Utopia Talk / Politics / Walking is racist

Sam Adams Member	Wed Aug 01 12:12:22 http://www...lking-to-racism/partners/44197
yankeessuck123 Member	Wed Aug 01 12:25:14 Peterson sucks, but this is some wacky sounding shit right here.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Wed Aug 01 12:52:04 "an interrogating praxis for walking within the colour lines of race, the patriarchies of gender, the possession of settler colonialism, the ableism of the ideal body, and the anthropocism of human exceptionalism." lol
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 12:52:58 Stripped of the academic sounding bullshitery, is this idea (which obviously is not "walking is racist" as Sam claims) any more controversial than saying "an activity has different connotations depending on context which can include race and class"? E.g. an Edwardian gentleman might have no need to drive, and his car and driving clothes is a statement, as is his going for a drive in the country; whereas a 20th century American might view it as essential to their livelihood and actually despise the need for an hour long drive to work. Same can surely be said for walking. My enjoyable post Sunday lunch amble around south London meadows, Vs Sam's hiking, Vs some woman's trek to get water in Sudan.
hood Member	Wed Aug 01 12:54:27 Sonofabitch, seriously Seb? Are you just an incredibly brilliant character troll? That seems more likely at this point.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 12:55:03 "an interrogating praxis for walking within the colour lines of race, the patriarchies of gender, the possession of settler colonialism, the ableism of the ideal body, and the anthropocism of human exceptionalism" Translated "thinking about what walking means to people of different races, genders...". Fairly abstruse but perhaps relevant for e.g. interpreting meanings of texts, films etc.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 12:58:09 Just saying actually, as far as I can see, this is basically a very simple an obvious idea wrapped up in very stupid, ridiculous language to be arcane, complex and meaningful. And predictably, as normal, Sam is talking nonsense. Surely you don't seriously think every culture/group has a uniform perspective on walking?
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 12:58:36 Or indeed, any activity.
Forwyn Member	Wed Aug 01 12:59:41 "his car and driving clothes is a statement" What statement is there with walking? There is no cost barrier. There is no geographical barrier. The closest you can come to a barrier is an inner-city safety issue.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 13:23:29 Forwyn: Same: I go for a walk for fun, for others going on walking holidays it's probably a status thing (e.g. the Camino) in the past walking was a working class activity and the aristocratic went out of their way to avoid it, being carried about on palequins. Look, immnot saying this paper is a hugely valuable thing. I agree it's ridiculous. I'm just saying the concept that things mean different things to different people is not crazy whacky out there, it's basically stupidly obvious to the point of triviality. Some people get triggered when they see the words gender and race though.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Aug 01 13:46:11 "Are you just an incredibly brilliant character troll? That seems more likely at this point." I've held that Seb is either a troll or a fucking idiot, but I wouldn't say a "brilliant" troll — just a dedicated one.
murder Member	Wed Aug 01 13:48:54 Seb is probably the least trollish person on this forum.
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 01 14:06:23 "Peterson sucks" Nope, he is pretty informative and direct. You just dont like his conclusions.
yankeessuck123 Member	Wed Aug 01 14:45:07 He sucks because he's an old-fashioned reactionary who has simply managed to package antiquated thinking in a way that resonates with a section of the modern population. He has put new life into ideas that should be dead. This is why he sucks.
Rugian Member	Wed Aug 01 14:48:48 "He has put new life into ideas that should be dead" Ideas like how we shouldn't jail people who refuse to recognize 37 different preferred pronouns? What a neanderthal.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 01 16:36:24 seb Sam did not say any of the things you have accused him of in this thread. The thread title is from the article. "I agree it's ridiculous." I think everyone here does. But someone felt the need to point out that, behind the "very stupid, ridiculous language to be arcane" there is something obvious. I think this describes some significant criticism of french post modernists, by people like Peterson. Stop trolling for arguments son. Yankee "antiquated thinking" Example?
obaminated Member	Wed Aug 01 17:27:10 @ys - that is a flowery way of saying i dont have specific examples.
Seb Member	Wed Aug 01 18:12:41 Nim: The article title says "links walking to racism", not "walking is racist". Further, nothing in the article substantiated the articles title, much less Sam's more extreme version in the thread title. So, I stand by my point: as is always the case, Sam is talking nonsense. I wonder who exactly is trolling for arguments given you actually appear to agree with my position yet find the need to seek points to disagree on.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 04:12:59 The study indeed argues that certain types of walking is signs of racism. And everyone understood sam’s satirical headlines but you. Take your medication, this is the inner dumbass in you talking.
Nekran Member	Thu Aug 02 04:43:04 "Ideas like how we shouldn't jail people who refuse to recognize 37 different preferred pronouns? What a neanderthal." Perhaps how he thinks enforced monogamy is a good thing and is against divorce and contraception? Or maybe how he thinks women who wear makeup are hypocritical if they then don't like being sexually harassed when they wear their sexual displays? Those sound like some pretty out-dated and more importantly shitty ideas to promote, yes.
smart dude Member	Thu Aug 02 04:58:25 " Or maybe how he thinks women who wear makeup are hypocritical if they then don't like being sexually harassed when they wear their sexual displays?" He never said that. Source? He was making a point. Where do we draw the line about what is and is not appropriate sexual behavior in a work environment. He NEVER said that women who wear makeup are hypocrites for complaining about sexual harrassment. That is a willful misinterpretation. One that you came up with on your own or (more likely) one that you are parrotting from someone else.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 02 05:15:01 Nim: "The study indeed argues that certain types of walking is signs of racism" Where?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 05:23:27 Nekran before you digg this grave any deeper, you should follow SDs advice, just for your own sake without this thread and UP in mind. Together with this fact, that ”enforced monogamy” is a technical term in psychology and anthropology to describe an aspect of a social system. The make up interview from Vice, it is difficult to explain without giving room to people to think out loud, reason as they go in unknown territory. If you think the full answer is an unequivocal no, then it is useless talking about it. Adult conversations are suited for adults. There is nothing wrong pointing out the problematic aspects in sexing yourself up to go to work, it may not be the intent, but it is an inseperable part of it. You should be able to have a sober discussion about it without freaking out.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 05:32:45 Seb Sorry my dude, I am not wasting more time. And from now on if I do not expressly ask for your opinion take it as a sign that I do not consent to rando people asking me questions.
Nekran Member	Thu Aug 02 05:42:54 Being posed the question "Do you think a serious woman who does not want sexual harassment in the worklplace, do you feel is she wears makeup to the workplace, she is being somewhat hypocritical?", he answers "Yes. I do think that." He operates from the mistaken idea that because things have an evolutionary or biological cause, that the reason for that cause existing is also the actual reason we do these things. Wearing makeup, according to him, is sexually provocative. Why do women color their lips read? Because they turn more red during sexual arousal. And sure, that may well be the root of this behaviour. But it is in the same way that enjoying sex is only a thing because that helps with reproduction. However, many of us don't have sex in order to reproduce. Many of us would often even consider that the worst possible outcome of sex. And in the same way, women don't wear make-up to seem sexually aroused or to provoke anyone sexually.
Seb Member	Thu Aug 02 05:45:22 Nim: Hey, you engaged me in a desperate attempt to start an argument. The paper does not say walking is a sign of racism. You have a hard time accepting when you are wrong. Any reference to me, or response to one of my posts will be taken as consent to engage. Cheers,
Nekran Member	Thu Aug 02 06:01:36 "There is nothing wrong pointing out the problematic aspects in sexing yourself up to go to work, it may not be the intent, but it is an inseperable part of it. You should be able to have a sober discussion about it without freaking out." Who's freaking out? I'm just pointing out how that is a stupid opinion. The problem obviously lies with people who can't behave properly around other human beings, regardless of how those people choose to look. I mean the guy thinks makeup should not be allowed in the workplace because of its biological roots. Does he also think making jokes should not be allowed, because humor is a way of displaying your intelligence in order to attract sexual partners? Evolution is all about maximizing reproduction. You can't be against everything that stems from an evolutionary root to increase your chances at sex, because that is basically everything.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 06:08:58 Nekran A certain behavior may give rise to issues (problems) that are not wanted. The interview is done after metoo, apparently we have issues at workplaces. If you are going to talk about them, then all aspects should open to discussion. And that includes problematic behavior that women engage in as well, intended or not. There is little about biologically driven behavior that is transparent or conscious to us. Do you understand why it could be viewed as inappropriate to dress sexy for work? How can people talk about it without freaking out? Because it can’t be done by excluding 50% of the population and their behavior from the discussion.
Nekran Member	Thu Aug 02 06:13:34 I'm not exclusing it from the discussion at all. I'm just pointing out how stupid his argument against makeup is.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 07:00:16 >>Who's freaking out?<< When people so badly miss the point of someones arguments (Peterson) and start speaking sexism/mys they are freaking out. They are usually interpreting from incomplete information and unfamiliarity with language that colloquially has different meaning. Enforced monogamy for instance, eeeek Hand Maiden’s Tale!!! I don’t think you are running around with your hair on fire, but this is social media type freak out. >>I'm just pointing out how that is a stupid opinion.<< Based in no small part in not even understanding technical terms. >>The problem obviously lies with people who can't behave properly around other human beings, regardless of how those people choose to look.<< Yes obviously signaling things to everyone you meet means the complete opposite of the signal. Obviously women are unaware of this, but then men know better. It helps if you understand how ambigous human female mating signals are compared to other closely related primates. When chimps are in estrus you can clearly see it, not in humans. Yet human female breast are always large, while in the chimps (and virtually all other mammals) they are only enlarged when she has offspring. So there are no natural signals in human females to say I am not available or available. And unlike most mammels we have no specific mating season, you have roughly 12 occasions per year (similar to chimps). We solved this with culture and social signaling, ornaments, painting, cloths etc. even trials of passing. And yes marriage and wearing of something to indicate you have a mate. >>attract sexual partners?<< Should we be allowed to attract sexual partners at work? If yes, then expect a lot of unwanted attempts, utterly failed and akward ones that will create tensions. I think most people agree we go to work, to work. >>You can't be against everything that stems from an evolutionary root to increase your chances at sex, because that is basically everything<< No one has said this. Are you saying we should live by the urges of our evolution? Of course not that would be insane. So over the ages we have constructed cultural and legal systems to stabilize and regulate our own nature and behavior. Have you paid attention to how much of religions is about the regulation of mating? Why do you think that is? Our ancestors were not complete retards, they were much more aware of how savage things get when left to nature. The 20th century in the west has largely been about deconstructing those systems, because they were outdated and oppressive in the face of emerging truths and facts, emergent properties of our societies. The big problem is that some significant portion of people think that nothing is needed to replace them or that nothing worse will fill that vacuum in their absence. Your progressive view has to take into account reality and all the people that populate it. Society to some degree has to cater to a lowest common denominator. That includes people who do not have your level of profficiency in communicating and conforming to unclear social rules.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 07:45:08 >>I'm just pointing out how stupid his argument against makeup is.<< Arguably he did not answer the smug interviewer at his best form. Something he has explained (how the Vice journo behaved and what he meant) several times, adding it was a 2 hour long interview, 20 minutes that made it into the ”full” interview. He goes om to say that this is a difficult and complex subject. Anyways don’t listen to me you can find out for yourself, the Internet is still free. Now you may still disagree, infact you probably will, but hopefully nuanced and with honesty.
hood Member	Thu Aug 02 08:12:14 "the Internet is still free" Arguable.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 09:23:45 Sigh, yes that is also arguable.
Nekran Member	Thu Aug 02 12:08:21 "Should we be allowed to attract sexual partners at work? If yes, then expect a lot of unwanted attempts, utterly failed and akward ones that will create tensions. I think most people agree we go to work, to work." I argue that people are pretty much always doing things that can be interpreted as attracting sexual partners. This because of the simple reality that we reproduce sexually and have evolved to reproduce as much as possible, just like all life. I don't make a female coworker laugh in order to attract her sexually, just like a woman doesn't wear make up in order to attract her male coworkers. The coworkers in question could easily interpret those signals that way though. It seems pretty much inevitable to me that there will always be behaviour that can be itnerpreted that way, be it in the workplace or elsewhere. Clear rules on what behavior is acceptable are necessary. I am on the side of making rules about what are acceptable ways to approach a potential mate. I'm against making rules that ban sending out signals that could be misinterpreted, on the grounds of this being impossible. "Yes obviously signaling things to everyone you meet means the complete opposite of the signal. Obviously women are unaware of this, but then men know better. It helps if you understand how ambigous human female mating signals are compared to other closely related primates... We solved this with culture and social signaling, ornaments, painting, cloths etc. even trials of passing. And yes marriage and wearing of something to indicate you have a mate." Even if they are signaling that they are looking for a mate, that does not mean they are looking for any mate. Once again, I pose that the only thing that is senseful in regulating, is how we think approaching a potential mate is appropriate or not. "Your progressive view has to take into account reality and all the people that populate it. Society to some degree has to cater to a lowest common denominator. That includes people who do not have your level of profficiency in communicating and conforming to unclear social rules." Absolutely. And these people should learn clearly what is and isn't acceptable when approaching a potential mate. What we should definitely not teach them is that if they think they spot a signal that a potential mate is up for it, everything is fair game.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 02 13:44:22 Nekran my intention was never to actually argue the topic with you, but to convey a fuller picture of Peterson. One question, is this a valid discussion to have, or does it make me sexist and misogynistic? Here is 15 minutes of Peterson on the Joe Rogan Experience explaining the Vice interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU6pHBs5rNY&t=646s
Dukhat Member	Thu Aug 02 15:56:17 Use to think Peterson was an honest intellectual. His overgeneralizing that we shouldn't study humanities because of one incident shows he's leaped off the deep end.
hood Member	Thu Aug 02 16:42:18 One incident? We get these regularly. Did we all forget when engineering was sexist because of how engineers lode balance office buildings?
Dukhat Member	Thu Aug 02 17:09:45 "regularly" Probably less than 1% of 1% are this bad. You get them regularly because the breitbarts of the world want to encourage a narrative of white male victimization. Most humanities studies are valid and present interesting ideas.
hood Member	Thu Aug 02 17:39:41 And your assertion is based on...?
Dukhat Member	Thu Aug 02 21:42:21 A lot more than a bunch of fucking alt-right retards that literally never read secular information sources looking for confirmation bias.
hood Member	Thu Aug 02 21:54:58 That's a very fragile foundation of knowledge.
Pillz Member	Fri Aug 03 00:06:54 Cuckhat has forgotten about feminist glaciology and the Masculinity of Carbon Fiber too Or how AC is sexiest because when prefer warmer temperatures (but guys there are no differences between men and women so what??)
Dukhat Member	Fri Aug 03 00:17:37 Reading high-quality magazines and journals and coming upon humanities studies organically is fragile versus getting enraged over some shitty-ass tweet? Yeah ... if only more people took initiative and pursued research on topics that interested them; they'd start to develop more secular knowledge and not politicize everything like the far-right did with climate change.
smart dude Member	Fri Aug 03 01:13:53 Dude, climate change is sexist. http://www...s-how-climate-change-is-sexist
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 03 02:48:34 Cuckhat is a moron. "I'm just pointing out how stupid his argument against makeup is." His point isn't stupid. If a woman "peacocks" herself to go to work, how are men supposed to react? Peterson is looking at the entire scenario from a higher level. Maybe women shouldn't be allowed to wear make up/perfume when they work with men. Maybe men shouldn't be allowed to wear cologne when working with women. The entire point of dressing up is to attract a mate. That is our base purpose.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 02:53:31 Peterson and everyone with an understanding of the issue are specific in their criticism and it pertains to the ideological battle (not a new thing with ideological battles in academia) in academia, categorized as the post modern vs the modern, marxist influences vs the classical liberal. Even his own field of psychology and specific sub fields (social psychology) are among them. Don’t give in to the darkside of agenda driven journalism Dukhat, read, think. Arguably the craziest and most detached from the rest of the world are cultural anthropology, gender studies and social psychology, they also happen to be some of the least ideologically diverse fields. Which when trying to search for explanations to human behavior will create blind spots and limitations to the search space. A whole range of systemic issues will emerge when everyone thinks within the same box, which is not a very controvertial concept and actually something the very same people are aware of when it relates to gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. You know because all women, gays and black people _think_ the same.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 03:05:47 >>Probably less than 1% of 1% are this bad.<< What do you base this on? I have posted several in depth analysis on this board, from within the humanities and social sciences about the issues both regarding methodology and ideology. >>Most humanities studies are valid<< Agreed. >>and present interesting ideas.<< Nope. These are important fields, which is why this dicussion is important. You need people to battle and compete for truth to emerge, that is how it works. Otherwise circle jerk ensues to the echo of your peers fapping. There is nothing unique with the humanities, well perhaps the ambiguity in the subjects as it mostly relates to hard to verify historical events. But things like publication bias and insularity happens everywhere, just that engineering and finance, for instance are much more diverse. In a sentence, the self correcting mechanism that is the pillar of science is not functioning properly in much of the humanities.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 03:18:18 Obaminated ”The entire point of dressing up is to attract a mate. That is our base purpose” This is not true, it is not the entire purpose, but even if this is part of the purpose, you obviously do not think that women put on make up in the morning in the hopes that every guy or some anurd percent of them she meets will hit on her. Conservative married women put on make up, TO CHURCH. Presenting this as a problem serves the purpose of awareness. When you do ”things” they have an effect, but they may also have a side effect some may find troublesome.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 03:35:00 A not so small part of painting yourself is related to intra-sexual competition. Which would explain putting on make up to work. Historically women and men worked fairly segregated or with their kin, so this other dynamic was a non issue. Intra sexual competition among men, is direct and many times violent, there are overt and natural incentives to subdue them, or point them outwards. In women it is subtle, verbal and psychological, often about undermining through rather complex social dynamics and alliances. These are not exlusive to either gender, but emerge as a result of disparity in physical strength among other things. In chimps for instances weaker males may band together to get rid of a physically stronger and dominant alpha.
obaminated Member	Fri Aug 03 03:38:21 " Conservative married women put on make up, TO CHURCH." that is irrelevant. You dress up because you want to stand out. You want to stand out because you want attention. Maybe it is a bridge too far to conclude that the attention you want when dressing up is specifically to find a mate.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 04:04:35 You may want the attention of other women, or a specific man. Not all of them. It is probably as awareness raising for men to understand that. Though the dynamic is incetivized so that men often take first contact. Makes difficult to say to men, stop bothering women with unsolicited advances, when by and large that is how we got here. Our forfathers kept trying and trying everywhere and all year around. The tenecious man phenotype was very succesful :) Teaching men a new would require teaching women a new as well. These nuances are not irrelevant since you said, the *entire* purpose is to attract a mate. Very little we do has one sole purpose, not even specific genes in your DNA have _a_ purpose, they have many.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 04:15:49 If I may obaminated? There are definitly problems with women using their sexuality as a means to power and status, regardless of biological purpose. Scaled up to he modern world, these base urges make less and less sense. For instance, biologically when you watch porn or hitting up one night stands on whatever app it is, it may serve the same purpose in your neurons as if you are some dick slingin mack daddy with 1000s of offspring. In reality you are a loser in a 1 bedroom appartment with zero prospects. Unintended consequences of your biological urges getting trapped by modernity.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 04:26:27 Back when these things evolved, there was no sports illustrated, Playboy, bill board signs with women in bathing suits or double anal penetration videos on youporn. These things were not a click away to bombard your brain with ever more extreme fantasies. And you know not a whole lot of people around to begin with and to come in contact with. Compare it with obesity, natural proclivity for sugar, adaptive in the ancestral environment, mal-adaptive in a super market environment.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 04:31:57 Pillz: " Cuckhat has forgotten about feminist glaciology and the Masculinity of Carbon Fiber too" Gosh, when you throw those in the mix that must be what? 10% of all humanities publications produced that year?
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 04:34:00 smart dude: Are we seriously arguing against the idea external context can affect people of different genders, class and race differently if social structure treats them differently?
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 04:37:44 Nim: "There are definitly problems with women using their sexuality as a means to power and status" Oh my god. You're one step away from re-inventing the burkha. That's very much the justification, women inflaming men's passion with their provocative looks etc. Apply some fucking willpower. The Greeks/Romans had it right with the greek tragedies. Yes, external events may force people to do bad things, but they must still own the consequences.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 06:03:43 seb I do not consent.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 06:05:12 And you are welcome to tell me I'm an ass for replying to you.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 06:11:27 No no I can do it without name calling. I think you have very little useful to add to these conversations and so I do not invite you engage, with me. You are free to do so with others.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 06:39:39 In a public forum, I'm afraid I am going to engage with the flawed arguments you post as they are in the public domain. I shall clarify my posts are aimed at your content than for you to respond to by prefacing "IRTPB" (in response to post by) so that integrity of the thread. I shall also endeavour to use third rather than second person as it is your request I do not address you directly.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 06:43:26 In a public forum, I'm afraid I am going to engage with the flawed arguments you post as they are in the public domain. I shall clarify my posts are aimed at your content than for you to respond to by prefacing "IRTPB" (in response to post by) so that integrity of the thread. I shall also endeavour to use third rather than second person as it is your request I do not address you directly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 07:07:19 This place is less public than twitter (no new members), it also lacks the mute and block functions of twitter. In light of that we must rely on mutual civility and respect for boundry. I would actually never ask this of any other poster, but since you have argued strongly for these things I assume you believe they are important and universal, so they apply to me. Unless I name you or comment something you have said (your words) I respectfully ask you leave me and my threads out. And of course vice versa.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 07:28:32 Nim: What you are asking is very much against the purpose and culture of this place, and while I'd defend to death your right to day it is intollerably rude of me to ignore your requests, I feel obliged to point out that now you've stated your request is not one you would make of anyone else, and is in fact based on a profound misunderstanding of a position I don't hold; I would respond to such an accusation somewhat caustically. "Unless I name you or comment something you have said (your words) I respectfully ask you leave me and my threads out. And of course vice versa." I think you will note if you revisit that thread I made that offer in jest. Naturally it is impossible to ignore elements of a multi-party debate. Other people may read your nonsense (That is why you post it) so it must be challenged. The best I can offer is to address the challenge to "the chair" so to speak.
hood Member	Fri Aug 03 07:31:57 "In a public forum, I'm afraid I am going to engage with the flawed arguments you post as they are in the public domain." Wasn't this the exact opposite of your stance on the Price/guild wars/tweeting fiasco?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 07:42:21 Seb I do not consent. You will be reading that a lot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 07:49:02 And the idea that you can just jump in to "correct me" when I am having a conversation with someone else on this forum. That is a lot man/whitesplaining and types of 'splaining there are no words for yet. Sebsplaining? Yes, I like it. It is the type of explaining someone does to shadows regarding 99% unrelated things that no one said and 1% smoke to indicate there is a fire somewhere in all of that. Do you often jump in when over hearing conversations on the bus or the pavement? You must have a lot of broken bones and bruises then.
Rugian Member	Fri Aug 03 07:49:16 "Wasn't this the exact opposite of your stance on the Price/guild wars/tweeting fiasco?" The difference is that nimatzo isn't a leading expert of his field who should be put on par with the likes of Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. Also, Price was on vacation, so obviously her industry-specific tweets were not meant to be responded to.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 08:06:20 I think that Cathy Newman interview with Peterson was very enlightening. This form of "dialogue" is popular in some circles in the UK. It passes for intelligent criticism when you constantly say something akin to "so you are saying..." and the other person says "no that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is..". A normal person would consider that negative feedback regarding their ability to comprehend words, sentences and meaning after the 5th time. Not for the sebsplainer, he sees right through the "words" and what you think you "mean", he knows what you actually mean. The white knight from Assford upon Dunce is here to expose you and your inner darkness.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 03 08:24:45 Seb "mutual civility and respect for boundry." "misunderstanding of a position I don't hold" Have I misunderstood that you think mutual civility and respect for boundary are important? And btw much has happened since this forum was first started, it isn't exactly up to standard. I assumed you would think it would be a good thing that we conform to the new rules of engagement that have emerged on other social media. Have we misunderstood you?
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 17:05:18 Hood: I think you'll find I said that his post as rude and she was fine to call him out on it, as I have said it is fine for Nim to do likewise. In any case this is a specifically political political debate forum. Nim: Yes. That's what debate is. There's a private message function for private chats.stuff in the open is up for scrutiny. Also, in this thread that's precisely what you did: jump in to correct me. If you don't think that was uncivil I don't see the issue, and if you do you should apologise.
Seb Member	Fri Aug 03 19:06:13 Nim will happily describe something as black, then as white, and get very grumpy if the dissonance is exposed. Double-think cannot and must not be challenged - it would be uncivil.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: