On smug little shits who think they deserve my time

Do you care to substantiate your claim that Ben Shapiro is a fascist? Or offer some counter points (backed by peer reviewed sources) to Gaad Sad and Jordan Peterson? Or are you now a part of the anti intellectual regressive left that prefers to just sling terms like “fascist” instead of engaging in the open market of ideas?

This is why you can’t find a girlfriend, Bryan.


100 thoughts on “On smug little shits who think they deserve my time

    • RocketGrunt says:

      If you can’t recognize the bigotry on Breitbart or come up with any counter points to racist/sexist white men, that’s kind of on you.

      • Asuka says:

        That’s not really a response though is it? You need to show examples of Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad (the latter of whom is not white) being racist/sexist/fascist if that’s what you’re saying.

        • Mo says:

          No one “needs” to show examples. They’ve already done the research and listened to them. Why don’t you do the same instead of being lazy and dense?

          • Asuka says:

            I don’t believe these three men are fascist/racist/sexist and can’t find any evidence that proves otherwise. Care to enlighten me?

        • Sarah says:

          You can’t find evidence because you’re sympathetic to their arguments, and you never reasoned yourself into having that sympathy – it’s actually a product of your circumstances and your lack of self-reflection. Which is why no one is interested in convincing you.

          • Asuka says:

            What evidence would you present to someone who was on the fence?
            I’m not asking for anything crazy here, just examples that support your belief that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad are fascist/racist/sexist.

          • Damien Otis says:

            Asuka there is no “on the fence” with fascism. you’re either against it or are a sympathizer. if you can’t see why you are just playing ignorant.

        • pwinks says:

          Fine, I’ll bite.

          Jordan B Peterson: “Is it possible that young women are so outraged because they are craving infant contact in a society that makes that difficult?” This goofy ass tweet reduces women to baby factories. It is sexist.

          • Asuka says:

            That is a valid question. Just because it might make you uncomfortable doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be up for debate. Is it not possible that that’s the case for some women, however few or many? He is asking a question, not necessarily subscribing to the idea.

          • Alicia says:

            Did I miss the part where every question is automatically valid? Why is that a valid question? Taking my negative reaction to his sexist tone out of it, what I still see is that it’s a nonsensical question. Nothing about this society makes infant contact difficult.

          • Pwinks says:

            See, your goofy ass rely is why no one feels like bothering to provide you “evidence” that that trio of ghouls are skeezy people.

            The question that dope asks doesn’t make me uncomfortable, save for the muscle I pulled rolling my eyes so hard.

            The rhetoric purpose of that goofy ass question is to elide the fundamental premise of his question: that women are inherently slaves to the biological processes that are part of reproduction. This reductionist view of female essence is sexist in that it violently rejects that women have, like, brains and agency.

            So, no, it’s not a valid question because it’s predicated on shitty science and sexism.

          • Asuka says:

            PWINS, both men and women are slaves to some extent to their biological drives. This is basic biology, not “shitty science” and not an exclusive ‘diss’ on women to suggest people are influenced by more than just cultural evolution in 2017.

            The reason you and others keep repeating I am not worthy of being shown evidence that Peterson/Saad/Shapiro are fascist sexist racists rather than presenting me with the evidence says it all, really.

            Alicia, do you not agree that having children in this day and age is not as straightforward as it used to be? Many women are taught that it’s not enough to just be a mother these days, that “career is primary” – is that not the most patriarchal claim of all? How many career women out there regret forgoing families? How many women out there want to pack it all in and focus on starting a family but feel pressured to do otherwise? Why is it so crazy for Peterson to ask this question?

          • WhoAmI says:

            “both men and women are slaves to some extent to their biological drives. This is basic biology” has to be the saddest, most pitiful string of words uttered by some troll down there.

          • TC says:

            Hi Asuka,

            Behavioral neuroscientist here. I understand what you’re saying about there being contributions from both biological and cultural factors in behavior, and agree. The reason statements (and it was implicitly a statement – phrasing it as a question rhetorically shields the speaker from criticism) like “Is it possible that young women are so outraged because they are craving infant contact in a society that makes that difficult?” are often rejected is not because people reject evolutionary science. Often it’s for two reasons:

            (1) Those statements are dangerously close to committing the naturalistic fallacy: “it is natural, therefore it is good.” Even if we could prove unequivocally that Jordan Peterson’s “speculation” is true (it’s logistically impossible to create that experiment), it’s not the case that we should morally subscribe to that scientific truth – nor is it the case that promoting “natural” behavior will even improve women’s well-being. Remember, evolution just had to get us to not die until we could make a certain number of babies and deposit them in a good social context. It’s maximizing gene transmission, not health. Summary: people reject these kinds of ideas because they’re not logically valid.

            (2) The science is just about a thousand times more complicated than women and men having a standard set of sex-related biological drives. I’m sure you’ve seen the stuff about distributions, but it’s even more complicated than that when you factor in neural plasticity, hormonal exposure during gestation, epigenetic influences on gametes, and the individual choices, autonomy, and self-regulation of the resulting human. Summary: people reject these kinds of ideas because they’re simplified to the point of being scientifically unhelpful. (See also: the debate about “lumping” vs. “splitting” in neuroscience and other heavily model-based sciences.)

            (3) Obviously not every scientist/philosopher/public figure uses biological evolution for ill, BUT ideas like this have the potential to create a psychosocial context that encourages overly simplified, prescriptivist thinking that reinforces existing social biases. It’s a problem in science that scientists’ existing theories and hypotheses can sway their interpretation of data. Summary: if you already think
            on some level that women should stay out of the workforce, that’s how you’re going to see your data. (Which is limited, in this case, by the aforementioned impossibility of conducting an evolutionary psychology experiment. They must rely on quasi-experiments, correlational data, and parallelism across other species’ behaviors – none of which can establish causality.)

            Overall summary: Peterson isn’t supplying anyone with uncomfortable truths that they have to avoid because of their liberal agenda. He truly is being logically and empirically unsound. (This is separate from the fact that saying stuff like he says often is harmful – which is also true. Fortunately, we don’t even have to go there to show that statements like Peterson’s aren’t worth anyone’s time.)

          • TC says:

            (A side note – I get why you want to ask people to provide evidence for their claims. It makes sense to be evidence-minded, even about provocative issues. But you also need to pay attention to the effect asking the question of “can you provide evidence?” **when it’s in the context of something that has to do with that person’s basic rights** is an asymmetrical discussion. For the evidence-asker, it’s ostensibly about a rational academic discussion. For the evidence-asked, it’s often perceived as being asked to validate their own humanity or worthiness of fair treatment. For certain questions, that kind of debate can literally be traumatic. Ask yourself: are you actually trying to further the cause of truth by having these discussions? Isn’t it much more useful for you to go and perform the science yourself than it is to engage in debates which to you seem harmless but to the folks you’re talking to could be, in fact, pretty harmful?)

          • Asuka says:

            TC, thanks for your response.

            I disagree that it is implicitly a statement. It is a theory, a question, a possibility, and presented as such. It is being framed as a statement by those who want to justify attacking him.

            Promoting “natural” behaviour may not necessarily improve women’s well-being but that’s not to say it can’t in some cases. As you say it’s logistically impossible to create that experiment, does that mean it can’t be entertained as a real possibility? Is it so improbable that there are women out there who are unhappy because they haven’t, for whatever reason, had children? Is it not less straightforward to have children in this day and age? Why then is it “sexist” to pose the question? My issue is that someone can be vilified for asking it.

            It’s not about reinforcing social biases, rather understanding human behaviour. To do that we need to ask questions. It may seem simplistic, but the fact is what Peterson is suggesting is TRUE for some women. How many? As you say, that’s impossible to measure. You claim the question isn’t making “anyone” uncomfortable, when it’s only natural that it will. Again, that doesn’t mean that the question shouldn’t be asked.

            I don’t know that JB wishes women would stay out of the workforce, he is a man obsessed with trying to understand human behaviours, much of which is still rooted in our biology which we agree on.

          • TC says:

            Point by point:
            -it’s true that I can’t speculate on what JB was implying, so I’m happy to walk back my assertion that it’s a statement rather than a question. Questions like this, though, act to support the legitimacy of the option being entertained. E.g.: “what if women were just inferior?” is, grammatically, a question. But the fact that it would even be an option suggests that the asker is comfortable entertaining that possibility. (To which one might respond: “So what? If it’s an inquiry into what is true, I shouldn’t shy away from it because it makes me or others uncomfortable.” To which I respond: “(1) The ‘discomfort’ is, in many cases, actually psychologically damaging, not just uncomfortable. (2) In a goal-oriented sense, springing these questions on anyone other than a grant funding agency which is meant to increase the overall wellbeing of society is actually more harmful than beneficial.”) This is obviously a marginal case – I don’t think JB’s question is semantically equivalent to saying women are inferior. I am holding it up as an example which I think might be easier to see.

            -sure – there exist 100% innocent-intentioned people who ask questions like this totally because they want to improve the well-being of women. But lots of women hear things of this ilk, frequently, from less innocent or less benevolent sources. Lots of askers of these questions (not implicating JB or you, because I don’t know your thoughts) ask these questions knowing that they will be “provocative” (which, in some cases, again, actually means harmful). In a goal-oriented sense – does asking this question of a group of laypeople who could experience psychological damage from it actually further the cause of truth? Or should it just be directed at grant-funding mechanisms to explore the research question?

            -Unfortunately, the pursuit of understanding human behavior is very vulnerable to reinforcing social biases (just a quick google search of social psychological disagreements can show you that!). Think of it this way. Would I say “Isn’t it true that pop tarts cause baldness?” That’s a random selection of variables. The variables you select reveal your conceptual biases, and it’s the job of a scientist to be extremely careful to avoid that. (While someone might ask such a question as JB’s innocently, we have other behavior – like his calling women bitches on social media – which suggest a different milieu for his question.)

            Importantly: even if it’s a valid question, it still matters the harm there is in asking it or the way in which it’s asked. Truth isn’t sacrificed at the alter of justice or compassion, but it does coexist with those things.

          • Asuka says:

            In my view, to dismiss or ridicule this question makes someone an enemy of truth. It is probable that what Peterson is saying applies to some women – perhaps many women; that’s what makes it a valid question.

            What you’re saying is that it comes down to these questions hurting people’s feelings and mental wellbeing. Should he save this sort of question for a grant funding agency? The times could be too politically correct for even that now (especially in Canada).

            As a wise man once said, ‘facts don’t care about feelings’. Well, seekers of truth care about facts, that’s why they ask all the questions.

          • TC says:

            The thing is that in psychology and neuroscience (and, in fact, all sciences, even though it doesn’t seem like it), the term “fact” sort of doesn’t apply. We make theoretical models, we test them, and using inferential statistics we conclude that we have data that are consistent with our model. We can be pretty sure that a model we came up with (I.e., generated out of our own conceptual web) does a decent job of explaining nature. We don’t have access to “the truth of behavior.” And unfortunately, every single step of the scientific process – observation, hypothesis generation, testing, data interpretation and conclusion – all of them are influenced by our intuitions and, in fact, feelings.

            So basically, what many folks hold up as “facts” are much less removed from feelings than we’d like to think.

            As for whether these facts “hurt feelings”: what many people characterize as mere offense is actually a legitimate psychological trauma response. And in that case, I think that it makes perfect sense to question the specific way the research question was designed. (“Are women outraged because they don’t get to be with kids?” vs “Do women not have enough support in their culturally-expected labor?” The same “truth” can be accessed by pursuing either question, and one of them includes various harmful premises that the other leaves out.)

            A word on those premises. Asking the question “Are young women so outraged because they’re deprived of infant contact?”, even in question format, assumes a few premises. (1) That young women are outraged as a function of being young women (might it not be that outrage is shared beyond that demographic cell? Or that maybe it’s something else lots of young women share, like being millenials or being socialized to stay out of leadership roles, that could be causing outrage?) (2) That the outrage experienced by young women is likely unitary (proceeds from a single cause – being de-infanted) These premises reveal biases of essentialism, which is both rationally and socially dangerous.

            People are free to ask questions like this, in the sense that people are free to hurt other people’s feelings. But in this case it doesn’t actually further the discussion scientifically, and it also can cause psychological harm.

            Tl;dr = they aren’t facts, it’s a bigger deal than just “hurting feelings”, truth can still totally be pursued, and we should be mindful of people around us while we pursue truth.

            As for grant funding mechanisms for folks like Sam Harris and Jon Haidt and other self-described truth-seekers, the Templeton Foundation has got them covered.

        • Mr White says:

          Here’s the big secret that a lot of republicans know: proving racism (or sexism or fascism, since you mentioned it) is virtually impossible, as long as you claim to not be one. Unless you’re proudly displaying your KKK membership or out there tagging your name on hate crimes (and really, who does that) most people are quietly racist, and since no one can see inside your mind but you, so long as you keep denying it, who are they to say otherwise? Maybe some people are so ignorant that they really do buy this tripe, that to be racist isn’t about what you think, it’s only about what you do, so as long as you don’t beat up minorities, you’re good; NOT RACIST! But, of course, people on the left don’t see it that way. They say if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, and I think if you apply that to MOST other things, Republicans would agree.

          What complicates this even more is that there are a lot of people on the right that LOVE to infuriate and troll liberals – some campaigns even used that as a motivating force, as in “vote X and make a liberal cry!!!” – so what that means in essence is that they’re IRL trolls, and I suspect many people actually get off on trolling liberals in this way, doing & saying things that dance around the topic, baiting liberals into calling them racist, and as soon as they do they get to play the victim – “how DARE you call me racist!!! I have MANY black friends back at Yale!” Seriously though – you playing this game where you demand proof to back up their claims is silly, and you know it. You know what you’re doing. Stop fronting.

  1. easily says:

    Funny response, given OP’s awful diction.

    But you fart sucking cheerleaders need to learn to think for yourselves. Shapiro would wipe the floor with Coquette in a real political debate. Sure he has some wacky viewpoints, but I’ve listened to several hours of Shapiro, and mislabeling him a fascist proves Coke is skewing his actual words. Whether you think he’s genuine or not, doesn’t matter, whether you think he’s mean or not, doesn’t matter. He doesn’t deliver a fascist message, because he’s not a fascist. As Coquette would say, stop, just stop.

    • Suzanne says:

      Ah, yes. Start off by calling people names. Because that’ll bring supporters to your side.

      Darling, no one will listen to your stupid fucking grunting if you start off that way. We will all (rightfully) label you as a butthurt cuntwaffle who can’t tell the difference between actual discourse and braying dumbass bullshit anonymously on the Internet.


        • Suzanne says:

          Oh, there you go! Another weapon in the gaslighting arsenal. Call me a speshul sneauxflake for calling bullshit out.

          Unfortunately for you and your ridiculously delicate sensibilities (see what I did there?) I am not going to be distracted from calling out you and your lil buddy’s asshattery.

          See, Freedom of Speech means the federal government of the US of A can’t pass a law saying you can’t say whatever bullshit your little pinhead inch-long-dicked douchbag of a brain can fart out, but I am also totally allowed to call you what you are, which is a pinhead inch-long-dicked douchbag. Please allow me to rinse my vagina out with you, hun.

          PS I jerked off to your butthurtedness. Best orgasm I’ve had today. I peed a little 🙂 10/10 would do it again! There’s like four more hours left in the day and my hand hasn’t cramped yet. Care to try me again? Or do you idiots have any brain cells left to rub together after they assploded over your Idiot Leader’s NOTHER FUCKING APPOINTEES being forced to resign after being a total fuckin asshole again?


  2. Suzanne says:

    Ohhh, there it is. You can’t defend your bullshit so you project onto me. The anonymous Internet person who calls you out. Such projection. Much bullshit.

    Or you could admit that I beat you at your own, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE game, and give up?

    PS this is just me, sitting in my living room, with my husband (who I just fucked animal-style in the basement cuz, y’know, I CAN) trolling you for funzies on a Friday while I get a lil wine-drunk for fun to celebrate the end of the work week. May I predict? Are you chunky and alone in a basement? Because stereotypes exist for a reason, tiny dick dude.



    • easily says:

      Lol, based on this interaction I’m sure you and your husband are a real fucking treat.

      Measuring dicks to prove a point? That’s lulzy. But since we are here, do know I’m hunggg AND attractive; AKA unaffected by your barely-amusing, utter misdiagnosis.

      Plus if that’s you in your avatar, you could could stand to lose a few. Kinda amazed ole’boy can actually keep it up for you..

      REeeEEeEeeeEeeeeeeeEEeee! (say that aloud in a gutteral voice) It sounds like a pig noise, doesn’t it? Huh…I have my theories.

      • Suzanne says:

        Oh, little one. Mama was using a phrase from The Internet that people sometimes use to infer that a person is one of those basement-dwelling nards who never interact with others and shout REEEEEEEEEEEEEE when things don’t go the way they like.

        And dick-measuring? Is the way ladies like to show men how we are judged so very often for our physicality, rather than our actual selves. Stings, doesn’t it?

        Also the avatar was stolen from that same Internet. Did you seriously call me out for my physical appearance while being all butthurt for me suggesting your dick is tiny? LOL OMG

        • Asuka says:

          Wait, so you “stole” a photo of some random woman and her infant to use as your own avatar while you wildly overreact and rage to being called a fart-sucker? Oh man that’s beautiful. Looks like Jordan Peterson might be onto something after all.

          • Suzanne says:

            I’m not overreacting, hon. I am trolling you.

            And this is an anonymous Internet place. Why on Earth would i put a picture that could be traced to the real me on here?

      • Jessica Sen says:

        I’m fairly sure that besides that mini dick, you have a set of Baoding balls to match. Know what those are? The balls small enough to fit into a Chinese person’s hand for them to rotate in order to regain muscular responsiveness. You’re hilariously out of your game here – get back to Reddit.

  3. Mo says:

    Jordan Peterson calling women sexist bitches on twitter. Peterson perpetuating the unsubstantiated genetic research into the differences in skill between men and women in regards to tools and temperament.
    Peterson being interviewed by Sam Harris is almost painful to listen to. Peterson gets bogged down in terminology instead of actually engaging in interesting discussion. His views on the bible and religion and morality that come out in that interview are deeply disconnected from reality and rationality. I don’t know enough about Gad Saad or Ben Shapiro. Although I mostly agreed with Gad Saads opinions on Islam he is quite inflammatory in some other ways.
    I’m not sure how Jordan Peterson is a fascist but then again I haven’t listened to too much of his work.
    Also super disappointed to see this comment section go to name calling and nonsense. Mostly because Coquette is going to read this garbage and might think it represents her fan base.

  4. Nina Farewell says:

    Gad Saad is an intellectual hero of mine. Coquette’s original comment on him was a silly attack on his physical appearance, which disappointed me, because I think she’s usually above that game.

    In general, I really wish we could have conversations about ideas without it devolving into name-calling.

  5. Chris says:

    Someone asked JP why mostly men watch/attend his lectures. He said, “because women are too busy doing more important things.”

    I’m paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

    When asked why women aren’t in more positions of power, he said, “because they’re too smart; their employers can’t hang on to them. We shouldn’t ask why so few women are executives, but why any men would be.”

    • FM says:

      Please get out of here with this condescending bullshit. Plenty of women would be happy to become executives in positions of power. They are prevented through systemic misogyny. It’s not a choice.

      Also, I just read Jordan Peterson’s comments on postmodern feminism, and what the fuck? Putting the total butcherings of logic and Freud aside, are you really that clueless as to why women wouldn’t like a creep like that?

      • Chris says:

        [Okay, seeing this posted, it’s a bit much for a response. Just trying to have a thoughtful exchange, but don’t blame you for skimming and ignoring]

        Most of his students are women.

        I can’t speak for misogyny (I’m a man). But anecdotally, when I was stationed on Camp Lejeune, the Base Commander was a woman, as was my last Company Commander and 1st Sergeant.

        My first civilian job was at a company with 3 partners – 2 women and 1 man (the man started it and mentored the women). My direct supervisor was a woman, and when I left I was replaced by a woman.

        At my second job the male owner was sexist, and I benefited from it.

        For 3 summers I worked on a 500-acre farm. The manager was a woman. The owner was a woman. They were both very fair and very honest. I was offered to stay on full-time if I wanted.

        Where I work now I’m subordinate to mostly women. A female peer of mine goes for pre-lunch walks with them and has pleasant chats behind closed doors. While many of the women wore capris and open-toed shoes through the summer, I was made an example of for wearing shorts one time (which were at least as nice as their capris). During a formal meeting about how I dressed (the shorts) I brought up that several people wear athletic wear in the office. I was told they didn’t. Really.


    You know he worked so hard on that last question about Ben Shapiro that you bothered to acknowledge lmaooooooooo

  7. Bryan says:

    Now, three things. Feminism, transgenderism, and white privilege.

    Feminism. I don’t know what feminists are on about. It’s just whiny nonsense. The situation on women has changed so fast that people can’t keep up. But the birth rate is plummeting, but maybe you don’t care about that.

    Woman, what are you gonna do when you’re 40 to 80? You’ve got no family, you got no relationships, what you gonna do? Go run your company.

    Having said that, extra money does not help you. It does not improve your lives. Look, I’m in the 1% but I didn’t take anything from you.

    There’s lots of reasons that men get paid more than women that have nothing to do with unjust social structures.

    The truth is that it is very difficult to have at truly high end career and have an important relationship and have children especially if there are two of you doing that at the same time.

    Now, transgenderism. Boys pretending to be girls and girls pretending to be boys.

    There’s a very high cormobodity between transgenderism, whatever that mental illness is called, and suicidality.

    The idea that more transgender people commit suicide because people are mean to them, is ridiculous.

    It’s not even true that bullying causes suicide according to many studies.

    They have eggshell skulls.

    White privilege. I don’t care about income inequality. The actual privilege that exists is the privilege of decision.

    Social justice suggests that your group identity relieves you of the responsibility of being a decent human being.

    You get extra points in heaven because you were born with a certain skin colour.

    And yeah, you’re right, I don’t have a girlfriend because none of them can stand that men are smarter than them. Shame.

    Men work the dangerous jobs and 80 hour weeks. You see women in law firms drop out at 30 because they find out there are 80 hour work weeks. You don’t deserve my time but I’m continuing this because I’m enjoying this, actually.

    • Chris says:

      You wrote a lot. Going to only reply to one thing.

      Are you saying it’s feminists’ fault the birth rate is falling? My wife is pretty damn liberal, but it didn’t stop her from having 4 kids with me.

      You’re reminding me of an alarmist video I saw that showed how Muslims are having kids, but Europeans aren’t, and therefore there’ll be no whites. “OUR WAY OF LIFE!!!!”

      Not sure what a European’s way of life has to do with a jack-shmoe’s like mine, to be honest, but that might be irrelevant to your points.

      Let me know.

    • K says:

      It’s not my fault I can’t form any meaningful relationships with other human beings, MOM. I’m a very smart boy with a big brain and who needs human relationships anyway when my sexy anime body pillow never yells at me?

    • ragazza says:

      I’m 47, never been married, no kids (never wanted them), and I’m pretty happy. Can’t say the same about all my friends who are married with children. I’m going to end up old and alone, you say? That happens to people who are married and have kids too, you know. Spouses die, and kids don’t always want to take care of you, nor are they able to. And if my choices for relationships include dudes like you, you can see why more women are choosing to remain single.

      What am I going to do? Whatever the fuck I want, thanks. I have no one to answer to and plenty of disposable income.

    • TeamSalamander says:

      Men living in nations with a lot of capitalist privilege who whine about feminism take such a narrow view of our basic rights and where we do and do not have access to them that I can’t help but scorn their perceptive capacities. We are more than baby machines, more than fuck dolls, more than cleaners, more than water gatherers, more than the compassionate response. Feminism is a flag that got hoisted by generations of women fighting battles to push the lines back in a war to claim the same sanctity over our bodies, land, and civic participation that men have. And guess what? I can fuck without getting stuck carrying a child, drive, own land, be a businesswoman, vote, and do all kinds of things that I wouldn’t be able to if the women before me hadn’t busted their asses so I can. So I’m eternally grateful for feminism and it’s a huge tell if someone whinges about it, like proudly showing me your fucking blinders.

      • Jessica Sen says:

        Go team salamander.

        “…more than the compassionate response.” That took all my feminist rage and put words to it. I’m no longer going to feel compelled to empathise with idiots, not when it affects half the world population.

        Don’t worry about Bryan. He’s incapable of original thought, like the figures he adores. They have just taken centuries of sexist and fascist cliche, looped strings of illogic through them and called it decorated argument.

        Bryan is their literal fuckparrot. Every sentence of his first comment (the long one) has been airlifted verbatim from either Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro’s videos. Nothing from Gad Saad though.

        That’s probably because Bryan’s too much of a fascist to watch a brown man speak.

    • Damien Otis says:

      feminism makes plenty of sense for those open to interpreting the messages, tho you’ll find it harder to understand the more misogynistic you are. not because misogynists are stupid (they are) but because your own ego will be fighting you for a clear understanding of the material. the mirror that feminism presents to men can be too much. maybe take some classes?? will require you to listen more than you speak; another challenge men face.

  8. Bryan says:

    Of course it’s because of feminism.

    It is very difficult to have a truly high end career and have an important relationship and have children especially if there are two of you doing that at the same time.

    • Chris says:

      We’re at an impasse. I don’t associate a woman having a fulfilling non-domestic career with feminism so much as technology in healthcare and communication.

    • TC says:

      Hi Bryan. Why is that because of feminism? In principle, the difficulties of having a high-end career along with a family could apply just as easily to a man as to a woman.

      To be sure, this conflict tends to affect women more, since women are more socially expected to play the role of caregiver – but it seems like it’s more about (US-American) society being set up poorly w/r/t work-life balance than feminism.

      • Bryan says:

        Women give birth and take care of children. Men do the dangerous jobs for them. That’s the way it runs. It’s in our biology.

        • TC says:

          Most notable for our current discussion: the naturalistic fallacy. (i.e., a logical fallacy where determining that something is “natural” is “good” or even “healthy.”) Even if we were to grant that biology has apportioned out gender roles like this, it doesn’t mean that it’s moral, good for the women involved, good for the men involved, or good for the children involved. (this is, of course, assuming a family with children and a partnered man and woman.)

          Think of it this way – fevers are natural (they’re evolved responses that kill microorganisms – see Nesse & Williams 1996 book “Why We Get Sick”), but fevers can still kill you. Is a fever definitely always good because it’s natural?

        • Chris says:

          Bryan, I generally agree. However, do you think giving birth isn’t dangerous? Sure, lots of women do it, but lots of men are cops and oil field workers. Most don’t die, but all have lasting effects. And no one should be forced to do either.

          On your point of dangerous work: I 100% agree that women effectively make more in some fields (like the military) since they mostly do less dangerous work for the same pay, but things are changing, like the allowance of women to do dangerous work unless it was flying, which came about because there was enough demand that they had to take the best people, not just the best men.

          What you are speaking to is completely true for the past, and partially true for the present.

          • TeamSalamander says:

            I’m a woman who enjoys dangerous work. Men rarely hire me. When I do work in male dominated environments I face sexual and romantic overtures often. These RedPill people don’t seem to want to admit that men rarely ALLOW for women to help with the dangerous work.

          • Chris says:

            You’re right; I’ve seen it happen. A factory where I was working had never had a woman operate a particular machine. It necessitated some moderate lifting, but was no more dangerous than some of the other equipment. When I suggested to the owner we promote “Ana” to it, he was kind of blown away at the idea.

            Also, laborious jobs that require attention to detail, like bricklaying, typically benefit from a woman because even if she can only carry 80% of the load her peers can, she can make up for it in precision.

            A fool would think men and women are the same, but a greater fool would think male-dominated fields don’t benefit from having the best people, not just the best men.

  9. Huge Heifer says:

    The campus wars are a distraction, Bryan. It’s silly to call the 2016’s Journo Most Told To Get Ovened a fascist when it’s just a run-of-the-mill neocon manlet perpetually stuck in the whining-about-liberals mode. Nobody gives a shit about how well you talk in a highly regulated debate tourney environment. You can find peer-reviewed studies for nearly everything and even then you can just call the metastudy P-hacked and call it a day.

    Saad’s magical evopsych journey debunks itself, if you’re reading about why women like pink more because savannah berries you’re already an evolutionary dead end yourself.

    Peterson rallies against collectivism while peddling the same shared humanity/common sense nonsense spat out by all the fucks too haunted by anomie to ever comfortably revealing their caucus. Gender pronouns as Newspeak is thinking the entire world is a college campus, he’s a regular guest on all the kooky podcasts that share this addiction to kerfuffles, the fact that he sometimes wanders near levers of power is for the same reason a conservative MP might take up painting or become a whiskey man.

    The marketplace of ideas is regulated by money and power, and it’s out partying in the Hamptons together with its ostensible adversaries while you badger anonymous agony aunts without seeing a red cent for it, literal and metaphorically (this makes your opinion the equivalent of Herbalife).

    • Chris says:

      Heifer, can you recommend any books or links to opposing viewpoints?

      These posts have made me check Peterson out more (I saw him in passing before). I just watched the Senate hearing where he was talking about the pronoun laws and agree with his compelled speech argument, and really appreciated that he could draw a line between “what you can’t say, and what you are forced to say.”

      • Huge Heifer says:

        Not sure if you mean pro- or contra-Peterson, but I usually read Current Affairs, ItsGoingDown, Jacobite, Status451, SlateStarCodex, Popehat (especially good on free speech), Thing of Things and Sam[z]dat for a more thorough analysis of things beyond controversy du jour stuff. Some of these verge on intellectual wankery, but it’s a spectrum that ranges from far left to far right and as such is good for giving you a broader sense of the questions modern society is grappling with (something I think Peterson is trying to find an answer to too).

        • Chris says:

          Ah, good Q. I have watched the actual Peterson videos and interviews, not the people talking about him.

          If you have someone who’s like an anti-Peterson, I’d give them a shot for the same reason I read the Communist Manifesto and read a couple Bill O’Reilly books before I found out he was a sexual harasser.

          • Chris says:

            LMFAO off at what I wrote. No need to say it first. Yeah, I though the couple things I saw of Peterson were high quality, and I liked them.

            However, I would also likely find value in someone who disagrees with him.

            On another point, there’s an intellectual who is posting videos in great support of Peterson who I find completely ridiculous, and don’t like at all. Had I seen those videos first (instead of these posts) I may have ignored any Peterson video at all.

  10. The Eighth Square says:

    I’m a big fan of Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson (and to a lesser extent Gad Saad). Jordan Peterson in particular I have nothing but respect for, and he’s honestly changed my life. I’m a recovering third wave feminist, current classical liberal (which I know is already enough for many people to try to dismiss me by saying I have internalized misogyny, which might be the most anti-feminist thing I’ve ever heard, but I’m past caring at this point). And listening to Jordan Peterson gave me a different perspective on child rearing, one that I needed to hear when I was trying to figure out all the confusion I was feeling at age 26 being around my boyfriend’s friends’ children, after being so ideologically possessed that I had believed being a mother makes you inferior and a slave to biology. His perspective contributed greatly to me making my decision as to whether or not to have children.

    I want to clear up an untrue and quite defamatory claim being perpetuated here, which is that Jordan Peterson calls women “bitches” on social media. This makes it sound like this is a matter of course for him and he does so with malicious intent. However, if you search on his twitter account for the word “bitch” and “bitches,” there are only two tweets you will find. One is him sharing a news story where the headline read: “Cornell College Republicans president assaulted, called ‘racist bitch’.”

    In the other tweet he does call a woman a “sexist bitch,” but it is a joke, and when you click through to the tweet, you can see the woman respond and they are clearly friends:
    And if you click through to her twitter profile, she retweets Peterson or tweets about Peterson frequently in a supportive manner. Example tweet:

    The reason why asking for evidence of such claims (as Asuka did above) is legitimate is that people will often make false implications, such as that Jordan Peterson is a bad person and not worthy of anyone’s time because he “calls women ‘bitches’ on social media” and then you can’t say, “Oh, I’m a fan of his and that sounds very unlike him. Can you direct me to the tweet where you saw that? Or at least paraphrase the context in which you saw this happen?” If you do, you’ll likely get told some variation of, ‘how dare you ask that,’ ‘if you have to ask you don’t get it,’ ‘why don’t you just believe me,’ ‘do your own research,’ ‘you must be a misogynist too,’ etc. So I did my own research, and it’s here for everyone to see.

    This also applies to the claim that Ben Shapiro is a fascist. I don’t agree with everything he says because we have many different beliefs, however, I frequently watch his podcast on Youtube because he is a brilliant lawyer who breaks down very clearly the facts of each political incident, and he is very clear about his bias and beliefs. I don’t have to agree with his opinion about why a given policy is good or bad, but his breakdown of the facts of the incident amidst the constant shouting on mainstream and social media is very helpful.

    And having listened to hours of him talk at this point, I can say quite confidently that Ben Shapiro is not a fascist, if the definition of fascist we’re using is “a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.” He is a small government conservative, with small “L” libertarian leanings. He has said on numerous occasions that the government is bad at almost everything, and he believes in the power of private charity and private businesses, and that the government needs to provide limited functions to serve the general welfare, but to stay out of everyone’s way otherwise.

    So when I see someone make a claim that Ben Shapiro is a fascist, I think, “Can you provide evidence for that? Because I can’t think of a single thing he’s said or policy he’s supported that would make him a fascist. Or are you just saying that because you don’t agree with him, and ‘fascist’ is the word you’ve adopted as a general slur against your political opponents?”

    • TC says:

      Hi Eighth Square – first off, I appreciate the fact that you investigated the claims being made by looking for evidence. The pursuit of evidence is obviously crucial. (Asking for it from a group that is impacted in a personal way by that kind of evidence is a different story.) (Being vilified for asking a question is a whole other story again about which I have complicated feelings – but all this for another day!)

      I would like to offer a different conclusion about JP’s intentions/actions based on the evidence you put forward. The tweet JP wrote doesn’t really seem to be directed at a friend, but rather at a student. It’s important to note that many students (especially when the dynamic is female-student-male-professor, but it’s definitely not limited to that) are put under a great deal of pressure not to call out their professors for anything. There’s also pressure to be “in on the joke” – you don’t want to be the cranky student who takes the cool professor to the administration for playfully ribbing you, right? And there’s the added complication of the social context – other Tweeted replies were largely affable (“OMG he roasted you lol!”), and it’d be very easy for a student to say “Am I making a big deal out of nothing??” and dismiss their own discomfort.

      I’m sensitive to this because in academia, this happens with female graduate students and male professors all the time, and it follows a pattern startlingly reminiscent of this Twitter exchange. The academic environment is fraught with situations where people (of whatever gender) who are in less power are socialized not to speak up when they are taken advantage of, made a move on, treated disrespectfully, etc. And it starts by degrees, with small liberties like a professor with an edgy sense of humor calling their student a bitch to get a laugh. Sometimes it ends with students with PTSD wiping out of their programs, frozen out of research opportunities, losing their careers. IMPORTANTLY, it doesn’t have to be the same professor. I’m not claiming JP is sexually assaulting his students, but he wouldn’t have to be for his tweet to be potentially harmful – a student learning by observing this Twitter exchange that “okay, this is the way it works here at this university” is going to feel more afraid to speak up when a new predator in a position of power over them comes along.

      I can’t make a claim that JP was being malicious – I can’t speak to his intent at all. My criticism is more to do with the consequences of talking to students/talking about women like that. Rather than call him out for malice, I think it’s appropriate to call him out for negligence. Regardless of his intent, he’s almost certainly heard enough evidence first-hand and from his colleagues and peers about how stuff like this can have dire consequences.

    • Jessica Sen says:

      Why the fuck are we talking about these people, instead of the actual views espoused?

      Are we in fucking high school?

    • Ben Shapiro says:

      I guess I do have a tendency towards strong dictatorial control. You are a boy or you are a girl. You cannot decide your gender, even if your self-identity does not affect my life or freedom to be a boy whatsoever. I suppose that makes me the opposite of a libertarian. I criticise the government only so I can be the government.

      My people record my debates and tailor it in the edit – they mute or make my opponents’ voices so soft that whatever I say in response appears to make sense out of context. I suppose you could say that is forcible suppression of opposition.

      Side note: I actually get redfaced a lot, I wish they would do something in the edit about that!

  11. Nina Farewell says:

    Eighth Square, reading your comment is like finding another sane person in the asylum. Thank you!

    The anger wafting from most of these posts…I don’t understand it.

  12. Jessica Sen says:

    We are definitely losing sentience on a global scale. These anti-intellects are even developing a masquerade of coherence, though illogic ultimately can’t be covered up. It shows that formal education can’t guarantee you’ll be on the right side of the argument, only that you’ll be able to convince other people as dull-minded as you.

    Come at me with some value statements you hold true derived from Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson or Gad Saad.

    One liners.

    I’ll reply with a one liner pointing out the logical fallacy it falls under.

    Come on, it’ll be a blast.

  13. Jessica Sen says:

    Come on, where are all the little Reddit babies now?

    You come in and dirty our house, at least allow me to mop the floor with you before you leave.


          • have at it says:

            Yeah, but “caution” (neutral wariness, as you call it) doesn’t work as a replacement word here. You’re trying too hard to be Coke. Go look up the definition of distrust, it fits.

            Most of all, I love how you, the girl who writes worthless garbage 85% of the time, and some awful cringe eliciting fiction (which I hope was a hoax) thinks she can somehow dismantle actual brilliant intellectuals. It’s adorable.

          • Jessica Sen says:

            “Distrust” means mistrust. This is the definition in the context the statement was made. His support for that statement is an appeal to probability.

            Ad hominem? You must be desperate.

          • have at it says:

            Right. Defined as, “a feeling that something (the government) cannot be relied on”. That’s not a fallacy of composition. And swapping “distrust” for “caution” wouldn’t work in this context either, because caution isn’t baseless cynicism.

            Ben is simply siding with anybody who ultimately questions the motives and actions of their government

            The sheer amount trite, depthless clowns lining your bookshelf would induce vomit. You exude this. Now, say fallacy again.

          • have at it says:

            And to clarify, since I quickly responded on my cellphone half asleep this morning: “caution” would never be mistaken as “baseless cynicism”. It doesn’t meet the criteria. Where as “distrust” could be, especially by everyday dummies. Rendering your whole point face fucked by a big cock wearing new tennis shoes.


        • Edmund says:


          Your “arguments” on this page are nothing more than invocations of labels for fallacious argumentation, which you apply without providing any solid critique to show that what you are responding to even meets the criteria to deserve these labels. You are using what is a common tactic among particularly young pretentious fools with little to no real engagement with political philosophy who are just braindead zealots convinced of the infallibility of their belief systems. Left or right. What is ironic here is that this shows that your capacity for any real debate amounts to nothing but empty rhetoric yet all the while you express your infantile hate and ridicule for those you consider your intellectual inferior by virtue of their not sharing your belief system. Live a little. Learn.

          • Jessica Sen says:

            This was an exercise in logic. I took no political stance. That’s a projection based on you defining my identity through opposition toward your views. I was deliberately succinct in writing precise labels to the fallacies my tribe understand, and was not looking to get into a protracted fight with idiots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *