I'm utterly baffled that one can interpret what Peterson said as a justification of violence.
-
-
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...
-
What a depressing way to look at relationships. I don't think men restrain themselves from hitting women for fear of public censure.
-
What do you think restrains men? They are not saints from heaven.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is where we part company. Must one always express a moral platitude when discussing the potential for violence.
-
No, but I think it helps to be clear whether you're in favour of it or not when speaking about it ethically.
-
Especially if you're supposed to be a world class intellectual public figure. He should be able to clearly articulate his position.
-
Oh well. I'm going to go to bed. This is even more boring than the 'Is it OK to punch Nazis' thing got.
-
Have a good night. I'm going out for dinner soon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think he indicated this by the phrase about moving beyond civilised discourse, an interaction which he values.
-
Yes, if discourse moves beyond what he thinks civilised, punching can occur. Not saying its OK to punch people for any speech.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
His disapproval of violence is not relevant to the point he is making. But if you need proof anyway, just browse through his twitter page.
-
You too see it simply as an *observation* that men have an understanding that if speech goes too far, there will be violence?
-
Not an overt understanding. More so that the mere possibility of violence, however unconscious, constrains the parameters of the engagement
End of conversation
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.