What are
/r/enoughpetersonspam's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/enoughpetersonspam:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/enoughpetersonspam:
Open Culture
SemanticScholar
Project Gutenberg
IPFS
Cambridge Dictionary
Reddit Enhancement Suite
Hooktube
HuffPost
Shutterstock
WebMD
Player FM
Emojipedia
The Pirate Bay
Power Thesaurus
Lobster
The most popular Android Apps mentioned in /r/enoughpetersonspam:
The most popular reviews in /r/enoughpetersonspam:
"I don't think fascism can come back". Fascism doesn't care what you think. Fascism is eternal. Fact. It never disappeared. Fascism even pops up on Fox News.
If you read about actual fascism and actual fascists, yeah, Peterson fits the profile perfect. He says alot of the same things fascist intellectuals said. Look up Julius Evola, Elizabeth Dilling, and Marshal Ironsides. They sound just like him. Look up the essay "ur fascism" by Umberto Eco. It describes Peterson perfectly. These features of early fascism include, contempt for the weak, mysticism, machismo (punch commies, feminists), hero worship, disdain for non standard sexual habits, cult of action, a rejection of modern ideas, an appeal against the intruders (post moderns into academia), and defense of hierarchy and traditional values against attacks by the liberal intelligentsia. It's all right there in Umberto Eco's essay on ur-fascism.
Here is part of it: http://www.openculture.com/2016/11/umberto-eco-makes-a-list-of-the-14-common-features-of-fascism.html
Evidence he lied? Read the bill and then read/listen to what he said.
My biggest influence is probably Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. But what do you hope to get out of this?
Or if you like, Plato's Euthyphro is what got me into philosophy initially.
Robert Sapolsky's new book Behave shits on Peterson's new book. Robert's book is probably the best book I've bought in my entire life. Seriously, I open it and learn something new everyday. If Robert and Jordan ever "debated" I guarantee that Robert would make Jordan look like Kathy Newman.
I'm trying to find some actual stats on how many men vs. how many women have kids. So far all I can find is this 2014 US Census data that indicates 47.6% of women aged 15-44 did not have kids, and this was a record. That sounds a whole lot like half, so claiming that half of men don't procreate means there is an epidemic would also mean there is an equal epidemic for women.
I can't seem to find the male half of the 2014 US Census data, but a 2006 CDC report says 47% of men in that 15-44 age group had kids, so 53% were childless.
Assuming these numbers have decreased a bit given the same is true of women, perhaps we're looking at something like 47% vs. 50% childless women vs. men. Hardly an epidemic amongst men. (I was surprised that Peterson actually quoted a fact correctly for once though! Usually he just makes shit up.)
Also as a man who does not have a biological child and is not planning on it, I hardly feel I have "failed." I chose to raise my stepson and don't have any interest in having my own child. That's a win in my book.
There is a literal podcast about Chomsky's view on JP.
>he expresses about taking control of your life and “cleaning your room”
A lot of his self-help tips are probably based on early 2000's ephemeral internet trends that can be found elsewhere. And as Contrapoints makes clear, there are subjects he talks about that are worth considering, like moving past considering yourself a victim. He does not develop these very far and obviously does not practice any of these principles himself, only hopes to weaponize them against his political opponents.
>for me his politics are rather a secondary thing to me.
The majority of his time is overwhelmingly spent on political campaigns at this point, so it's extremely difficult to separate the politics from the man anymore.
Seems like the brigadiers have already hit the Amazon page for the book. Reviews are almost all MGTOW and incel propaganda with no actual reference to the source material at all.
Which is a shame because if it really is about what they say it is, it should be really easy to prove.
Peterson isn't a fan of Occam's Razor. Occam and the rest of the Scholastics were a bunch of bloody pre-modern proto-Marxists or something.
WHAT THE FUCK!?? Holy shit, that was NOT a hard question. This is unreal to me. Really shows the state of crisis capitalism is in now that public figures like JBP can get away with such blatant antisemitism.
Antisemitism is part and parcel of the capitalist system. It has organically grown to new heights within capitalist socioeconomic relations. I'd recommend The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation by Abram Leon for anyone who'd like to be armed with the truth as capitalists and their goons start turning more and more towards rampant antisemitism to shore up their failing system. Here is the general description of the book:
>Traces the historical rationalizations of anti-Semitism to the fact that, in the centuries preceding the domination of industrial capitalism, Jews emerged as a "people-class" of merchants, moneylenders, and traders. Leon explains why the propertied rulers incite renewed Jew-hatred in the epoch of capitalism's decline.
It looks like this is the intended final product.
The author seems to have written a biography of James Mattis who is popular with Incels and Marines and of course
>He has been interviewed about the book on “The Story with Martha MacCallum” and “Fox and Friends” on the Fox News Network.
has various connections with Fox News. His creativity is apparently spent on a very alt-right friendly blog with titles that may well cause your eyes to roll back so far your optic nerves will be severed.
>Quit Your Whining
>Progressives Punked for Social Justice
>Black Lies Matter
>The Death of Free Speech: The West Veils Itself
> We need some foucauldian to do a detailed historical analysis of "free speech" and show that it has always been a mechanism of power (has this already been done?).
There literally already is one by Foucault and he comes to the opposite conclusion. I'm kind of shocked at how fatalistic you'd be yourself with such a statement.
It obviously isn't Marxism, but the history of Christian communism dates back about as long as Christianity has existed. This book has a lot of good info, including anthropological evidence of early Christians attempting to build communism. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0725G8NDZ
Modern Christian leftists may or may not be Marxists, but they often take a lot from Marx. And you can in fact be both a Christian and a Marxist.
Acts 2:44-45
>And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Acts 4:32-37
>Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles' feet.
^ Communism
It's from Junji Ito's Frankenstein.
>I think he's read some philosophers
Have you seen Jordan Peterson's latest tweet to Sam Harris (https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1011713966798704640)? If you've seen it, he is referencing Liebniz's ideas through the writings of R. Scruton (from a text primarily on Kant!). I looked up the book of R. Scruton on Kant (not really knowing what to expect) only to discover that it is one of those 'VERY Short Introduction' books (that fit in the palm of your hand) (https://www.amazon.com/Kant-Short-Introduction-Roger-Scruton/dp/0192801996). LMAO!
And who knows how much of Peterson's philosophy is derived from these booklets? I mean, I don't even think he's read any primary Postmodern texts and I sincerely believe that all of his ideas regarding Postmodernism come from Stephen Hicks' one book titled 'Explaining Postmodernism.'
He's definitely no serious philosopher though, lmao.
Every single article I read from glorified scientific racism blog Quillette.com reminds me of that time one of their authors earnestly asked me for a style guide when I mocked him on Twitter for pretentious overwriting
Edit: Jesus
> I think he has also highlighted it isn't gender non binary people bringing these issues forward but instead it's 'left wing idealogues' and believes they don't truly have good intentions
Has he highlighted this? Or has he claimed it with little supporting evidence? It's not surprising that some trans people agree with him, since no community is a monolith, and prejudice against nonbinary people exists in the trans community too. As someone with professional training in research methods, Peterson presumably knows what sampling bias is, and he shouldn't treat the emails he receives as representative of trans or nonbinary communities.
I do think he's expressed ideas about nonbinary people that are bigoted and ill-informed. Given the disproportionately high rates of discrimination and violence that gender nonconforming people face, I would like him to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric. It's hard for me to give him the benefit of the doubt when he positions trans and nonbinary activists as resentment-driven enemies of Western civilization.
No. Jung was conservative. That's pretty well documented. What else would call someone who says women have roles dictated by a combination of god and biology?
Even for his time, regardless of the very real Nazi sympathies, he was conservative. https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Gustav-Jung-Conservative-Intellectual/dp/0230102964
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/mclynn-jung.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>As for conservatism, he declared that for the Swiss a new idea was like an unknown dangerous animal which had to be either avoided or else approached with extreme caution -- which was why, in his view, the Swiss had such poor intuitive capacity. Their aristocratic posture revealed itself in indifference to the opinions of others. As for introversion, this was a function both of xenophobia and neutrality in the affairs of the world on one hand and the peculiar Swiss political culture on the other, where warlike instincts were channelled inwards into domestic political life.
>The peculiarity of Switzerland as geographical entity and political culture can scarcely be overemphasized in its influence on Jung. Geographically, the Swiss are predominantly a mountain people, and it is a commonplace of political science that such `highlanders' are deeply religious and politically conservative, with a strong sense of independence and self-reliance. Jung frequently referred to the Alps as the central collective image of Switzerland and suggested that a landscape where Nature was mightier than Man produced the characteristic Swiss mixture of obstinacy, doggedness, stolidity and innate pride.
There's also a paper he was involved with correlating emotional arousal to adoption of conservative beliefs which I suspect played a foundational role in his rhetoric.
Hi, you can download them easily in mp3 format from here:
https://www.podparadise.com/Podcast/1373812661
It's a very good, and well researched podcast, but can be very grim and heavy going. It's good if you mix it up with other lighter stuff.
The Nicomachean Ethics. Book II, I think.
Edit/ It is Book II. Not sure if its a top translation, though; took it from an E-Text. It's been more than 15 years since I read the actual text at University.
I've not read it, but this gets good reviews.
Just don't waste your time on Troy Parfitt's book.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0011nwl/question-time-2021-18112021
Only playable in the UK so you might need a VPN to watch it
Regarding the biological possibility: http://biopolitics.kom.uni.st/Shulamith%20Firestone/The%20Dialectic%20of%20Sex_%20The%20Case%20for%20Feminist%20Revolution%20(139)/The%20Dialectic%20of%20Sex_%20The%20Case%20for%20Feminis%20-%20Shulamith%20Firestone.pdf
Just read the first few pages of chapter one.
Read Jordan Peterson's 12 Rules book and you will be less afraid of him because you will realize that he's Tony Robins but that he's promoting the evangelical-american form of fascism.
You should use https://calibre-ebook.com/download and download an epub of 12 rules. Then, use calibre to read the epub. Read some of it on your computer. You will be less afraid of him because you will understand him better.
Even if he's right that the biological differences between men and women means they will act differently according to X habits or Y genetics, it does not mean that those differences must reveal themselves according to a specific type of protestant christian values. If that were the case, then the way that men and women act would already be in line with what he was saying.
There's also the Chomsky vs Foucault debate which they might find interesting and cause them to start questioning Peterson's assumptions about the men involved.
> This guy Kyle in the video talks about having "arguments against post modernism". What arguments? Which person?
In this case, I'll also assert that there is no one in particular that Kulinski is criticising but rather that he's simply echoing the wholesale rejection of postmodernist thoughts as expressed by Chomsky.
Turns out one of them wrote a book claiming welfare and social services will bankrupt America. It's got an eagle on the cover.
https://www.amazon.com/Savage-Messiah-Peterson-Western-Civilization/dp/1250251427 It even has it's own Amazon page.
'Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.' - Tom Lehrer
I need context. It looks like a satire of anti-labor talking points from the 20s, but I've also read magazines and newspapers from that time say even more rediculous things.
Like, I know for a fact that, around the 20s, "try to be liked by the best people" was actual dating and social advice for kids and young adults (source: "From Front Portch to Back Seat: Courtship in Twentieth-Century America," by Beth L. Bailey)
Play store link: Boost for reddit
Amazing app to search Reddit. Allows you to change the look and everything. Even has landscape mode. Highly recommended.
No. I'm not getting into semantics and name calling. I've read Jung. I've read Jung openly call himself a mystic.
You're asking for scholarship: https://www.amazon.com/Carl-Gustav-Jung-Conservative-Intellectual/dp/0230102964
That's a history book that is informed only by Jung's papers and through no heresay. The matter is largely settled because of that book. There's your scholarship. There's 280 pages of "Jung was a conservative for the following 280 pages worth of cited papers that Jung himself wrote explaining his conservative, aristocratic, plutocratic opinions."
Reading List
Plato-Phaedrus, The Republic, The Symposium, Gorgias, pretty much everything Aristotle-Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric, Poetry Descartes-Meditations On The First Philosophy David Hume-An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding Immanuel Kant-Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Practical Reason, Critique of Judgement Georg Wilhelm Freidrich Von Hegel-The Phenomenology of Spirit, The Science of Logic, The Philosophy Of Right, The Philosophy of History Karl Marx-Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology Soren Kierkegaard-Either/Or, Sickness Unto Death, Fear and Trembling Nietzsche-Beyond Good And Evil, A Geneology Of Morals, Twilight Of Idols, The Gay Science Husserl-Logical Investigations 1, Ideas 1, Cartesian Meditations Freud-The Interpretation of Dreams, Three Essays on a Theory of Infantile Sexuality, On Narcissism, The Unconscious, Repression, Beyond The Pleasure Principle, Ego and the Id Ferdinand de Saussure-Lectures on Structural Linguistics Heidegger-Being and Time Camus-The Myth of Sisyphus Sartre-Being And Nothingness Alexandre Kojeve-Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit Jean Hyppolite-Genesis and Structure in the Phenomenology of Spirit Jacques Lacan-Ecrits, Lectures, The Mirror Stage Roland Barthes-Mythologies Claude Levi-Strauss-Structural Anthropology Michel Foucault-Discipline and Punish, Madness and Civilization, The Order of Things Jacques Derrida-Of Grammatology, Diffèrance, Plato's Pharmacy Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari-Anti Oedipus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia Jean Baudrillard-Simulacra and Simulation Slavoj Zizek-The Sublime Object Of Ideology, Violence
That'll give you a start. At least on postmodernism, Peterson doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
Gavin Evans Great Important Book Mapreaders And Multitaskers Has Large Amount Of Research Studies And Evidence That Human Females And Males Are More Alike Than Different
Here are links to a great 2017 article Deliver Us From Venus and Mars by Gavin Evans
https://newint.org/features/2017/09/01/gender-stereotypes
Here are all 5 star reviews of his 2017 book which he updated in 2021, from sadly only 13 reviews on amazon.com UK,and they are by more than a few men too.But of course it's not a best seller like horrendous Jordan Peterson's books because Gavin doesn't reinforce all of the too common harmful,limiting sexist,woman-hating,biological determinist,male dominated gender myths,gender roles,and gender stereotypes that Jordan does,and this is what most people have been taught and brainwashed by from birth on,and he tells them what they already have been so wrongly taught to believe and what they want to believe.
British Journalist Gavin Evans Great Important Book,Mapreaders and Multitaskers:Men,Women,Nature,Nurture in which he provides a large amount of extensive research studies and evidence that demonstrates that human females and males are more salike than different,and that differences in most areas are not large,and that it's more to do with how we are brought up socially conditioned.
In her very good 2009 book The Myth Of Mars And Venus: Do Men And Women Really Speak Different Languages?,gender communications professor Deborah Cameron very rightfully points out that even though today many women and men are getting the same educations,doing a lot of the same jobs,and interests,they still want to believe that deep in their brains and minds they are still fundamentally different because social changes in gender roles,are scary. The big irony here though is that if they were so ''fundamentally different'',they wouldn't be getting the same educations,and doing a lot of the same jobs,etc. But that's what's threatening and why they want to believe the common gender myths and gender stereotypes.
I just discovered those! This SFW one delights me.
Just because creeps like Peterson hate Marx doesn't mean his ideas are of much value outside highly esoteric academic debates:
https://www.amazon.com/Main-Currents-Marxism-Founders-Breakdown/dp/0393329437
>Sixth Postulate.
I see what you did there (?!) Anyway, God ain't a postulate because God is inexhaustible
It was a fun tool, but as much as I can't stand Peterson, this technology (and frivolous usage of it) is dangerous af and I can understand taking it down.
That said, there are still some funny samples here
https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2019/08/16/jordan-peterson-voice-ai/
Most of us? I don't think many people here think he's literally a nazi. But few of us are surprised that neo-nazis and other white nationalists target peterson fans for recruitment, when so many of his public statements and writings demonstrate features of fascism.
He's not a nazi, but he's priming people to find features of fascism and nazi ideology more acceptable and appealing.
There is a comparison of documentable cases and whatever crazy numbers other historians claim. This study is based on soviet archives of OGPU-NKVD-MVD-MGB so this study pretty much settled the debate about the true numbers of Stalinist repressions. We can draw a conclusion that western sovietologists obviously were exaggerating the numbers in order to discredit the stalinist system
Try the Reddit Enhancement Suite. Another user recommended it to me in response to this thread.
Here's my quick summary of how it solves the issue:
> Oh, wow. This app is amazing. Thanks for recommending it. When I use it, I don't even have to disable the current theme. I can just click on a comment, and then the app highlights this comment in blue (like this), so I can see both the comment and the face of our Saviour. It's the perfect compromise.
> Oh, and I just noticed that it adds keyboard shortcuts to using different types of the font (bold, Italics, etc.) It's immensely helpful because it also adds the shortcut for posting links in the form of a text, which is something I always forget how to do.
> So to anyone reading this thread: try the app!
Oh, I get that. When I had to write a lot at work, the amount of reading I did dropped completely. When you do read it, I highly suggest The Gregory Hayes translation (this one. So much easier to read and it's easier to get the good stuff out of it.
to me jbp seems a mediocre reader. (it's a suspicion.) the books he recommends are good and legenedary, but it feels a lot like a high-school reading list. compare it with Borges: seems much more refined, including works that go "beyond the basics": http://www.openculture.com/2015/03/jorge-luis-borges-personal-library.html
if he has such a developed criteria, how come he doesn't understand (nor has read) the postmodernists?
Doug Lain is basically a Petersonologist at this point. Search "Douglas Lain" or "Zero Squared/Zero Books" plus Peterson and you'll find a bunch of podcasts, but also some Youtube videos. Youtube also has talks from a conference where Peterson was supposed to debate Lain but bailed. Probably the best one to start with is the Schiff interview:
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/dietsoap/episodes/2018-06-06T21_30_02-07_00
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
Here is link number 1 - Previous text "one"
^Please ^PM ^/u/eganwall ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^Delete
> clinical depression has fundamentally nothing to do with stress or loss
Your link notes that grieving a loss "isn't the same thing" as depression, but that doesn't mean they're unrelated: e.g., the same sort of loss can cause "normal," time-limited grieving in some and trigger a major depressive episode in others.
As for the assertion that stress has "nothing to do with depression," I'm not sure how seriously to take that. There are truckloads of data and research that say otherwise. Here's one, and here's one from your source.
>"Hierarchy theory" does not exist to my knowledge.
I explicitly referenced kyriarchy, and said nothing about "hierarchy theory." Kyriarchy is a concept that has been pushed by intersectional feminists for a while now. I'm surprised you didn't recognize it.
>Further, to claim that Foucault invented anything like sexual or queer theory is outright wrong. Here is a book that is famous in france, as it was written by Andre Gide
Where on earth did I say that Foucault invented queer theory? You seem to have gone wildly far afield of the arguments I have actually put to you. This has been a series of attacks against straw men on your part, paired with a sort of backhanded condescension based on wildly incorrect assumptions about what what I actually believe, what sort of arguments I am likely to make in response, and my ability to participate in a good-faith dialogue.
Some lazy researchers finding scarce correlation between factors like 'DNA' and intelligence without biological and statistical knowledge.~~I would also find a handful of single nucleotide polymorphisms out of 3200000000 nucleotides if I tested correlation between DNA and love for classic music.~~
They are also giving facts and logic to racists, not realizing most of the 'studies' are only conducted on European descendants.
Here is my important blog with tons of great psychological research studies &other information
Debunking Common Sexist Myths Of Gender
Hi, history of the philosophy of science is a discipline. HPS for short. The philosophy of science has a history that predates 1900. There are aspects of many modern debates that have historical roots. It would be weird if someone interested in the nature of science would say "For our purposes, nothing important happened prior to 1900"
Here is a great anthology I read on it:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1405175427/ref=cm_sw_r_apan_glt_fabc_XYS89EVQ862YHGEQYF43
Nice. Let me refresh your memory, sucker.
>I ask you once again: do you think they teach the same shit about race in Eastern Europe? I know for a fact that at least in Hungary, Poland and Russia leftard crook-scientists are yet to conquer education. Haven't been able to find online sources for Hungarian biology textbooks, they are all in PDF, but here's, I assume, Russian biology textbook:
>See? Nothing about unscientific essence of races.
>And it's legit, 2010, used in schools one:
>https://www.amazon.com/Baseline-Tutorial-Obshchaya-biologiya-Uchebnik/dp/5358088512
There is plenty more unaddressed points that you decided to conveniently evade, after you address this one, I'll feed you some more, swine.
I never said he was hated on because his wife has cancer. I said the sub was trashing a man who went through a terrible ordeal while still claiming moral superiority. For some people the "Are we the baddies?" moment never comes.
You are throwing insults at a stranger on the internet while failing at basic text comprehension. Here you go.
Amazing how many Peterson fans come in here and can't see the pinned thread.
> Seems like this sub and the actions of reddit in suppressing dissenting voices are only pushing people to realize the hypocrisy inherent in the dialogue of the radical left.
Seems like Peterson critics are the dissenting voices in today's culture. But conservatives will always cast themselves as dispossessed victims as long as there's even one person who disagrees with them. Corey Robin wrote a book about that, check it out.
It's on the amazon page for the book.
Also it's a pretty normal size for a quote for a book. Hes giving his basic opinion on the book. What more would you expect?
> I just don't understand how someone could even think to analyze handshakes to this degree. > > How empty does your head have to be to think that a simple greeting gesture is so meaningful?
Same thing for those body language "experts" they wheel out on American TV. How bored do you have to be to care? How dull do you have to be to think there are people with expertise in this? How deluded do you need to be to think that you can do this with any level of accuracy, or that what you're doing actually matters?
Clearest example I have for this (outside of like all middle management positions): https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-Graeber-ebook/dp/B075RWG7YM/
Just curious, but how did you give them the test? Keep a close eye on those new age types. They are prone to syncretism. Jim Jones banked on that mysticism. Not saying your mom is that bad. My mom is into that stuff too. She likes Deepak Chopra. There's this really funny book I read by John Updike about cults called 'S'. https://www.amazon.com/S-Novel-John-Updike/dp/0449912124 When you talk about francophones and Quebec, I can't help but think of Megan Draper on Mad Men.
I think you will like this book much better. As a matter of fact if you don't just send it to me and I will buy it back from you.
Finding Happy 10 Keys to Living an Extraordinary Life by Chad Kneller
​
https://www.amazon.com/Finding-Happy-Keys-Living-Extraordinary/dp/1948484307
" His book, <em>12 Rules for Life</em>, is an international bestseller. And it’s a pretty good book, too. " <- I stopped reading here,.
> Neurosis and Human Growth – Karen Horney
For once, I'm positively surprised.
Breitbart wrote the book Righteous Indignation, and he was closely associated with Steve Bannon. I simply latched onto the phrase to tie in that comment of how Bannon used that inner rage to his advantage.
You can channel it in different ways. I think we agree, but we’re coming at it from different angles. But, yeah, channeling that frustration into votes is what Bannon helped to orchestrate.
Considering he is responsible for this little gem, I am not surprised this is the kind of nooks-and-crannies on the Internet where he shows his Backpfeifengesicht.
Cleaning one's room has much better (non-cultic) gurus and advocates anyways.
For instance, instead of ending up with your windows lined with newspaper and your ceilings with Soviet era propaganda like JBP, why not just read Marie Kondo, whose book has been famous long before him?
>And I really don't want to get into estimating how many will actually do it, as it doesn't matter to me.
I mean, it should.
>Books on how to do it exist
There are books on everything. Let me know if it makes it on the NY Times best sellers list and I'll be worried.
>a "real world" (chuckle) example is here.
And how did that end for Deborah and Joyce? They lost their jobs and their reputations were tarnished. The guy got his job back with a pay raise and back pay. Yes, that sucked he had to go through that, but do you think justice want served in the end?
>I can't quite follow "what if only minority of those women, who think you have harassed them report you to HR", let me chicken out.
You're free to do that. I've got a pretty successful career and I don't go around worrying I'll lose my job because of sexual harassment.
>I found it funny, for some reason, apologies if it sounds offensive, I didn't mean it.
Apology accepted. Its just hard to take someone seriously when they talk like that.
>How about you provide a quote or something.
>It's too long and I'm afraid of mishearing a word or two.
Then please understand that I reject your argument since you don't want to support your point.a
>If you seriously are still not sure he means heels/makeup could also be considered offensive in the follow up video, I'll dig 'em up.
I think he's just wrong about it all. The science behind what he is saying especially.
> How is that not what you said? > >
OK, it's just not what the original argument was. And I really don't want to get into estimating how many will actually do it, as it doesn't matter to me.
Books on how to do it exist, a "real world" (chuckle) example is here. (I'd say, pretty horrifying)
I can't quite follow "what if only minority of those women, who think you have harassed them report you to HR", let me chicken out.
>Also, wth is up with all the "bruh" stuff? Are you being ironic or are you 17 or something?
I found it funny, for some reason, apologies if it sounds offensive, I didn't mean it.
>How about you provide a quote or something.
It's too long and I'm afraid of mishearing a word or two. If you seriously are still not sure he means heels/makeup could also be considered offensive in the follow up video, I'll dig 'em up.
Apart from those suggested above, and perhaps easier to read, are those by Alex Callinicos and David Harvey; both (shock horror!) Marxists.
https://www.amazon.com/Condition-Postmodernity-Enquiry-Origins-Cultural/dp/0631162941
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Postmodernism-Critique-Alex-Callinicos/dp/0745606148