I agree. I think he meant well. I argue another point: I for am just glad that we’re celebrating a woman, at the very least and not a trans woman. That’s only two positives I took out of this debacle. Is she celebrity beautiful, no. Is she unhealthy? Yes. But it took guts for her to go out and show herself. Is it the results she wanted no. But maybe we should be arguing for heath standards and beauty to be tied together to make a balanced argument. What do you think?
I dunno, I think that sloppiness has its place in all of this. If Peterson had chosen his words “more carefully,” there might not have been a firestorm to begin with.
In the Usenet days, flame wars began with such outlandish statements as Peterson’s and often led to a friendly agreement to disagree, but that was then and this is now.
What I find amazing is that the left is allowed to spew unfiltered bile about anything they want to while the right has to “more carefully” select their means of expressing themselves.
Rand once said something to the effect that choosing pure violence as a means of control is effective, combining violence with intelligence is utterly untouchable.
And, no, I’m condoning violence here, puh-leeze...
I’m just saying that using leftish methods while combining them with intellectual honesty can be infinitely more effective than raw emotion alone.
I'm a fat woman, and my husband and I got in an argument about this. His thoughts: there is no media push to normalize the pathological and Jordan P was just being a misogynist dick. Mine, being familiar with the ongoing argument about forced celebration, understood the context. But where we really argued was his thought that she should be celebrated because judging her body was mean-spirited. My thinking is that the woman is posing on the cover of a magazine issue that is historically made for masturbatory fantasy. I can critique a band for a new song i dont like. Their job is to play music. Why cant i critique a body whose job it is to be masturbation fodder? My good prog husband finds this to be a sort of victim-blaming on my part. Women have agency and might well be critiqued for offering themselves up as sexual fodder. An aside, to have her (or recent trans models) there at all is to some extent to capitalize on a mood that is primed for wanking, and therefore to be in the business of changing men's tastes. And that kind of social engineering that one is not allowed to critique is very authoritarian in my view.
Fat people are objectively physically unattractive, unhealthy, and obviously not athletic. It's not mean to simply state facts.
It requires 1984-level authoritarianism to enforce a society of people who are supposed to look at fat people on Sports Illustrated and say "She's attractive, healthy, and athletic."
That's Peterson's point and he's spot-on. I'm convinced that anyone confused or angry about his tweet are being purposefully obtuse.
I agree. I think he meant well. I argue another point: I for am just glad that we’re celebrating a woman, at the very least and not a trans woman. That’s only two positives I took out of this debacle. Is she celebrity beautiful, no. Is she unhealthy? Yes. But it took guts for her to go out and show herself. Is it the results she wanted no. But maybe we should be arguing for heath standards and beauty to be tied together to make a balanced argument. What do you think?
I dunno, I think that sloppiness has its place in all of this. If Peterson had chosen his words “more carefully,” there might not have been a firestorm to begin with.
In the Usenet days, flame wars began with such outlandish statements as Peterson’s and often led to a friendly agreement to disagree, but that was then and this is now.
What I find amazing is that the left is allowed to spew unfiltered bile about anything they want to while the right has to “more carefully” select their means of expressing themselves.
Rand once said something to the effect that choosing pure violence as a means of control is effective, combining violence with intelligence is utterly untouchable.
And, no, I’m condoning violence here, puh-leeze...
I’m just saying that using leftish methods while combining them with intellectual honesty can be infinitely more effective than raw emotion alone.
Just my $0.02 worth...
I'm a fat woman, and my husband and I got in an argument about this. His thoughts: there is no media push to normalize the pathological and Jordan P was just being a misogynist dick. Mine, being familiar with the ongoing argument about forced celebration, understood the context. But where we really argued was his thought that she should be celebrated because judging her body was mean-spirited. My thinking is that the woman is posing on the cover of a magazine issue that is historically made for masturbatory fantasy. I can critique a band for a new song i dont like. Their job is to play music. Why cant i critique a body whose job it is to be masturbation fodder? My good prog husband finds this to be a sort of victim-blaming on my part. Women have agency and might well be critiqued for offering themselves up as sexual fodder. An aside, to have her (or recent trans models) there at all is to some extent to capitalize on a mood that is primed for wanking, and therefore to be in the business of changing men's tastes. And that kind of social engineering that one is not allowed to critique is very authoritarian in my view.
Fat people are objectively physically unattractive, unhealthy, and obviously not athletic. It's not mean to simply state facts.
It requires 1984-level authoritarianism to enforce a society of people who are supposed to look at fat people on Sports Illustrated and say "She's attractive, healthy, and athletic."
That's Peterson's point and he's spot-on. I'm convinced that anyone confused or angry about his tweet are being purposefully obtuse.
Excellent redress and integrity of intellect. If my comments, on the first part of this story doesn't indicate such, I think you mailed it!