[user104658]

Originally Posted by Swan

People make out he's a danger to women, i've never seen that from him. Trump and Tate on the other hand, they genuinely are a danger to women. Morgan probably isn't a danger to women, but he's a complete slimeball and only out for himself.

Tate's rhetoric is foundationally based in Peterson-style (if not directly Petersonian) psychology/social philosophy though. You'll find a lot of his thinking at the core of a tonne of reddit/incel/redpiller stuff. Did he intend that? Probably not, but people have taken his thinking and run with it to dangerous conclusions, and he's never attempted to correct them.

That he can present it in intelligent, interesting and compelling ways is actually what makes him so dangerous IMO. Only teenagers and gym bros are listening to someone like Tate ... Peterson has more influence than that.

I agree on Morgan, he's just a populist who knows his crowd.

[hijaxers]

The super injunction runs out end of June , so it looks like we are going to drown daily in this story until it fully blows ~ i'm sick of hearing about it all.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

It's interesting Trump being mentioned because DeSantis is attacking Trump for being supportive of abortion and essentially woke which kind of proves your point

Trump is supportive of abortion? Hmmm

"I'll tell you... do you know how many kids I would have if it wasn't for abortion? Literally hundreds. Hundreds of children all across America and Russia."

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

He had a fairly long phase where he went totally off the rails into religiosity and thinly veiled outright misogyny. He can and has "done better" - I suspect that the fame/infamy got to him at some point. I would I suppose agree that his motivations rarely seem selfish and where he goes off-piste it's for other reasons.

Originally Posted by Swan

People make out he's a danger to women, i've never seen that from him. Trump and Tate on the other hand, they genuinely are a danger to women. Morgan probably isn't a danger to women, but he's a complete slimeball and only out for himself.

A lot of his self-help advice is pretty solid, and also pretty universal and not hugely original. He just packages it in a way that resonates well with some people, particularly young men - which is fine, someone's gotta whip the NEET neckbeards into shape

Charisa aside, I think his interview with Cathy Newman did him the world of good. I usually like her, but her conduct in that interview made her look ... frankly a bit stupid, and that alongside Peterson's intelligence, both apparent aspects amplified each other.

As for his "misogyny" ? I've not heard or read anything from or about him in absolutely ages, so I might be misremembering - I think his attitude is roughly "based on current and past happiness surveys, and based on men and women's biological and neurological makeup, it seems they're happier when being a homemaker", which Cathy Newman might interept as "women should stay in the kitchen "

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

A lot of his self-help advice is pretty solid, and also pretty universal and not hugely original. He just packages it in a way that resonates well with some people, particularly young men - which is fine, someone's gotta whip the NEET neckbeards into shape

Charisa aside, I think his interview with Cathy Newman did him the world of good. I usually like her, but her conduct in that interview made her look ... frankly a bit stupid, and that alongside Peterson's intelligence, both apparent aspects amplified each other.

As for his "misogyny" ? I've not heard or read anything from or about him in absolutely ages, so I might be misremembering - I think his attitude is roughly "based on current and past happiness surveys, and based on men and women's biological and neurological makeup, it seems they're happier when being a homemaker", which Cathy Newman might interept as "women should stay in the kitchen "

No he said something like the cure for aggressive men is marriage or something pretty vile like that......

[Niamh.]

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/...t-men-monogamy

[Crimson Dynamo]

[bots]

No grooming went on LT

[Crimson Dynamo]

EXCLUSIVE: Eyewitness REVEALS ALL On Phillip Schofield’s DATE with ANOTHER young lad

Spoiler:

PHILLIP Schofield was spotted dining in a restaurant with an alleged ‘toyboy
lover’ that he is said to to have had an affair with behind the back of Mathew
McGreevy back in March 2019, Politicalite can exclusively reveal.

https://www.politicalite.com/exclusi...-toyboy-lover/

[arista]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Yes long way back

[UserSince2005]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

EXCLUSIVE: Eyewitness REVEALS ALL On Phillip Schofield’s DATE with ANOTHER young lad

Spoiler:

PHILLIP Schofield was spotted dining in a restaurant with an alleged ‘toyboy
lover’ that he is said to to have had an affair with behind the back of Mathew
McGreevy back in March 2019, Politicalite can exclusively reveal.

https://www.politicalite.com/exclusi...-toyboy-lover/

Now that one is cute

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No he said something like the cure for aggressive men is marriage or something pretty vile like that......

There's a lot more than that too, if you really listen to what he's saying. He hides behind "the data" or at least his interpretation of the data, ignores other contributing factors if they don't fit his narrative, and is when it comes down to it an apologist for male violence and a rhetorician of white male victimhood - that part is a huge part of his popularity, he offers vindication to a demographic of people who are frustrated with their lives.

Ultimately though he gives away his thoughts in his interpretations of the data. He's a male-supremacist when it comes right down to it. He dresses it up as science but he's not an unbiased raw data analyst at heart ... he's a social psychologist seeking to validate a hypothesis he already holds.

[Crimson Dynamo]

and dont forget gay community - Phil only "came out" to pay off The Sun newspaper


MM was mad about being let go by the show and probably dumped by Schofield. He
went to The Sun to sell his story. The Sun used it as leverage with Phil. So he comes out
as gay on his show and The Sun gets the exclusive and kills the MM story.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

and dont forget gay community - Phil only "came out" to pay off The Sun newspaper


MM was mad about being let go by the show and probably dumped by Schofield. He
went to The Sun to sell his story. The Sun used it as leverage with Phil. So he comes out
as gay on his show and The Sun gets the exclusive and kills the MM story.

That was pretty much how it played out at the time

[Swan]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

There's a lot more than that too, if you really listen to what he's saying. He hides behind "the data" or at least his interpretation of the data, ignores other contributing factors if they don't fit his narrative, and is when it comes down to it an apologist for male violence and a rhetorician of white male victimhood - that part is a huge part of his popularity, he offers vindication to a demographic of people who are frustrated with their lives.

Ultimately though he gives away his thoughts in his interpretations of the data. He's a male-supremacist when it comes right down to it. He dresses it up as science but he's not an unbiased raw data analyst at heart ... he's a social psychologist seeking to validate a hypothesis he already holds.

His argument is complex, he's a complex guy. I just don't believe his views are bred from hate towards women. Unlike Tate, who sees women as servants and/or commodities.

There is nothing wrong in telling young men to be confident within themselves. It's kinda like you're suggesting Peterson's angle is the same as Tate's, that their is approach is different (which it is) but ultimately their goal is the same. I certainly disagree with that. Tate uses young men for profit, and ego. Peterson comes across like he genuinely cares.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No he said something like the cure for aggressive men is marriage or something pretty vile like that......

Yikes, that's something that passed me by

[Crimson Dynamo]

Once the advertisers pull out (like Arnold Clark have done) that will be the end

[Crimson Dynamo]

Id imagine crisis meetings at M & S over Holly right now

[thesheriff443]

The video showing Phil in a restaurant with mm on youtube

Someone commented, Phil ordering of the kids menu again

[arista]

[Gusto Brunt]

On Talk TV, Kevin O'Sullivan almost coming to orgasm with utter excitement talking about how much Phil lied.

Bizarre how much is turning journalists on.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Swan

His argument is complex, he's a complex guy. I just don't believe his views are bred from hate towards women. Unlike Tate, who sees women as servants and/or commodities.

There is nothing wrong in telling young men to be confident within themselves. It's kinda like you're suggesting Peterson's angle is the same as Tate's, that their is approach is different (which it is) but ultimately their goal is the same. I certainly disagree with that. Tate uses young men for profit, and ego. Peterson comes across like he genuinely cares.

Tate's goal is to make money and feel powerful, literally nothing else, he doesn't care about women but he doesn't care about the boys and young men he's indoctrinating either (his rhetoric does absolutely nothing for them in the long run but make them jaded and bitter).

Peterson I think probably does genuinely care and does genuinely believe the things he's saying but the outcome by and large is the same; he doesn't help young men, he leaves them feeling frustrated and bitter (and then your Tates come along and offer an outlet for that frustration).

I also don't think he's a conscious misogynist but his hyper-focus on "what is" (pointing out the results of studies) with very little interest in "why that is" (the social structures and imbedded patriarchy that make the results what they are) ... and that suggests he's not really interested. He's clearly intelligent enough to look into and understand it ... he just doesn't.

His end-game invariably is getting weepy about "how tough things are for men" and "how hard we have it really" and it doesn't take much scraping at his personal life to see that it's mainly self-vindication.

All of that aside - he has a deeply troubling hardline religious side that he has a habit of leaning into, especially at live events. Never trust a street preacher, even one with a psychology masters. Probably especially.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Someone can be a groomer without being a paedophile....

Paedophiles dont just want to abuse children, they are devious, intelligent bastards with no shame. The thrill of the grooming, the leering at the child as it grows up can be enough to see them through until they get their end game. Then, like this case. Once they've reached the end game, they toss the game aside like it meant nothing, just to feel more power.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Gusto Brunt

On Talk TV, Kevin O'Sullivan almost coming to orgasm with utter excitement talking about how much Phil lied.

Bizarre how much is turning journalists on.

Wootton's been making cummies in his boxers for days.