Author Topic: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look  (Read 135887 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #625 on: May 21, 2018, 08:05:15 PM »
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.

Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #626 on: May 21, 2018, 08:08:38 PM »
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating

the larger point about human mating dynamics - that human populations exhibit an effective sex ratio that is female biased, is widely supported.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #627 on: May 21, 2018, 08:11:19 PM »
Dlew, just read this.  It goes directly to what I was talking about. If you think I am taking this out of context then feel free to plug more in.

Again, you are right that he is notionally vague about what he is actually saying and invariably claims people are unfairly attacking him because hey are ascribing positions to him that he never takes (this is also Sam Harris’ very annoying go-to) but what else is any of this to mean?




I don’t have the name of the George Mason Econ prof at hand, but I think you could google it and he just explicitly says that there should be govt intervention to solve the incel crisis. I view him as a fellow traveler because he uses the same framing and terminology, but again I think simply reading/listening to Peterson puts you on the path to that guy’s conclusions in a pretty straight line if you take the idea seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #628 on: May 21, 2018, 08:13:07 PM »
to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.

Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)

huh.  you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously??  do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?

if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #629 on: May 21, 2018, 08:20:07 PM »
I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously.

like what?  i think his verbal machinations are, at best, unnecessary.  at worst, deliberately unclear.  and i don't think he evidences careful scholarship.  but his basic points (the ones i know about, i've only interfaced very superficially with his thought) and conclusions are accurate and/or logical.

the main quibble i'd have with his whole thing on effective sex ratios and monogamy in humans is that he appears to treat a lot of male-male competition as female choice.  and it probably is fair to conflate them in current populations (or at least hard to tease them apart), but historically that is less defensible.  a secondary weakness would be that he is not at all precise at distinguishing between sex and reproduction.


all told, though, it's a lot easier for me to see some attempt to grapple with fact in his thought than in the not completely strawman arguments accusing him of advocating for government issued wives.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #630 on: May 21, 2018, 08:22:12 PM »
KK: Yeah, I read that article.  Peterson explained it on his website which I linked a few pages back. 

Here's his paraphrase on the issue:

Quote
Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #631 on: May 21, 2018, 08:22:43 PM »
I only skimmed part of the layperson article and feel like I can pretty safely conclude that it is bullshit based on my previous experience with bullshit.

i think what you probably mean is that you don't like what he says.

I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #632 on: May 21, 2018, 08:28:54 PM »
kk, if you read the gmason dude, he was pretty obviously an extreme libertarian who was using the example of govt redistribution of sex as a metaphor for why taxation is immoral.  it's kind of amazing and sad that people have ran with him in the other direction.

the stuff about human males with poor prospects for intragroup reproduction being prone to societal disruption and violence is not particularly controversial.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #633 on: May 21, 2018, 08:29:34 PM »
I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.

i'd like you to explain what you think is bullshit and why.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #634 on: May 21, 2018, 08:48:12 PM »


to be fair, you've made no effort to ascertain how true his bullshit is either but you're here calling it bullshit.
I read your post about 50% of males not procreating
man, sys didn't refute anything, nor did he claim to.

Uh, I didn't claim that either. Even if something like his fifty percent of men not procreating statement is true, I consider his opinions/conclusions based on this information to be too silly to be taken seriously. "Bullshit" to me is more than an untrue fact. (I didn't make that clear in my original post)

huh.  you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously??  do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?

if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.

I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #635 on: May 21, 2018, 08:49:17 PM »
KK: Yeah, I read that article.  Peterson explained it on his website which I linked a few pages back. 

Here's his paraphrase on the issue:

Quote
Men get frustrated when they are not competitive in the sexual marketplace (note: the fact that they DO get frustrated does not mean that they SHOULD get frustrated. Pointing out the existence of something is not the same as justifying its existence). Frustrated men tend to become dangerous, particularly if they are young. The dangerousness of frustrated young men (even if that frustration stems from their own incompetence) has to be regulated socially. The manifold social conventions tilting most societies toward monogamy constitute such regulation.

That’s all.

No recommendation of police-state assignation of woman to man (or, for that matter, man to woman).

No arbitrary dealing out of damsels to incels.

Nothing scandalous (all innuendo and suggestive editing to the contrary)

Just the plain, bare, common-sense facts: socially-enforced monogamous conventions decrease male violence. In addition (and not trivially) they also help provide mothers with comparatively reliable male partners, and increase the probability that stable, father-intact homes will exist for children.
https://jordanbpeterson.com/uncategorized/on-the-new-york-times-and-enforced-monogamy/

Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #636 on: May 21, 2018, 08:52:09 PM »
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes?  Or is there more to it?

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #637 on: May 21, 2018, 08:55:57 PM »
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”

talk about being intentionally provocative and vague.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #638 on: May 21, 2018, 09:01:52 PM »
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes?  Or is there more to it?

he has to come up with stuff to talk about to keep the incels raining money on him.  so he fancies up some stuff about how it's better now that we live in a society where a lot of people peacefully pair off and get married and stay together for life than it was 2000 years ago when old rich dudes had 200 wives and sex slaves and young men without any money marched off to war hoping for the odd chance to rape someone before, during or after battle.

he's so good at this that michigan, kat kid and half of twitter think he's saying something disturbing.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #639 on: May 21, 2018, 09:14:05 PM »
Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”

talk about being intentionally provocative and vague.

Most people reject his ideas.— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.

Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here?  Ok, I will debate  the other side.

“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific. 

State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #640 on: May 21, 2018, 09:18:35 PM »
I don't like it only because I don't like bullshit.

i'd like you to explain what you think is bullshit and why.

Quote
My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee

Huh? Who the eff is this bad person?

Quote
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression

I took anthropology and psychology in college. THEY DID NOT TALK LIKE THIS. This also does not really remind me of the type of subject matter with which they were concerned.

Quote
The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues

This idea is so vague and appears so half baked that it's pretty much meaningless to me. He might as well say that language happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues.

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22226
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #641 on: May 21, 2018, 09:21:36 PM »
huh.  you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously??  do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?

if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.

I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
The NYT article is a mess because it doesn't contextualize anything he's saying.  It presents these quotes of his like they're just random non-sequitors.  If you listen to one of his longer format lectures (which I don't expect you to do if you're not into him), you'll recognize that the picture these isolated quotes paint are not the same as the impression you'd get if you actually listened to one of his lectures (which are available on the apple podcast app if you're genuinely curious).  It would be a complete radical about-face if he was preaching forced redistribution of sex.

And absolving violent men of responsibility is not his MO either.  Again, his whole self-help message is taking responsibility for your spot in life.  But recognizing that it's human nature for men to get frustrated when they don't have a partner isn't absolution, it's an explanation. 

Well, there are tons of social policies that societies “enforce” both formally through law and informally through culture and Peterson doesn’t get in to any of them though it would be interesting to get his thoughts on them. At least Ross Douthot understands that he is a pretty big weirdo and that most people reject his preferred ideas about how society should be restructured but Peterson doesn’t even grapple with just how bad patriarchy can be for half of society. He spends an awful lot of time bemoaning the outcomes for this one segment of society but other than saying the sexual revolution was bad for women I haven’t seen an affirmative vision for how to get from reality to his ideal that doesn’t involve some pretty terrible stuff for women. I guess it is good that he rejects the argument ad absurdism of arranged marriages but that is hardly the only state intervention that would logically spring from “enforced monogamy.”
I mean, he does go into other arenas outside of the societal norms of "enforced monogamy."  I think the time he devotes to recognizing and explaining the phenomenon of social hierarchies (not just sexual, mind you) speaks to this.  But that (understandably) doesn't garner the clicks for Jezebel.

And he doesn't say the sexual revolution was bad for women.  He points out that maybe it wasn't a great thing for all women.  Of course that's waffling, but it's crazy that he can't even raise the conversation without you labeling him a misogynist. 


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #642 on: May 21, 2018, 09:23:51 PM »
Most people reject his ideas.

i can't say most, because i've made no effort to quantify it, but a lot of people rejecting his ideas show no sign that they know what his ideas are.  evidence below.

— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.

Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here?  Ok, I will debate  the other side.

“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific. 

State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20446
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #643 on: May 21, 2018, 09:30:09 PM »
Most people reject his ideas.

i can't say most, because i've made no effort to quantify it, but a lot of people rejecting his ideas show no sign that they know what his ideas are.  evidence below.

— Ross Douthat would like a modern Catholic theocracy or something. He thought Rubio would win every primary. I regularly read him, I am safely in the right here.

Patriarchal societies are actually good for women is your stance here?  Ok, I will debate  the other side.

“Terrible stuff for women” we can use US history or look at our contemporaries, like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or India. Let me know and I can get specific. 

State intervention- women’s access to contraceptives, laws on adultery, women’s access to education, divorce laws I mean there are lots of other examples.

 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, I was referring to Douthat with that statement. Stop trying to silence me! Why are you so afraid of the truth? People just don’t want to hear my truths, so they misinterpret and call me names. What are they so afraid of? My truth of course. They fear me, the truth teller.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dugout DickStone

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 51305
  • BSPAC
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #644 on: May 21, 2018, 09:34:18 PM »
So is he mad that good looking guys get all the babes?  Or is there more to it?

he has to come up with stuff to talk about to keep the incels raining money on him.  so he fancies up some stuff about how it's better now that we live in a society where a lot of people peacefully pair off and get married and stay together for life than it was 2000 years ago when old rich dudes had 200 wives and sex slaves and young men without any money marched off to war hoping for the odd chance to rape someone before, during or after battle.

he's so good at this that michigan, kat kid and half of twitter think he's saying something disturbing.

That’s not super controversial.  Saying it’s a primary issue of all societies to control woman’s reproductive care is pretty wrong

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #645 on: May 21, 2018, 09:35:32 PM »
Quote
My motivated critics couldn’t contain their joyful glee

style


Quote
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression

his language is not academic.  but evolutionary psychology is all about reproduction and aggression. 


Quote
The social enforcement of monogamy happens to be an effective means of addressing both issues

you overstate how vague it is.  "social" delimits that he's not talking about governmental or legal proscriptions.  it also implies, but perhaps not as well, that he's not talking about individuals enforcing monogamy.  "monogamy" delimits that he's talking about two people having an at least nominally exclusive or highly preferred sexual relationship with each other for some period of time.

"addressing both issues" is pretty vague, i agree.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #646 on: May 21, 2018, 09:38:40 PM »
Stop trying to silence me! Why are you so afraid of the truth? People just don’t want to hear my truths, so they misinterpret and call me names. What are they so afraid of? My truth of course. They fear me, the truth teller.

may as well link your patreon account so i can send you money.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40475
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #647 on: May 21, 2018, 09:42:44 PM »
That’s not super controversial.  Saying it’s a primary issue of all societies to control woman’s reproductive care is pretty wrong

i mean, an evolutionary biologist would laugh at the idea that anything not related to reproduction is meaningful, much less primary.
"experienced commanders will simply be smeared and will actually go to the meat."

Offline michigancat

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 53676
  • change your stupid avatar.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #648 on: May 21, 2018, 09:48:54 PM »


huh.  you consider the opinion/conclusion based on this information to be taken seriously??  do you even know what he was talking about when he cited that statistic?

if you do then God bless you, because i listened to him say it on a podcast and i don't remember why he cited it.

I was referring to the exchange in the NYT article kk posted. I mean, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to say and I think he's intentionally both provocative and vague and that's part of why I think he's full of crap. But overall this stat and his logic seems like a step to the forced redistribution of sex nonsense along with absolving violent men of responsibility for their actions.
The NYT article is a mess because it doesn't contextualize anything he's saying.  It presents these quotes of his like they're just random non-sequitors.  If you listen to one of his longer format lectures (which I don't expect you to do if you're not into him), you'll recognize that the picture these isolated quotes paint are not the same as the impression you'd get if you actually listened to one of his lectures (which are available on the apple podcast app if you're genuinely curious).  It would be a complete radical about-face if he was preaching forced redistribution of sex.

And absolving violent men of responsibility is not his MO either.  Again, his whole self-help message is taking responsibility for your spot in life.  But recognizing that it's human nature for men to get frustrated when they don't have a partner isn't absolution, it's an explanation. 

I also read his blog post and don't think context makes him seem more worthy of me taking him seriously.

Offline chum1

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 21894
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look
« Reply #649 on: May 21, 2018, 09:51:52 PM »
Quote
It’s been a truism among anthropologists and biologically-oriented psychologists for decades that all human societies face two primary tasks: regulation of female reproduction (so the babies don’t die, you see) and male aggression

his language is not academic.  but evolutionary psychology is all about reproduction and aggression. 

I may think evolutionary psychology is bullshit to begin with.

Quote
Criticism of evolutionary psychology involves questions of testability, cognitive and evolutionary assumptions (such as modular functioning of the brain, and large uncertainty about the ancestral environment), importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues due to interpretations of research results.