I'm utterly baffled that one can interpret what Peterson said as a justification of violence.
-
-
Why does he need to sound disgusted?
-
Or in some other way indicates that this inherent threat of physical retaliation for words he sees in men is a bad thing
-
What differences does it make what inflection he lays on his words? The reality is that men are inherently dangerous in public disagreements
-
OK, I'm bored of this now. You think its a toxic masculinity argument. Other people think it's something else. I don't really care that much
-
It's not toxic or boring. I'm telling you this is what holds men back from blasting a woman in the face when they'd otherwise attack a man.
-
They're afraid of the 'chivalrous' guy standing off to the side.
-
So they would if no witnesses? I don't think so, personally. But, I assure you, I am bored and also tired.
-
Yeah, but then it is called domestic violence and the guy also loses...
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.