Worst. Pickup. Line. Ever. (Courtesy of Jordan Peterson)

Can’t seem to edit, since the comment disappeared… This is the line of London Pilgrim’s I found funny

Mmmm I am not sure if I should admit to liking them too.

not the very last thing he wrote.

@London Pilgrim

You’re avoiding questions, pulling strawmen out of your ass and being obtuse.

Do better.

Makroth wrote:

You’re avoiding questions, pulling strawmen out of your ass and being obtuse.

Do better.

Those aren’t bugs to LP/RF; they’re features.

@rhuu

The article you quote from was bigoted on many levels. It seems what they call ‘feminine’ behaviour- basically being helpful and agreeable- is problematic in girls but helpful to boys. If a boy does it then it is OK and by implication the girls are supposed be served by the boys- like princesses.

The trouble with this is that helping others actually feels better than relying on others. The feminists are training little girls into a lifetime of miserable dependency which makes sense because they are miserable and dependent upon the state.

@Moon

I know, but since London Pilgrim asked me directly, I didn’t want to grant an excuse to say “well everyone’s answered my question *except* moon custafer, so I’m going to say the question stands.”

The question read to me as one in the vein of ‘Have you stopped beating your wife yet?’

Which is to say, any answer given is a ‘gotcha’.

@ London boy

Are you kidding? When a woman doesn’t marry she isn’t regarded as some kind of empowered feminist princess, she us still called that disgusting archaic word “spinster” coming from the dates when older single women were put to work in the cotton mills spinning yarn. That or “old maid”, even “Crazy Cat Lady”, are names intended to shame and belittle. Men who haven’t married are called playboys or bachelors and are actually glamourised by their refusal to settle down. You gave clearly got your wires crossed here. You might say it’s ‘semantics’, but in this case it is.

@london boy

I see a real problem with your assertion that feminists are conditioning girls into a lifetime of dependency, when really it is an obsession with demeaning and restrictive gender roles which is doing that. The princess archetype is in no way an end goal of feminism. In fact, it’s just an extention of your idea of chivalry and ‘benevolent sexism’ which is still just sexism and treats women and girls like they are fragile and dumb and need to be looked after by big strong men.
Who’s doing that? I’d say conservatives, and the Christian Right, the same people who send their daughters on ‘Daddy dates’ and to purity balls, to show them that men are really in control of their lives. I might be wrong about feminism, but I don’t think I am! I can’t think of a single feminist writer too thrilled about your idea of blissful indolence and waiting around on benefits for a white knight to come and sweep them off their feet. That’s just bullshit.

Stop lying. Nobody here or anywhere else on the left that I’m aware of believe men don’t have the right to remain unmarried.

Until you back your claim up with evidence, I’m going to continue to call you a liar and a troll and Gaebolga is going to continue to ask you about your goat raping habit.

If you would like to be treated seriously, start using evidence to support your outlandish claims. We are all waiting for you to demonstrate that we have said that men do not have a right to be single.

@london boy

This has nothing to do with whatever you perceive as being “the left”.
Of course everyone has the same right to marry or not to marry. I don’t see a double standard because there isn’t one.
I don’t understand why you think this, you have a very distorted view of life. I have already told you the nasty names that unmarried women get called. Is there a male version? Crazy cat man? He – spinster? This is ludicrous. And buggar all to do with this fake “leftist” twaddle you keep on about.

I’m a bit testy, and this went on a bit longer than I had hoped. I like to think I’ve kept my cool but if anything stands out do feel free to protest.

No fluttershy gifs this time. I’m sorry! I will get you some next time.

First things last. I never stated that men and women should be held to different standards. This is what I am trying to get away from!

So it’s less women are shameless today and more people are shameless today.

I’m gonna leave the deep ignorance of this position for the moment and just talk about the way that you communicate.

You do realize that this is entirely on you right? You could have said that clearly from the start. Pulling concrete statements out of you takes a dentist’s determination. But you didn’t speak your position clearly, and still don’t. We have to either spend enormous reserves of patience to pry them out of you or just decide that you aren’t worth it and insult you until you leave.

(Almost like that’s why you keep getting the same responses from feminists or something.)

Be glad; it’s a very Petersonian defense. Bad ideas can be buoyed by obfustication.

I could write another 5000 words to peel this onion to the core, but I’ll leave it there; the same points will be covered in ample detail soon, I’m sure. I also will acknowledge your later accusation of my own bias which this point addresses.

Feminism would have us believe that ‘patriarchy’ holds women to a higher standard of sexual conduct. I think it is probably true that women tend to call other women sluts a lot (as a jockying for status) but is this really patriarchy?

So, uh, you’re denying that men call women sluts? On what basis do you make this denial? Because you don’t see it?

It is absolutely the case that men insult and degrade women on the regular for sexual activity. I can point you to statistics, to documentaries, to books, to whole fields of research on this. Not to mention the personal experiences of every woman on this board, and many men, too.

Women do call other women sluts too, and that’s still patriarchal. Because Patriarchy isn’t about manly men manning all over. It’s a social structure and hierarchy. A traditional hierarchy, in which men are active, strong, and take action in the world and women are passive, weak, and stay in the home.

You know, that interior and exterior domain you’re on about. That one. That’s the structure that gets women assessing other women based on their physical and sexual characteristics.

I don’t blame you for not knowing this, though. You don’t know what feminism actually is, you know what you believe it to be. And we’ve already talked about how distorted your perceptions are.

I’ll talk about specifically why you see this everywhere, too, and why you seem to think that you can generalize from your observations. That’s below.

Society values what is rare. A man who is sexually sucessful is admired on one level and scorned on another because it is a rare achivelent. It is not approved of but it is impressive as an achievement. For a woman it is rather easy.

First, society doesn’t value what is rare, it notices what is rare. But maybe that’s quibbling.

Second, men aren’t scorned for sexual achievement, they’re envied by other men. Admired and envied. They don’t generally suffer for it. Women, on the other hand, are reviled for any sexual activity outside of impossibly tight constraints. And I do mean impossible.

Feminism calls this double standard patriarchy. We believe all people should be valued regardless of their sexual activity.

And before you get all “Men are too scorned for sexual success!” on me, I’ll refine a bit. Men are scorned for infidelity and a lack of restraint. It’s the same scorn they get for betraying friends or being excessively wasteful, though less so.

This is one of those unexamined ‘truths’ of feminsim. I think we have the right to question them particularly as it is a logical impossiblity.

You don’t know a single thing about feminism; all you think you know about it are funhouse-mirror distortions warped through the crooked lens of your confirmation bias. I’m done entertaining what your notions of “feminism” are, and if you were interested in rationality you’d discard them yourself as the products of your own misconceptions.

Now, to a good bit:

Why do I think female control of long term relationships is inevitable? Only because it is true of London and London contains pretty much every culture of the world. I would have come across an exception by now.

Thank you! You give me excuse to talk about another very common, and universal bias – The Generalization Fallacy. It’s another universal that invisibly works within our thoughts, as an outcome of how our brains do their thing.

Our brains are universal idea engines, but not really. They contain a huge multitude of patterns in the neocortex, both as individual little pattern-holders within the neocortical columns and in the arrangement of how these individual columns are connected. All thought, all imagination, is from some combination of these patterns. There’s a lot of them and many of them are very abstract, though, so we can generally cook up anything we like – if there’s some pattern that it can’t resemble, we certainly can’t talk about it, after all.

But it’s more complicated than that, because not all patterns are equal. The more the brain is exposed to a pattern, the easier that this pattern is recalled and the more often it is worked into any generic situation. And, well, guess what we think about most of all – ourselves and our situation.

That has the effect of our perceptions of other people starting with our perceptions of ourselves, and then modifying based on the situation. Do I need to point out how this is wrong and leads to error?

My duck, London is not a microcosm of the world or the beliefs therein – it’s a very weird little corner of the world, filled to brimming with its own quirks and exceptions which make it ridiculous to try to extrapolate from it to any general human behaviours. It’s a wonderful city, and truly cosmopolitan, but it’s not The World City. It is a generalization bias, that your experiences are generalizable to all people, that leads you to rationalize this way. And it is a rationalization – a post-hoc fabrication to support your unconscious belief – that leads you to it.

You’re even aware of the fallacy, and don’t seem to mind it:

It also seems remarkably consistant throught English history. It is true that what we know about English culture comes mainly from the middle and upper classes because the working classs rarely got written about but the patten seems clear none the less.

You know that records are spotty and only capture a slice of the people, but you disregard this fact without further consideration because it “seems clear”. This is certainly clear – a clear indication of rationalization.

Don’t settle for “feeling clear”. Be certain or accept uncertainty.

You also assume that I want to compel people to live ‘my way’. This is a natural assumption for someone on the left as for them everything is compelled. If feminism is a good idea then it must be adopted by everyone and none may complain about it.

Your understanding of “the left” is the same as your understanding of “feminism”, a personal distortion that I’ve discussed before and will discuss again before we’re through. Authoritarian compunction is a feature that runs through politics from one end to the other.

The only compulsion that Feminism desires is that people should stop hurting one another, that people should be treated with respect as equals in spirit. Compassion is our watchword. It’s called Feminism because it focuses on the historic, traditional biases against women.

I don’t need to justify a struggle for freedom any more than I have, especially to someone who so willfully refuses to listen.

I am from the right and therefore pro choice in all things. If you are a feminist then be one- but do not impose it upon innocent bystanders. This is all I ask. I choose not to be and I will leave feminsts alone to the extent they leave me alone!

You do know that words have meanings outside of your head, yes? Right is associated with the anti-abortion factions. I mean, I recognize what you’re doing with your confabulations – it’s even money that you actually believe it to be honest. But words have meanings that exist outside of your head, and those are the ones that are important.

You do make it clear, though. You think feminism is about imposing beliefs on others. And you know what? That’s probably a fair assessment. To you traditional patriarchs, we are imposing, and always have been. because we have to. You traditional patriarchs have never granted freedoms or rights to anyone. They’ve always had to be torn from you. As is commonly said, for the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

Now let me bare my teeth a moment.

I think I have caught an unconcious bias of yours!!!

The only thing you got out of my discussion of bias and the cognitive features that cause it is that you could point out my own biases?

Silly man. Do you think a sword I forged would turn against me? Here, I’ll take hold of the hilt myself and show you how it’s done. Consider it an instructive moment.

Whenever I talk about a negative behaviour you assume I am talking about women exclusively! I am not!!

My first instinct is to struggle against this cut. I don’t assume that anything you say is an attack on women exclusively, I tell myself. I don’t have bias against men; he’s obviously talking specifically about women in his diatribes. That’s his nature.

But I stop and consider that perhaps I’m being too reflexive, and I accept the opinion as my own for a few minutes. I’m doing this now, in fact. Perhaps this is something in me.

Because of course it’s in me. I’m in this discussion, interpreting your motivations by a few scarce sentences. My brain will fill in those gaps. That’s how Peterson’s arguments work on people who aren’t paying attention, it’s how grifters snag their marks. Talk vague, introduce some contradiction but say some unassuming things; brains will backfill the gaps with echoes of their own thoughts. This is universal, mine does it too.

So yes, it’s likely that this is what’s happened. The vagaries of this conversation – as I said above you’re unfortunately not very good at being direct with your statements – backfills your opinions in our heads with the standard MRA line. Note that I’m not saying you’re being intentionally vague or indirect. Just that you are. Intention isn’t required.

I also recognize that the reason I’ve stopped here is because, after accepting my failing, I was able to point to a behaviour of yours that’s the cause of it. It’s a partial deflection. I’m okay with this – I’ll leave the thought of my failing in my head for now, to percolate along with conflicting opinions and perhaps grow into some new insight about myself or the world.

That’s how you apply the Principle of Charity. it’s a sword turned inwards.

Turns out that there are plenty of weapons that turn better outwards, though. Care to see?

See, I noticed you didn’t actually mention confirmation bias at all in your replies. Anywhere. Even though it was the central theme of my post, mentioned several times and deliberately highlighted as needing a repsonce.

Tell me, was it cowardice or recklessness that led you to evade it? If I was wrong, you could have demolished me. Was I right, and you just lacked the fortitude to admit it? Or did you think I was wrong but had no glib reply at hand?

I’ve been honest with you, forthright. Dealt with you directly through this whole thing. Kept my temper in all but a few moments, and in those moments I’ve warned you and been at least civil as you slapped me in the face. You’ve said that this is exactly what you’ve always wanted. You’ve wanted a feminist to debate you without hurling insults – here I am! And here you sulk, like Achilles in his tent. I have a sturdy shield and spear of burning bronze – this is the fight you’ve said you wanted! Where are you, Achilles! Come tear down these Trojan walls, come prove your mettle!

I’ve dealt with you fairly and directly, proved to you that I will thoroughly engage with you – will agree where I find you right and where I find you wrong I will say exactly why.

It’s time, London Pilgrim. Not for me or for the people watching – for you. Let’s stand up our beliefs and flense away what can’t withstand.

Or take your Myrmidons back to the sea. I really don’t care.

I’m guessing Pilgrim is some flavour of libertarian or Objectivist. If this was a website discussing social welfare programs he’d be posting about how welfare is slavery and that left wing political parties are the real racists. His claim he is “pro choice in all things” sounds like the kind of rhetoric I’d expect from a libertarian.

A man has exactly the same right to remain unmarried as a woman. I was simply pointing out the double standard on the left.

What double standard? The one you’ve chosen to imagine, in defiance of all reality?

It’s one thing to say what you’re thinking. It’s something else to try to tell other people what they’re thinking. Especially when they’re right in front of you, going: “No, we don’t!”

Being extremely, undeservedly charitable, I will suggest that you’ve absorbed a lot of ideas about feminism that are in fact completely wrong.

I put it to you that maybe, just maybe, you’ve been fed a fat line of bullshit about feminism, which doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality. Perhaps, instead of trying to force feminists into the weird box you’ve created in your mind, you could listen to what we’re actually saying.

It’s a thought.

By sheer dint of my job in real life I was forced to debate a troll. It was a free exchange in that he yelled random crap at me, a technocrat, and I was behind safety glass with an alert button at my side.

Before he had a go at me he went to an office with no such protection and scared the EA who sat at an open desk. My convo lasted an hour and while I didn’t feel the need to call the police after his ranting escalated I had the joy of being able to just call out his bullshit.

But when he started denying massacres I got mad because that is the sign of someone divorced from reality; to say people who had loved ones shot by a spree killer they are lying is to deny humanity and the awful things humans can do to each other.

I fed my troll until he walked off stuffed; but I kept him talking until he admitted defeat in not being able to change my mind and me pointing out his views denied reality that he was a part of.

Then I left my secure office to make sure the people he abused before me were safe and okay. The EA noted she watched us through our windows to make sure I was okay.

I live in Oz but I was talking with a sovereign citizen type. But being Oz I knew it unlikely he had a gun and I didn’t have to trigger the duress button. And I had security glass to talk through. Those in the other office did not and his physical presence and agitation scared them.

Trolls in real life are scary because they cannot be convinced they are wrong and they get abusive and shouty; at least mine walked off.

I can’t imagine what it is like to experience such an event in the US given the uncertainy of whether a deluded aggressive man is carrying a gun.

But what stood out was his denial of the human condition. That empathy and concern for people not himself did not concern him. He was only worried about what the world had done to him and his “rights”.

Trolls demand a toll; feed me or else. Trolls take a toll on those trying to puncture their skein of delusion.

In real life it leads to events like that.

I’m not sure what the point is but whenever a troll drops in, for fun or to spread their message, there’s a cut off point to engagement. I must have said “we’ll have to agree to disagree” a dozen times in his free form rant.

I used to feel as angry as I did with that guy when first using forums because I was convinced I was right, and I usually was, but I could get nowhere in getting them to admit their position was fucked.

Then I saw this comic and realised online troll debating comes at a cost:

https://xkcd.com/386/

That made me stop.

What shits me is how troll thinking warps some of them to the point they will go into an office and stand over a young woman to threaten her. I’m just thankful he was just popping in to have yell at her office on the way to me where I was armoured and in a country without ready access to firearms.