and evidence or because he starts from a religous conviction and seeks to support it?
2. It quickly disposes of the idea that he is bright or intellectually honest or rigorous.
Would be daft if i tried to comment on something not seen. I did see him debating Richard Dawkins who is an atheist and gender critical, so i wouldn't think gender views and religion are wholly hand in hand.
"i would err on the side of addressing the person in the manner that they requested" and then goes on to say however he won't be compelled by law
I don't know the details of your example, perhaps he was told he must and that provoked the response, i'm not his keeper really, i just started out by saying he is nothing like Andrew Tate, which I think any person can see within 10 seconds, but then comes all the heat.
But he didn't err on the side of addressing them in the manner they requested.
He got annoyed that a person he had no ties to, who is an adult, chose to transition and, in doing so, changed their body.
Anyway on your general point, I wouldn't have them in the same bracket. Tate is much worse. But for me Peterson is very much a gateway into that mindset. I don't think the two of them get on.
Possibly. As I said elsewhere I'm not really interested in his Biblical conversations so a lot of what I've seen is a few years old. Probably just the Piers Morgan interviews have been recent. I'm open to changing my mind if the facts change as I have with Russell Brand.
I'm not his keeper though. I'm not a disciple. Have never bought any of his books, never been to his shows. It's like ah he said something somewhere that's bad (fact not opinion of course) so that's him cancelled and that's me getting heat as guilt by association. Ironically listening to him helped me see how people use these tools, which I hadn't realised before.
People have presented you with stuff he's said that is problematic but interestingly you seem to be ignoring that and cherry-picking what you respond to and how. That's known as confirmation bias, and is a tool a lot of people use to justify their convictions and dismiss alternative perspectives. Petersen should have taught you about that as well really. Also interesting that you think someone with the platform Petersen has is being cancelled and that you, openly sharing your views on a public forum, are also being cancelled by association. Why do you believe something that is demonstrably false but supports a particular narrative that you find appealing?
But he didn't err on the side of addressing them in the manner they requested.
He got annoyed that a person he had no ties to, who is an adult, chose to transition and, in doing so, changed their body.
Anyway on your general point, I wouldn't have them in the same bracket. Tate is much worse. But for me Peterson is very much a gateway into that mindset. I don't think the two of them get on.
I'd watched quite a few hours of him before I got to the interview with Piers Morgan where Morgan mentioned the film "Don't Worry Darling" where the film-maker admits the character negatively portrayed as an incel king was based on him (Peterson), so I didn't know of the connection before then.
In this interview with Morgan he wept about what he says are millions of young men being told they have no future that he has encountered and helped in his clinical profession. I don't believe he would have anything to gain for forcing himself to weep in a broadcast interview, it seemed genuine to me. I guess that is where the link is to Tate is.
People have presented you with stuff he's said that is problematic but interestingly you seem to be ignoring that and cherry-picking what you respond to and how. That's known as confirmation bias, and is a tool a lot of people use to justify their convictions and dismiss alternative perspectives. Petersen should have taught you about that as well really. Also interesting that you think someone with the platform Petersen has is being cancelled and that you, openly sharing your views on a public forum, are also being cancelled by association. Why do you believe something that is demonstrably false but supports a particular narrative that you find appealing?
I'm literally searching the web for videos backing up what i said and posting them.
When in a minority of say 5 against 1, it is 5 times harder responding in terms of time and effort, by definition.
Moreover I am not Peterson or his keeper as I have pointed out several times now. It is a clever guilt by association trick, but I only need to defend what I've said I agree with him, not his entire output history.
You're just doing the usual of a psycho analysis of someone you don't know, and another clever trick is to call something "demonstrably false" when all that is someone's opinion.
I'm literally searching the web for videos backing up what i said and posting them.
When in a minority of say 5 against 1, it is 5 times harder responding in terms of time and effort, by definition.
Moreover I am not Peterson or his keeper as I have pointed out several times now. It is a clever guilt by association trick, but I only need to defend what I've said I agree with him, not his entire output history.
You're just doing the usual of a psycho analysis of someone you don't know, and another clever trick is to call something "demonstrably false" when all that is someone's opinion.
But it is demonstrably false to say someone has been cancelled when they're expressing views that are publicly available, and in Petersen's case seen by an awful lot of people. That's not me performing a trick of any kind, it's highlighting that something is demonstrably false.
That you're frantically searching for material to back up your view of Petersen against the more consensus view being expressed here is also, again demonstrably, confirmation bias. There's no other way of dressing it up and I wonder why you're taking that approach?
Other people initially defended Petersen against being lumped in with Tate but when provided with evidence of the direction he's taken in recent years, they shifted their position. Changing one's position in light of new evidence is admirable and is how people learn and grow. Ignoring that evidence and actively seeking alternative evidence to reinforce your existing position, less so.
But it is demonstrably false to say someone has been cancelled when they're expressing views that are publicly available, and in Petersen's case seen by an awful lot of people. That's not me performing a trick of any kind, it's highlighting that something is demonstrably false.
That you're frantically searching for material to back up your view of Petersen against the more consensus view being expressed here is also, again demonstrably, confirmation bias. There's no other way of dressing it up and I wonder why you're taking that approach?
Other people initially defended Petersen against being lumped in with Tate but when provided with evidence of the direction he's taken in recent years, they shifted their position. Changing one's position in light of new evidence is admirable and is how people learn and grow. Ignoring that evidence and actively seeking alternative evidence to reinforce your existing position, less so.
[Post edited 2 Apr 15:14]
Problem with any discussions like this is increasingly now there can't be a debate with some nuance. It's either you are with us or against us. As a society we have to guard against this as well in my opinion. Peterson is either a good guy or he's Tate. I'm just not sure that's true and I'm probably one of the people you allude to i.e. it does seem to me since I've seen anything of him that he looks like he has gone down a dodgy hole....I'd want to test that out for myself with my own critical thinking of course (though he's not that interesting to me to spend the time).
I think there is a pile on going on here which is a bit unfair though not saying some of the points aren't valid either. I think it's the patronising/condescending tones that start coming out which means it's no longer a discussion and everyone's backs are up (not directing at you btw!). i wager trequista or whatever the name sorry would have been much more likely to seek out some of his newer stuff objectively and make his own opinions without some of the ways he has been spoken at.
No good will come of another 6 pages of this and the way it's moving.
But it is demonstrably false to say someone has been cancelled when they're expressing views that are publicly available, and in Petersen's case seen by an awful lot of people. That's not me performing a trick of any kind, it's highlighting that something is demonstrably false.
That you're frantically searching for material to back up your view of Petersen against the more consensus view being expressed here is also, again demonstrably, confirmation bias. There's no other way of dressing it up and I wonder why you're taking that approach?
Other people initially defended Petersen against being lumped in with Tate but when provided with evidence of the direction he's taken in recent years, they shifted their position. Changing one's position in light of new evidence is admirable and is how people learn and grow. Ignoring that evidence and actively seeking alternative evidence to reinforce your existing position, less so.
[Post edited 2 Apr 15:14]
I think we may differ on our definitions of cancelled. I think you are taking it to mean his work is no longer widely available and has been significantly censored. I meant it in respect of rather than take a persons collection of views and opinions and judge the views and opinions individually, the person themself is condemned for one of the views they hold regardless of any others they may hold.
Problem with any discussions like this is increasingly now there can't be a debate with some nuance. It's either you are with us or against us. As a society we have to guard against this as well in my opinion. Peterson is either a good guy or he's Tate. I'm just not sure that's true and I'm probably one of the people you allude to i.e. it does seem to me since I've seen anything of him that he looks like he has gone down a dodgy hole....I'd want to test that out for myself with my own critical thinking of course (though he's not that interesting to me to spend the time).
I think there is a pile on going on here which is a bit unfair though not saying some of the points aren't valid either. I think it's the patronising/condescending tones that start coming out which means it's no longer a discussion and everyone's backs are up (not directing at you btw!). i wager trequista or whatever the name sorry would have been much more likely to seek out some of his newer stuff objectively and make his own opinions without some of the ways he has been spoken at.
No good will come of another 6 pages of this and the way it's moving.
I'm ok, but thank you for the thoughtful words. I've been on here years. I already know the political makeup of the board and the way people work. If I don't like it I know where the door is. Rough and tumble with strangers on a message board is not going to kill me, whilst keeping in mind not to create any difficulty for twtd owners or users.
Problem with any discussions like this is increasingly now there can't be a debate with some nuance. It's either you are with us or against us. As a society we have to guard against this as well in my opinion. Peterson is either a good guy or he's Tate. I'm just not sure that's true and I'm probably one of the people you allude to i.e. it does seem to me since I've seen anything of him that he looks like he has gone down a dodgy hole....I'd want to test that out for myself with my own critical thinking of course (though he's not that interesting to me to spend the time).
I think there is a pile on going on here which is a bit unfair though not saying some of the points aren't valid either. I think it's the patronising/condescending tones that start coming out which means it's no longer a discussion and everyone's backs are up (not directing at you btw!). i wager trequista or whatever the name sorry would have been much more likely to seek out some of his newer stuff objectively and make his own opinions without some of the ways he has been spoken at.
No good will come of another 6 pages of this and the way it's moving.
When challenging someone and offering them evidence is seen as condescending, I think that's problematic and is part of the reason society is rapidly going to sh!t.
I think we may differ on our definitions of cancelled. I think you are taking it to mean his work is no longer widely available and has been significantly censored. I meant it in respect of rather than take a persons collection of views and opinions and judge the views and opinions individually, the person themself is condemned for one of the views they hold regardless of any others they may hold.
[Post edited 2 Apr 16:15]
But it isn't just one of his views that's the issue, there are a number of views he's expressed (some of which people have shared in this thread) that taken together are quite problematic and could be seen as an ideology or world view that is troublesome. It would be reasonable to have a degree of scepticism about someone on that basis. That doesn't mean they've never been right about anything or said interesting stuff on other topics, but the chances are other people have been right about the same stuff or have said equally interesting things but without all the baggage that the more toxic stuff Petersen has said tends to bring.
When challenging someone and offering them evidence is seen as condescending, I think that's problematic and is part of the reason society is rapidly going to sh!t.
I agree but that's not the only thing that happened (if you are honest). If you don't think anyone wrote anything condescending then ok....Like I said I definitely wasn't aiming my post specifically at you. There was all sorts of narky comments e.g. "so he fools a slightly different flavour of sad sack." Which is suggesting the person putting up some defence is that said sad sack. There were plenty of people putting up more reasoned and just some evidence stuff up (no issue)
On the balance of what people were saying/showing I suspect Peterson has gone in a direction I don't like/agree with. But whether I agree with you, disagree, yet to decide - we always end up in snide attacks and belittling etc in these chats. We're about 3 pages from someone getting personal and a note tomorrow from a frustrated Phil having had to delete another thread.
Not trying to get into a one on one with you here. Yours was just the last post in the thread so responded on that one so not aiming at debating you (I have no reason to).
I'm ok, but thank you for the thoughtful words. I've been on here years. I already know the political makeup of the board and the way people work. If I don't like it I know where the door is. Rough and tumble with strangers on a message board is not going to kill me, whilst keeping in mind not to create any difficulty for twtd owners or users.
[Post edited 2 Apr 16:19]
Haha yes that's fair. Was trying to be general really rather than your saviour haha.
I've probably kicked up more of a hornets nest by trying to add some balance.
But it isn't just one of his views that's the issue, there are a number of views he's expressed (some of which people have shared in this thread) that taken together are quite problematic and could be seen as an ideology or world view that is troublesome. It would be reasonable to have a degree of scepticism about someone on that basis. That doesn't mean they've never been right about anything or said interesting stuff on other topics, but the chances are other people have been right about the same stuff or have said equally interesting things but without all the baggage that the more toxic stuff Petersen has said tends to bring.
You're now making a different point about the precise definition of my interpretation of cancellation, rather than accept I didn't say something "demonstrably false", having explained cancellation means the condemnation of a person rather than the views of a person, may that be single or multiple.
It was a single throwaway remark anyway, not central to the argument, and yet you accused me of cherry-picking? hmmm.
You're now making a different point about the precise definition of my interpretation of cancellation, rather than accept I didn't say something "demonstrably false", having explained cancellation means the condemnation of a person rather than the views of a person, may that be single or multiple.
It was a single throwaway remark anyway, not central to the argument, and yet you accused me of cherry-picking? hmmm.
Sorry for responding to what you actually posted. Cancellation and condemnation are entirely different things so if you're conflating them that's on you. He may have been condemned for his views but he clearly hasn't been cancelled when he still has various platforms that give him a wide audience.
Edit - And editing your post after I've responded and then claiming I'm cherry picking in my response to what you originally posted isn't a great look.
Sorry for responding to what you actually posted. Cancellation and condemnation are entirely different things so if you're conflating them that's on you. He may have been condemned for his views but he clearly hasn't been cancelled when he still has various platforms that give him a wide audience.
Edit - And editing your post after I've responded and then claiming I'm cherry picking in my response to what you originally posted isn't a great look.
[Post edited 2 Apr 17:07]
I haven't conflated cancellation and condemnation, so i would say it is on you if you've misread that. Condemnation is a simply the act of condemning, cancellation is condemning, or lets use a different phrase to avoid confusion, making someone person non grata for their views rather than condemning the specific views.
I mean you can argue it doesn't mean that if you want, but I said it, so I know what i meant, and if you didn't know what i meant at the time, fine, but you do now.
Sorry for responding to what you actually posted. Cancellation and condemnation are entirely different things so if you're conflating them that's on you. He may have been condemned for his views but he clearly hasn't been cancelled when he still has various platforms that give him a wide audience.
Edit - And editing your post after I've responded and then claiming I'm cherry picking in my response to what you originally posted isn't a great look.
[Post edited 2 Apr 17:07]
Come on, guys, let's not allow this post to end up being deleted by Phil, when it raises really valid issues. Hell, he is busy enough! Just accept that this thread has run its course.
You won't change each others' views, and this topic has derailed from the important issue. Incel is a big problem. It's nice to see it talked about, but debating semantics and nuance is counter productive, because people disengage, and might possibly stop thinking about how to handle the real issue.
I haven't conflated cancellation and condemnation, so i would say it is on you if you've misread that. Condemnation is a simply the act of condemning, cancellation is condemning, or lets use a different phrase to avoid confusion, making someone person non grata for their views rather than condemning the specific views.
I mean you can argue it doesn't mean that if you want, but I said it, so I know what i meant, and if you didn't know what i meant at the time, fine, but you do now.
You've gone all Mad Hatter here so let's leave it there. Suffice to say we disagree and as the poster above has said, better to get the thread back on track to incels and the role of people like Petersen in influencing and legitimising incel culture.
You've gone all Mad Hatter here so let's leave it there. Suffice to say we disagree and as the poster above has said, better to get the thread back on track to incels and the role of people like Petersen in influencing and legitimising incel culture.
Yeah call him mad hatter and hang up. Happy to leave it be.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
