Are ethnic jokes inherently wrong, racist, or offensive?

Homepage Forums Small Talk Are ethnic jokes inherently wrong, racist, or offensive?

This topic contains 163 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 164 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37084

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I like JP just for sticking up for free speech.

    #37088

    Autumn
    Participant

    I like JP just for sticking up for free speech.

    Odd choice. Dude filed a borderline slapp suit against university professors (possibly the university itself or both) ‘cuase he didn’t like the conversation they had about him in private.

    #37089

    Davis
    Moderator

    But the thing is Simon he blabs on about free speech but then he sensors shit he doesn’t like on his websites and online platforms. He cares so much about free speech and yet applauds world leaders who have diminished free speech in their countries like Hungary and Russia. He talks about the value of speaking your mind but has sued people for saying stuff he doesn’t like. I don’t understand Simon how you can buy into this bullshit artist. He is such a fucking intellectual fraud, so full of hypocrisy and will say literally anything to get and keep an audience. I know you don’t mind or are willing to discount his homophobia, sexism and rape-culture comments. Please don’t add to this by standing by his so called “love of free speech”. He says this solely to attract an audience who only mention free speech when it really means the right to be offensive and abusive.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #37093

    Davis
    Moderator

    For example since a woman deserves equal pay she should no longer expect a man to make significantly more money than her.

    In fact, I had a female friend who made more money than her boyfriend and was dreading the day they moved in when she would have to reveal just how high her was salary to him. Despite being a progressive guy she was worried it would, deep down, bother or embitter him. I’m not so sure it’s as frequently a case of modern women in heterosexual relationships expecting their partner to make more (who knows I don’t have the statistics on this), but hoping they do so that it doesn’t create pointless problems in the relationship for those who say it isn’t a problem and yet subconsciously (or simply in reality) it does bother them or emasculate them somehow. There’s also that pesky problem of, at least in some cases…men and women literally doing the exact same work of the exact same quality with the exact same output and yet the woman making less. Also an issue there.

    #37094

    Davis
    Moderator

    These lost boys should try to find out what it is that women actually want, and give it to them, instead of, perhaps, attempting to continue to control them. That has to be one of JP’s messages.

    Another clear example of JP’s muddled contradictory messages then. Because he clearly stands by traditional gender roles, traditional marriage (is not a fan of gay families adopting) and even vaguely defends “boys being boys” in odd and bizarre ways. If his message is about two parties in a relationship asking what their partner needs and doing their best to compromise and provide it…then all gender norms and traditional family values should be thrown out the window in any authentic attempt to realise this. You don’t need to overgeneralise about genders, claim that women are motivated by this or that, need this or that. You drop your preconceptions and ask. And yet he does make broad claims about the genders (even offering advice on how genders should treat one another an act in relationships). He claims: women strive to be doting mothers and really don’t want to work after 30. Women who wear make-up want aggressive sexual attention. Women are waiting to be taken care of by a man [These are literally all arguments he has made in one way or another].

    I don’t understand how anyone can be familiar with the shit he has said and written and not come out confused and disgusted with the person.

    • This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by  Davis.
    #37098

    Hari Kunzru’s description of Peterson’s last book – ‘like being shouted at by a rugby coach in a sarong‘ – has yet to be surpassed…..

    His new book is reviewed here.

    #37099

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    His new book is reviewed here.

    In fact the prescription turns out to be similar to last time: assume responsibility for your situation, dig deep to discover your capacity for self-discipline, and face life’s inevitable awfulness as unflinchingly as you can.

    Seems good to me.

    #37100

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Because he clearly stands by traditional gender roles, traditional marriage (is not a fan of gay families adopting) and even vaguely defends “boys being boys” in odd and bizarre ways. If his message is about two parties in a relationship asking what their partner needs and doing their best to compromise and provide it…then all gender norms and traditional family values should be thrown out the window in any authentic attempt to realise this.

    I mean, that’s the pertinent question.  How to modify or do away with patriarchy (on the grounds that it’s oppressive to women) given the biological realities.  I’m not talking about “innate differences” between males and females, such as being into things versus people.

    The biological reality is that women need to invest a lot in having a child, while men do not.  Therefore, men can have an almost infinite number of offspring with little effort.  So, in primate fashion, they try to be polygamous.  Humans are mainly monogamous, which according to one theory is “maximally constrained polygamy” as a result of our unique human egalitarianism.  But we’re still pair-bonded.  So also in primate fashion, men attempt to control and repress women so that they don’t stray.  The only difference with humans is that we achieve it using norms, socially rather than individually.

    It seems perverse to throw something as fundamental as pair-bonding out of the window on ideological grounds, since it’s how humans reproduce.  How to achieve a gender-egalitarian world, and still keep pair-bonding?

    Some feminists say that women need to be more economically independent and politically powerful.

    #37101

    I remember noticing in a Q&A interview JP was in, that if you removed all the platitudes from the advice he was offering, that there was very little substance left behind. A lot of it was commonsense but the audience were lapping it up. I know what one person considers to be common sense is viewed as special knowledge by another. But much of what JP offered was very basic although decorated with many terms from the field of psychology and with religious overtones (“don’t build your foundations on sand” analogies).

    I found myself asking “what has he actually said here”? Are there really that many clueless men around?? Only weak men don’t like independent minded women. But male inadequacies are not the fault of women.

    As I mentioned once before there is a peculiar opacity to his religious views that is entwined into the “practical rules” he offers. I don’t intend to give him too much more thought.

    #37102

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Peterson, like Craig lacks integrity. They both posit their bullshit god or religion and contort reality to construct an aesthetic abomination.

    Wasn’t even familiar with the guy until he was on a Harris podcast. What an embarrassment-was pissed at self for listening from start to finish. Just another example of how drawn the masses are to the most vapid and meretricious characters. Or to use Harris’ take on free will. If ya pay attention there is not even the illusion of something shiny. Oh, and also he is another example of the nonsense that the free market place of ideas works.

    #37103

    Autumn
    Participant

    His new book is reviewed here. In fact the prescription turns out to be similar to last time: assume responsibility for your situation, dig deep to discover your capacity for self-discipline, and face life’s inevitable awfulness as unflinchingly as you can.

    Seems good to me.

    If Peterson had taken that advice, he wouldn’t be famous. But then again, if his book(s) actually do say that, sometimes our words can still have positive impact even we we can’t live up to them ourselves.

    I’ve never had much interest in going after his books. I doubt I’d be that into the content, but my guess is they’d fit solidly into the vast realm of publications I’d find unremarkable due to my own needs, perspective, and interests.

    But there’s some shit he does that’s kind of fucked up and it would be chill if he could take a step back and say “I don’t know what the fuck I am talking about here; maybe I should stop before more people get riled up about it.”

    But then, it could all be just an elaborate joke. I’m pretty aoke-adjacent, so as well all know, those aren’t my forte.

    Friend, “Why did the chicken cross the road?”
    Me, “To smash the patriarchy?”
    Friend, “No. What? Why?”
    Me, “Then fuck that chicken.”
    Friend, “What’s wrong with you?”
    Me, “FIGHT THE POULTRY OPPRESSORS!!!!!!!!!!!!”

    #37104

    One of the best explanations I heard about how Craig operates in a debate was from a member of the old TA site. I think it was “Nelson” but maybe not. Many of the debates he gets involved in have strict rules on how long each participant has to make their case as do the follow up Q&A sessions. What Craig does is to never directly address the challenge made to his arguments but to fire back many other questions to the other side as if he is actually addressing them. It was described as the “blunderbuss approach to debating”. It sounds like he has answered the question but just made several points about it instead. Then he looks disgruntled that his time is up and it is difficult for the other side to follow up. Because Craig has left so much hanging in the air there is not enough time to reply to them all and it makes your side look as if Craig “has won that one”.

    Many people fail in debate with him as his rhetoric is very well honed and he only tends to debate his own topics, like the KCA. You have to be prepared well to enter onto his stage. Even if you were to grant that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence” (which I don’t) and allow that the agent of the initial cause was a god (which i don’t) you cannot get him to explain the jump to why this causal god is his Christian God (and not the god of Islam that the Kalam argument was derived from).

    Kevin Harris – if you are watching please feel free to jump in.

    #37105

    jakelafort
    Participant

    i admit begrudgingly that Craig is intelligent. He is no damn good but he is a hell of a charlatan. Ponder how difficult it is to be a Christian apologist and come away without looking like a dope. It would be so cool to see someone dismantle him.

    #37106

    Autumn
    Participant

    But how good are his ethnic jokes?

    #37107

    jakelafort
    Participant

    They’re on a par with Sol and Ben which aint all that bad.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 164 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.