Jordan Peterson: Gender Pronouns and Free Speech War

And I thought it was about love and companionship 😔

Dutch Divorce Rate Skyrockets In Response To Alimony Reform

Article is in Dutch, here is the summary:

👨‍🦰 Will you marry me?

👩‍🦰 ¥€$!!!!!!!

Lawyers have recently seen a huge increase in the number of divorce petitions. Currently, the least-earning partner can still receive partner alimony for up to twelve years. This period will soon be limited to half the time that the marriage lasted, with a maximum of five years.

Many women who are most often the receiving party therefore choose to submit a request quickly now. Peter recognizes that, "I have been in a divorce for sixteen months and my wife is indeed going to apply for divorce this week. As a result, in addition to the past one and a half years, she also has the full 12 years of alimony"

- Another nail in the coffin for marraige and family values.
 
Last edited:
Swift grew up and struggled with her Merrill Lynch stockbroker father and mutual fund marketing executive mother. Attending a Montessori School and getting acting and singing lessons in New York.

The oppression continued aged 12 when she started working with New York-based music manager Dan Dymtrow and modeled for Abercrombie & Fitch.

$360 million in the bank because of the patriarchy.

Poor taylor...

You know what's really toxic and indicative of a great deal of privilege? If you could waltz on a stage and freely make offensive generalizations about literally half the planet's population not only without consequence but while being actively praised for it.

Moreover, being attractive is one of the best privileges expecially for women. Just a thought.
Taylor Swift calls out "toxic male privilege" in the music industry during emotional speech

The singer accepted the first ever Woman of the Decade Award at Billboard's annual Women In Music Event

On Thursday, the pop star who turned 30 today, accepted the first ever Woman of the Decade Award at Billboard's annual Women In Music Event in Los Angeles.

In the opening of her speech Taylor asked: "What does it mean to be woman of the decade?"

The ME! singer admitted that it means she has witnessed a lot in the music industry, some things more unfavourable than others.

During her speech Taylor called out the presence of "toxic male privilege" within the industry, as well as addressing her spat with music executive Scooter Braun.

Taylor said: "I saw that as a female in this industry some people will always have slight reservations about you. Whether you deserve to be there, whether your male producer or co-writer is the reason for your success."

The singer went on to say that throughout her career she has witnessed a trend where people tend to explain away a woman's success.

"In the last 10 years, I have watched as women in this industry are criticised and measured up to each other and picked at for their bodies, their romantic lives, their fashion," the singer continued.

"Have you ever heard someone say about a male artist, 'I really like his songs, but I don't know what it is - there's just something about him I don't like?'

"No - that criticism is reserved for us."

Taylor addressed a "new shift" in the music industry, directly pointing out the recent purchase of her entire catalogue by Scooter Braun without her consent.

"Lately, there has been a new shift that has affected me personally and that I feel is a potentially harmful force in our industry. And as your resident loud person, I feel the need to bring it up," she said.

"The unregulated world of private equity coming in and buying up our music as if it's real estate. … This just happened to me without my approval, consultation or consent.

"After I was denied the chance to purchase my music outright, my entire catalog was sold to Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings."

Taylor also spoke out against Braun's supporters by saying:

"I'm fairly certain he knew exactly how I would feel about it, though, and let me just say that the definition of toxic male privilege in our industry is people saying 'but he’s always been nice to me' when I’m raising valid concerns about artists and their right to own their music.

"And of course he’s nice to you - if you’re in this room, you have something he needs."

You can watch her acceptance speech in full below.

 
Schools in the US sent this out in order to inform their students about 'microaggressions'.

A usefull tool to make people hyperfocused about their own race, gender, sexuality, social justice, 'MY group'. Even showing a healthy interest and attitude by asking people where they are from is considered racist. New generations who grew up with Leftist indoctrination will end up hating each other. Society will erupt and the once real tolerant Western World will perish. Opening the door back to barbarism. - Mission accomplished.


SlLxIZX.png
 
The Salon unraveled that Hallmark movies known for it's friendly family Christmas movies is Facist propaganda.

So for those who had to watch Home Alone again because some family members never seem to get tired of it year after year. Worry no more, with any luck next year it's banished for hate speech.

On top of that, The Guardian wrote an article about how the rise of white Christian populists is a troubling sign of things to come.

And a Canadian Broadcasting channel has cutt the cameo appearance of Donald Trump in 'Home Alone 2'

Anyhow, here is a snippit from the article. If you are able to read this insanity in fullest is proof of an iron will. Because I tapped out after the first few paragraphs.

Which is, of course, laughable to anyone who has even glancing knowledge of the channel's offerings. Running down this year's schedule of Christmas movie offerings is like a trip into an uncanny valley of shiny-teethed, blow-dried heteronormative whiteness, with only a few token movies with characters of color. It's like watching "The Stepford Wives," but scarier, since the evil plot to replace normal people with robots is never actually revealed.

None of this should be a surprise, because Hallmark movies, as cloying and saccharine as they are, constitute the platonic ideal of fascist propaganda.

That is probably a startling statement to some. When most of us think about fascistically propagandistic movies, we think of the grotesque grandeur of Leni Riefenstahl's films celebrating the Third Reich — grand, but cold sweeping shots of soldiers goose-stepping and flags waving, all meant to inspire awe and terror. But the reality is, even in Nazi Germany, the majority of movies approved by the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, were escapist and feather-light, with a Hallmark movie-style emphasis on the importance of "normality."

Hallmark movies are fascist propaganda

Forget "Triumph of the Will" — the most insidious authoritarian propaganda comes in the form of schmaltz


Schermafbeelding 2019-12-26 om 19.32.18.png


The Hallmark Channel has been having a rough go of it in the past few weeks. The cable TV behemoth, which has been minting money with its patented holiday season schmaltz, drew widespread criticism earlier this month when it pulled ads for the wedding company Zola that featured a lesbian couple kissing at their wedding. The company's initial excuse was that they do not allow ads that feature "overt public displays of affection," claiming the policy is "regardless of the participants."

This was, obviously, nonsense, as couples kissing at weddings is not only not outré, but generally seen as mandatory (and features in the channel's numerous rom-coms). Unsurprisingly, critics quickly found plenty of examples of straight snogging on the channel that shows that sexual orientation was the sole reason for the ad pull. (That, and Hallmark was clearly responding to a right-wing pressure campaign claiming that lesbian kissing "ruined" the channel's "family friendly" offerings.) Hallmark then flip-flopped, apologizing for pulling the ads and claiming they have been "a progressive pioneer on television for decades" and "committed to diversity and inclusion."

Which is, of course, laughable to anyone who has even glancing knowledge of the channel's offerings. Running down this year's schedule of Christmas movie offerings is like a trip into an uncanny valley of shiny-teethed, blow-dried heteronormative whiteness, with only a few token movies with characters of color. It's like watching "The Stepford Wives," but scarier, since the evil plot to replace normal people with robots is never actually revealed.

None of this should be a surprise, because Hallmark movies, as cloying and saccharine as they are, constitute the platonic ideal of fascist propaganda.

That is probably a startling statement to some. When most of us think about fascistically propagandistic movies, we think of the grotesque grandeur of Leni Riefenstahl's films celebrating the Third Reich — grand, but cold sweeping shots of soldiers goose-stepping and flags waving, all meant to inspire awe and terror. But the reality is, even in Nazi Germany, the majority of movies approved by the Nazi minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, were escapist and feather-light, with a Hallmark movie-style emphasis on the importance of "normality."


There's plenty of reason that empty-headed kitsch fits neatly in the authoritarian worldview. It's storytelling that imitates the gestures of emotion without actually engaging with real feeling. The Hallmark movie steers clear of the real passion or deeper emotion that tends to be the engine driving more artful fiction. Characters who have real feelings, after all, can prompt empathetic reactions in the audience, and empathy for others is the greatest single threat to the authoritarian mindset. And so schmaltz walks through the paces of "love" without touching on any of the messy but compelling realities of it.

Instead of characters driven by real feelings, therefore, the guiding hand of "normalcy" pulls the characters along through narratives — and unsurprisingly, that idea of "normalcy" doesn't have a lot of room for the true diversity of American experiences.

This much is evident in the efforts to include Jewish characters in recent Hallmark holiday movies which, by all accounts, seems like a complete disaster — in part because the rule of "normalcy" reorients everything towards a very narrow, sentimentalized version of Christmas.

"In the Hallmark-Lifetime Cinematic Universe, Hanukkah and the characters who celebrate it exist only in relation to Christmas," Nancy Coleman of th New York Times complained, adding that the Hallmark movie "Holiday Date" could, with "remarkably little editing" turn into "a Jewish 'Get Out.'"

Britni de la Cretaz, writing for the Washington Post, not only complained that the Jewish Hallmark movies were "Christmas movies with Jewish characters," but also that the movies "rely on some of the oldest anti-Semitic tropes in the book," such as painting one Jewish character as the "perpetual outsider" who is "sneaky, untrustworthy."

"The drama hinges on Jewish characters being compelled to observe Christmas, and the tension resolves only when these outsiders learn how to participate in or appreciate the dominant religious tradition," she adds.

Sadly, it's hard to imagine it being any other way. The qualities that people cite when they defend Hallmark movies — comforting, formulaic, soothing — are all a result of the aggressively conformist impulse that drives them. And that impulse and fealty to the dominant culture stands in direct contrast to the values of diversity Hallmark facetiously claims to hold.

Hallmark movies, with their emphasis on returning home and the pleasures of the small, domestic life, also send a not-at-all subtle signal of disdain for cosmopolitanism and curiosity about the larger world, which is exactly the sort of attitude that helps breed the kind of defensive white nationalism that we see growing in strength in the Donald Trump era.

If you don't believe me, listen to authoritarians themselves. At the Federalist, which is ground zero website for generating frankly fascist "culture war" arguments, Hans Fiene argues that, "culturally speaking, Hallmark Christmas movies are noticeably Christian."

By this, Fiene isn't talking about characters who actually go to church or pray — even self-identified conservative Christians don't want to see that — but a set of patriarchal and authoritarian values that are more about white evangelicals defining themselves as an ethnic group, and not about a genuine feeling of spirituality.

The movies always depict a "heroine who begins the story loving her self-involved life in the city chooses family and a life of self-sacrifice in her hometown," he writes, arguing that it's the "last remaining hideout" for those who want a fantasy of a world where "the cynicism and immorality of modern life aren’t allowed." By "cynicism and immmorality," Fiene explains he's talking about "fornication" and acceptance of "sexual deviants," by which he means LGBTQ people.

None of this, of course, means that everyone who watches Hallmark Christmas movies is some kind of fledgling fascist. These movies are not for me, but I believe people when they say they find it relaxing to watch these predictable movies that have low stakes because none of the characters feel like real people. I've got my own flavors of trashy entertainment I fully enjoy without mistaking it for high art. (Baby Yoda, what's up?)

Still, it's critical to be mindful of the role that Hallmark movies are actually playing in our society. The very fact that they're presented as harmless fluff makes it all the more insidious, the way they work to enforce very narrow, white, heteronormative, sexist, provincial ideas of what constitutes "normal."

It's easy to spot fascist propaganda when it's goose-stepping Pepe-the-frog memes. It's a lot harder to notice how it's working when it's tied up in Christmas cheer and suggesting grinchhood of anyone who questions the rigidity of its worldview.

As University of Richmond communications professor Nicole Maurantonio wrote in a recent piece exposing the sneakily racist propaganda of Confederate-themed Christmas ornaments, "seemingly apolitical objects like cookbooks, toys and Christmas ornaments commemorating Confederate history serve to normalize," and in doing so, make white supremacy seem less harmful than it actually is.

Ultimately, there's a reason that authoritarian religious right groups like One Million Moms and American Family Association — who made the initial demands on Hallmark to end the lesbian-inclusive ads — believe that the Hallmark Channel "belongs" to them. They may use euphemisms like "family friendly," but as there is nothing more family friendly than light PDAs from loving couples at weddings, we can say for certain that is not what bothers them. Instead, it's because they believe Hallmark is "safe" because it excludes people who don't fit their extremely rigid ideas about what constitutes "normal."

"So many people feel betrayed because this is one of the very last channels that families could go to and not be bombarded with politically correct commercials and the LGBTQ agenda," the American Family Association griped in a press release.

Note that the language is solely that of exclusion. This isn't about Christian conservatives wanting more Hallmark movies that show characters who actually go to church or anything like that. What makes something "family friendly" and "Christian" is who is not allowed inside the fantasy land of impossibly expensive rural houses and women who are realizing that they wanted to just get married to the boy next door all along.

Ultimately, there is probably no way to square the claim to believe in "diversity" with fascistic impulse that guides the current crop of Hallmark movies, which center always around these frankly MAGA-style ideas about what constitutes "real" America. As the Jewish movies show, the best that Hallmark can do is some token "diversity" that wipes out most of what makes people actually diverse. Their money comes from selling a vision of America that increasingly authoritarian conservatives wish to believe once existed and can be restored again — an America that excludes most of an increasingly urban, racially diverse, cosmopolitan nation. That won't change no matter how many inclusive Zola ads the network airs.
 
Anyhow, here is a snippit from the article. If you are able to read this insanity in fullest is proof of an iron will. Because I tapped out after the first few paragraphs.

Wow, what an insidious pathological twisting this article is. There has been a genuine critique of over-shmaltzy movies and such from somewhat snobby cultural critics (both from the left and from the conservative end), who have seen the end of high culture in them, and not entirely without reason. It goes along similar lines as the second article you quoted:

There's plenty of reason that empty-headed kitsch fits neatly in the authoritarian worldview. It's storytelling that imitates the gestures of emotion without actually engaging with real feeling. The Hallmark movie steers clear of the real passion or deeper emotion that tends to be the engine driving more artful fiction. Characters who have real feelings, after all, can prompt empathetic reactions in the audience, and empathy for others is the greatest single threat to the authoritarian mindset. And so schmaltz walks through the paces of "love" without touching on any of the messy but compelling realities of it.

But then the author uses this seed of truth to make utterly ridiculous arguments that go against common sense and human decency. I like how Roger Scruton puts it: conservatism is the default position of normal people. And contrary to how the left sees it, conservatism is actually a philosophy of love: you find something around you that you love, and that you think is worth preserving. But the left calls that "exclusive"
:rolleyes:
 
Another example of Voltaire's 'To find out who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.':

Tom Pope: FA & Port Vale investigate tweet sent by forward

A social media post made by Port Vale striker Tom Pope is being investigated by both the Football Association and the League Two club.
The 34-year-old, who scored in Saturday's 4-1 FA Cup defeat at Manchester City, was asked on Twitter to predict the outcome in a World War Three scenario.

Pope finished a since-deleted tweet by saying: "the Rothchilds [sic] are crowned champions of every bank on the planet - the end".
Some Twitter users suggested Sunday's tweet - a reference to the Jewish Rothschild banking family - was anti-Semitic.

In a statement, Pope said he apologised "enormously" if he had caused offense.

Pope said he was "unaware of any link between the Rothschild family and the Jewish community".

On Sunday, when asked what would happen in the event of World War Three, the forward wrote: "We invade Iran then Cuba then North Korea then the Rothchilds are crowned champions of every bank on the planet - the end."

After some Twitter users accused him of anti-Semitism, Pope replied: "How is it racist??

"Seriously is someone out to destroy me or what? Someone asked how does WW3 end and I replied when said countries were invaded and they have all the banks!! What's the problem with that? Seriously??"

The FA will now discuss the matter with Pope before deciding whether to take action, while Port Vale will conduct their own investigation.

Tom_Popes_tweet.jpg

On a lighter note, it is actually very refreshing to see a sportsman having some knowledge of the world affairs.
 
I'm bursting in anger.
In my country they removed defense budget, and guess what they used it for:


The National Government decided to finance the new "Ministry of Women, Gender and Diversity" by taking away resources from the strategic area of Defense. In accordance with Administrative Decision 2/2020, the transfer of $ 238,737,046 is established from «Defense and Security assistance» to the new ministry directed by the member lawyer of the CELS steering committee, Elizabeth Gómez Alcorta, in order to promote «gender, equality and diversity policies». It should be remembered that CELS is a human rights entity that has historically received funding from multinational organizations such as the Ford Foundation, the Open Society of George Soros, the Planned Parenthood Federation, the British Council and even the Embassy of Great Britain.
 
Seems the fish needs to learn to ride a bicycle. 😏 (Mocking the feminists slogan ''A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle)
I thought feminists see men as bad in the first place and are ''self partnered'', so why would you like to date them at all? 🤨

But yeah, weird that those men who you hate don't want to date you. Besides, woke women have more mental issues then a mental hospital full of patients.

Kiss me now, you Nazi! Refusing to date woke women makes you ‘dangerous’ & ‘far-right’, apparently

Not into purple hair? Don’t think a lecture on your own toxic masculinity sounds like good pillow talk? Won’t go to see Little Women on a date? Well that means you are probably a white supremacist, if not a mass murderer.

That’s according to pundit Vicky Spratt, who recently penned an angry response to British singer and actor Laurence Fox’s declaration that he won’t date “woke” women. Fox has become something of an iconoclast of late, first for ridiculing the notion of ‘white privilege’ on a BBC panel, and then for expounding on his dating preferences in a Sunday Times feature.


“There’s nothing funny about the things Fox...is saying,” Spratt wrote. “It’s dangerous.” These beliefs, she continued, feed into “other far-right ideas,” which can then spill “out dangerously into the offline world,” as was the case when a right-wing extremist murdered Labour MP Jo Cox in 2016, or when a white supremacist gunned down 51 people in Christchurch last year.

That’s quite the jump. And quite the accusation to make, considering Fox’s statements aren’t controversial.

Less than a third of British men define themselves as “feminist,” according to one 2019 survey. That’s the same amount who feel that “giving women equal rights to men has gone far enough,” by the way. And that’s on top of a 2018 poll – carried out by Spratt’s publication, Refinery29, no less – that found that more than half of millennial women surveyed don’t consider themselves feminists.

Yet, the fact that Fox’s interview generated such a media backlash – the Guardian has taken to rubbishing his music career, his acting and his political beliefs in three separate columns, and calling BBC’s Question Time a “festival of bile” for even hosting him – is indicative of the disconnect between media liberals and the real world.

Spratt lambasted Fox for “legitimizing hatred and division,” and encouraging a “bigger backlash against diversity and progress.” Note that “progress” here means ‘progress toward a left-wing utopia’ and “diversity” clearly does not include ‘diversity of thought’. Fox was similarly shunned by actors’ union Equity, which issued a missive commanding all British thespians to “unequivocally denounce” him, and brand him a "disgrace to our industry.” The actor himself claims he’s receiving death threats from some violently woke viewers.

But back in the real world, refusing to date woke women is not “dangerous.” It’s just a preference. I wouldn’t date a committed astrologer, a Green Party activist, or a born again Christian for the same reason. Their world views simply wouldn’t mesh with mine.

Spratt and the Guardian’s legions of female readers are free to be as ‘woke’ as they like, and proclaim their beliefs as loudly and proudly as they see fit. But no man can be compelled to date them. To call a man’s choice of partners “dangerous” is an argument as ridiculous as the ramblings of the basement-dwelling incels who believe a state-supplied virgin wife is their birthright.

To borrow a phrase from the lexicon of ‘the woke’, berating someone into finding you attractive is a very “toxically masculine” thing to do, isn’t it?

Feminist writer Carol Hanisch declared in 1969 that “the personal is political,” and the imbroglio over Fox’s dating preferences is the fruit of that particular strand of feminist thought. When the personal is political, personal choice is grounds for political attack. According to Spratt and her ilk, by refusing to date the radical left, men are openly siding with fascists and murderers. They are political enemies.

One might think that the end result of making such personal, private choices subject to ideology is intrusion, even totalitarianism.

But the proponents of this ideology are oblivious to these implications, as they are blind to their own hypocrisy.

These same commentators who consider un-woke men a step away from mass shooters also regularly pen columns advising their (mostly female) readers to filter out conservative voters on dating apps and avoid potential suitors who read right-wing newspapers. They’re the same opinion writers who call straight men’s refusal to date transgender women ridiculous,” “prejudiced,” and transphobic.”

Fox is a public figure, and has thus become a lightning rod for woke anger. But what can a regular Joe do? A man who doesn’t want his relationships to feature endless discussions about internalized misogyny or the power dynamics of his sex life analyzed through an intersectional feminist lens?

The answer is simple. Date whoever you want and don’t let media lunatics shame you into anything, you lovely fascist pig you.
 
Last edited:
Hundreds of left-wing protesters, including antifa, swarmed Manhattan and vandaziled stations in a heated anti-police demonstation for a “F— the Police” demonstration organized by the "Decolonize This Place" group.

This doesn't look like a protest, it's more like a small riot.

They were demanding that the transportation system becomes completely free of charge and called for the increase in law enforcement to be abolished in the city.


The coordinated event was organized by ''Decolonize This Place'' and was announced beforehand on twitter:


"The streets are ours. The trains our ours. The walls are ours.". - You didn't build them, but they're yours. It reeks entitlement and how very Leftie of them.

As for their protest against law enforcement. Instead Klantifa and their associates once again proved why we need the police.
 
Last edited:
I just checked what is going on since we haven't heard much about Peterson the last couple of months and found this:


I guess the situation with his wife has understandably been one of the primary reasons for the quietness.
 
CNN claims Trump coronavirus task force is racist because it's to male and white. Next time they should make sure they throw in a black person a lesbian and four trans people. Just for diversity sake, qualifications apparently don't matter to tackle the deadly raging infection.

Perhaps CNN anchors, SJW and the like should not be treated by white doctors if they contract the corona virus even if they happen to be the best one there. For diversity sake ofcourse.

Coronavirus task force another example of Trump administration's lack of diversity

Washington (CNN)It's a statement that's as predictable as it is infuriating: President Donald Trump's administration lacks diversity.
On Tuesday, Trump tweeted photos of a briefing he'd received on the new coronavirus spreading out of China.

"We will continue to monitor the ongoing developments," the President said in his post. "We have the best experts anywhere in the world, and they are on top of it 24/7!"

Who are these experts? They're largely the same sorts of white men (and a couple women on the sidelines) who've dominated the Trump administration from the very beginning.

By contrast, former President Barack Obama's circle of advisers in the face of the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa was hardly so monochromatic. Neither was it so abysmal in terms of gender diversity. (Of course, to contextualize, Obama's administration, on the whole, was far more diverse than Trump's.)

And yet, as unsurprising as the diversity issue in the Trump era has become, it's still worth pointing out from time to time, especially as the country approaches the 2020 presidential election in earnest.
That's partly because the recent photos of "the best experts" telegraph the kinds of people the administration deems worthy of holding power -- and even being in close proximity to it.

They communicate a "patronage network that everyone is operating under," as Eric Yellin, an associate professor of history and American studies at the University of Richmond, told The Washington Post last year, about a different set of photos. "Having that network be interracial is really important."

But the visuals that have come to define the Trump administration say something else, too. They signal which people in a multi-racial, half-female country Trump values the opinions of: mostly white men who are mirror images of the President himself.
 
Worth the watch:

Did you know that just about everything in America — and maybe even the world — is too white? And nothing is ever not white enough? Whether it's your spin class or birding or the Hungarian city of Székesfehérvár, it's sickeningly white and has to be cured. Jared Taylor of American Renaissance dissects this anti-white crusade for "diversity."


Too White!

 
This article published by Vice shows the leftist perspective on dating and relationships.

Dating is a stage of romantic relationships in humans whereby two people meet socially with the aim of each assessing the other's suitability as a prospective partner in an intimate relationship. Which is the normal and healthy way to go.

But in today’s dominant Leftist culture hook-ups are encouraged and are propagated as normal. Destroying people’s ability to have real intimate relationships with each other.

The language and content in this article is appalling. But I agree with the journalist, they should only date each other and not us Nazi’s. They still have plenty to pick from. So nobody is hurt.

Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Gender
Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Unicorns
etc…

Anyhow, youtuber Timcast reports:

Leftists Warn The Woke NOT To Date Outside Their Tribe, Panic Sets In As People ABANDON Wokeness
 
Back
Top Bottom