LiquidPrince

I don't really care if people want to tear into Jordan Peterson and call him Satan incarnate. I have no personal attachment to the man. But can you really shit all over him over what is essentially hearsay? If you feel comfortable tearing into someone without actually knowing the specifics of what that person was saying, and taking it on faith that everyone else who shits on him is correct, all the more power to you. I'm glad you're opinion is so informed.

But where ever you pulled that quote from, it's a lie of omission, or a half truth. He was a Professor at UFT and as far as is known never denied any trans person the basic right of referring to them with their preferred pronouns. In fact there are numerous videos of him where he is speaking with a panel of people and on the panel are trans people, for which he asks how they would like to be addressed. The main issue he had was when it was implemented into Canadian law that not referring to people with their preferred pronouns became a criminal act tantamount to hate speech. His main criticism of this was that the law does not sufficiently describe what words need to be used to refer to what people and in what situations. It's all just a vague notion that if you address someone incorrectly and that person gets offended, they can file a complaint against you that could go into your criminal record as a person espousing hate speech. If there is only one video of the three that I posted that you'd like to give a chance to, might I suggest the third and final one, where I have set it to start at the precise moment the Asian gentleman asks a salient question regarding this very issue, followed by an elderly woman who also asks a question relevant to this discussion. That is if you can risk for a moment sullying your Youtube recommendations. Although I think if that is a legitimate fear for you, watching it in private mode will stop it from entering the recommendations of your main account.

I don't really see how it is except for the fact that any talk regarding the state of feminism, gender identity or anything sensitive really seems to be outside the realm of amiable discussion. I've not dismissed anyone's views, have striven to keep my conversation polite and constructive and the natural flow of conversation has lead to a place outside of the scope of the initial conversation; which isn't exactly unexpected. There does seem to be a real, "agree with us or you're a misogynistic pig" thing going on here though, which I guess should have been expected as this is a gaming website, not a place for discussing gender politics, even if they do relate thematically to the discussion.

To make this clear one final time, this thread was not made with intention to dismiss Abby's views or say that she's wrong or that women should shut up blah blah blah. I wasn't the one that brought that to this discussion. Those were accusations that were leveled against me, despite my only intention being to express my opinion that the women in God of War were in my opinion handled very well. I came into this expecting people to disagree, but not to start labeling and insulting me. This is honestly the reason why forum activity has started to drop off, as mentioned in another thread going around, because having amiable discussions regarding any topics that aren't superficial seem to be getting near impossible here.

Short of turning this into a discussion about Jordan Peterson, I'll just say that that isn't really what he talks about at all. In fact there a lot of videos where he has transgendered folks who agree with him on what he discusses. And for you to criticize what you think he supposedly talks about without actually watching a youtube video and listening to it in an open mind is kind of weird. You criticize but don't actually know what you're criticizing because you're afraid he'll what, pollute your youtube recommendations?

The entire reason he became well known or controversial in the first place was that he didn't like the idea that Canadian law was threatening to treat not calling someone their preferred pronoun as a criminal act. It wasn't that he had ever refused or would ever refuse to respect anyone enough to call them what they preferred to be called, but the law was so unclear about what the boundaries were, that putting something like that into criminal law was an extremely slippery slope. An example of how it was a slippery slope is, you can ask any number of different people what they feel is their gender or how many genders they think exist: some people say two, but I have heard claims as far as 80 genders. Eighty. Even divorcing the idea of gender biology from the idea of gender identity, how would you possibly enforce a law when no one has any definite answer on how many genders exist, and how you need to refer to any of them in terms of the singular, plural etc.. The idea that someone could potentially get in trouble with the law because someone else says they identify as a wolf and their preferred pronouns are wim and wam is a bit ludicrous. For something to be put forth as law, there needs to be a level of common sense and self evidence, and without clear delineated rules, you can't really have the threat of criminal punishment.

Anyways, regarding your point that was actually on topic, you're saying exactly what I have said multiple times in this thread: the pain of losing someone whether a parent, sibling, friend etc... is such a universal emotion that most everyone can relate to it. So it's a trope that will always be used as a motivation for whomever the protagonist is for ages to come. If there is something wrong with the trope, or if a certain piece of fiction handles it very poorly, I can see how it might be the subject of criticism. I just don't think that the trope was poorly used in God of War.

Again, this is a gross oversimplification of the point I'm trying to get across, which by the way I myself claimed might come across as naive ideology. As it specifically related to works of fiction and art, I said that if a trope is negative and toxic, it should be looked at from every viewpoint. But people, even in this thread have said something to the effect of, "well maybe when men have years of suffering as much as women have we can talk about that issue." Talking about it as though it's some kind of long term competition of who has been treated more shitty in their life time. You don't make life better by vilifying one side and lionizing the other. If something is worthy of criticism, it should be criticized with equal ferocity for all side. It's what I was talking about when I said it creates an us versus them mentality which in turn will always lead to aggression and fighting.

Which is what? That I don't think Abby should have an opinion? If so, that's laughable at how stupid it is and again ignores what I'm actually saying in the text of posts to create a gross over simplification that is easier for people who might disagree with me can digest. It's easier to label me a misogynist and ignore any points I'm making about why I thought the women of God of War were very nuanced and well done and believeable, then it is to formulate a proper response. There are people in here, @jadegl being one that is a stand out, that have argued their points on why they think, like me in fact, that it is not a simple matter of, these characters are shit and have no value or these characters are great and you're all wrong. Tropes exist and can have value, and how that may or may not apply to God of War was the entire point of the discussion. People like Simmant have added literally nothing to the discussion, have twisted my words and put words into my mouth and have insulted me for really no gain. At least if their was some wisdom I could glean from the insults, nuggets of why that passion exists, it might have been worthwhile. But there is nothing of value there.

Anyone who wants to come in here and claim that I think Abby should shut up, or doesn't know what she's talking about or she's a woman who should go in the corner need to really shut up. I respect Abby and her opinions enough to know that she should be able to withstand criticism leveled against her thoughts just as much I can respect any reasonable and criticism laid against mine.

I love every time you post because you prove more and more how close minded and myopic your thought process is and how you can't stand to have anyone disagree with what you find to be fundamentally true and yet really isn't. You're trying to shut other people up by pretending that you have the moral high ground and know better and anyone who doesn't bow to your infinite wisdom is lesser and a misogynist. Funny thing is you're all air and no substance. You continually cite this ephemeral and vague notion of, "this is a well known and well documented discussion" and yet don't actually try and pull from that supposed pre-existing discussion to make any valid points here. You're not trying to have a discussion, you're just blah blah, this discussion proves your wrong, blah blah, you're a misogynist blah blah finger in my ears. You are exactly the type self righteous toxic personality that is slowly turning what feminism actually stands for into a thing that is corrupted and revolting. The true feminist ideal is a beautiful goal and something that we should strive for. Equality, not just for women against men, but of humans regardless of race, gender, religion etc... but you essentially are the worst example of the thing you supposedly stand for. A toxic sad person with nothing to share but hate. And I'll post another video where someone asks Jordan a very salient question regarding this issue that you are at the center of and gets a salient response back:

Would you care to give an example of something he's said that would make him "absolutely a misogynist?" A single example would suffice. I'm just trying to understand how anyone who has actually tried to listen to him can come to this conclusion.

If you are insinuating that he is a misogynist and therefore I am one as well by extension, disregarding every other thing I have tried to say in the process, then I think that's a pretty shallow and lame response. For the record, I do not think he is a misogynist, but he is a very well informed clinical psychologist who tries to explain that issues such as the gender pay gap are far more complex then a simple, girls unilaterally get paid less then men and that's just the truth. There are variety of psychological and sociological factors at play which influence how and why such differences in wages exist. Are they all justified, or are they all things that can't stand to change and evolve? Certainly not. Everything can change and evolve. But it's not a black and white situation, and anyone who wants to see it as such, again in a us versus them sort of situation is displaying willful ignorance.

If you want to have a better understanding of his position, you should look into his discussions about the differences between equality of outcome versus equality of opportunity. To give a quick summary, it posits that in the most egalitarian societies, where men and women have equality of opportunity, women and men tend to gravitate towards certain occupations. In his Scandinavian example, it's a ratio of 1:20 women becoming nurses and 1:20 men becoming engineers. Given that they have equality of opportunity leads them to certain occupations and this is supported by empirical evidence. Which isn't to say that women cannot or should not become engineers or men nurses, just that when given the choice, certain genders gravitate towards certain occupations. Equality of opportunity is a desirable goal that we as a society should strive to move towards, but equality of outcome is a whole different argument. If you want to listen to very similar arguments as the one above, but without a disrespectful host who is constantly trying to twist his words, then the following video is a little better. Again, you don't have to agree with anything he's saying, but to label him and by extension me as a misogynist simply because I don't think certain issues are so black and white is a shallow rebuttal.