posted this criticism of a Jordan Peterson Youtube video on his blog:

Jordan Peterson and Camille Paglia – A Marathon of Academic Incompetence

Hanzi’s criticism of JBP and CP has been picked up on /r/GamerGhazi and probably a bunch of other anti-JBP subs. I found /r/GamerGhazi through /r/Drama, do not do me the disservice of describing me as a belonging to that terrible place. The top comment on the GamerGhazi thread at the time was a mock-disbelief on how none of the comments properly rebut in a detailed level Hanzi’s points. It was posted on GamerGhazi so it must be easy to debunk. Let’s go!

I quite like the JBP/CP video for it’s opinions. Hanzi takes what is a conversation between two peers and treats it like an academic paper. Prepare for a boatload of misunderstandings and mistreatment of a conversation. There’s some juicy re-affirmations of JBP’s points dressed as criticisms from Hanzi too, so I can jazz those up as entertainment even though this should probably stand on it’s own as a horrific piece of criticism.

Part 1. Paglia , 4-6 min. She tells us that

a “foreign French import” of poststructuralist thinking came into American

campuses, and that this had nothing to do with the “authentic” 1960’s

revolution, which was closer to the movement known as “New Age”.

“Careerists” became the poststructuralist university professors. If the original movement

didn’t last, there may be a reason for it. If it devolved into New Age

madness, maybe it wasn’t such a good legacy. And if the ideas first expressed

by French intellectuals caught on among the post-war generations, it

probably was because these ideas resonated with the social and cultural

currents of the 1960s and beyond. He said/she

said opinions. Not an conclusive rebuttal. Argument of authority, and

false inference: if pomo is not 1960’s revolution,

and the latter is good, then the former must be bad. She is stating her opinion from personal experience,

not building an argument. She mixes emotional tone of the people involved

with the ideas being presented without specifically naming one school of

thought. This is not a strict argument. It should be treated like

opinion. This is also a “bad-guy

theory” about a foreign invader, not a sociological explanation. She never states a cause and effect link between foreigness and badness, merely states that it was

imported and continues the frame that Jordan lays out that this is bad.

Her comments and behaviours that indicate that she dislikes pomo, is an emotional tone and a few thoughts about

her personal experience. This is not a criticism of an idea as a whole,

but instead is a personal recollection of events and opinions.

incorrect; there are many real connections, in Europe especially, between

e.g. Foucault and the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Wiki: “Lectures

began at the university in January 1969, and straight away its students

and staff, including Foucault, were involved in occupations and clashes

with police, resulting in arrests. In February, Foucault gave a speech

denouncing police provocation to protesters at the Latin Quarter of the Mutualité ”. I don’t understand this point. Yes there are connections.

How could you import something without it there being connections? She is

firmly against the influence of pomo and Foucault,

not denying they existed at all. Besides, it’s simplyincorrect; there are many real connections, in Europe especially, betweene.g. Foucault and the cultural revolution of the 1960s. Wiki: “Lecturesbegan at the university in January 1969, and straight away its studentsand staff, including Foucault, were involved in occupations and clasheswith police, resulting in arrests. In February, Foucault gave a speechdenouncing police provocation to protesters at the Latin Quarter of the”. Eribon 1991 , p. 201 and 206. She says: “It was elitist,

not progressive” – These are not opposites. False inference. It her recollection of events it is a distinction

necessarily made. Not that these ideas as concepts are diametrically

opposed. So: false authority, false

inference, false facts. Low quality stuff. It’s

an opinion, don’t write from text and you don’t get this error. Paglia : 9:20-10:00. She tells us

that because she teaches at art schools, she knows that not all of

cognitive reality is linguistically mediated as the postmodernists claim,

for instance ceramics isn’t, it’s more bodily and visceral. This is used

as an argument against the postmodern position that language is

fundamental to human activity and understanding. If you look at the new

research presented in Lisa Feldman Barrett’s How Emotions Are Made,

you see that “concept formation” is more primary and neurologically

generalized than formerly assumed. In other words, even deep inside our

brains, even at level of emotions and sensations, we are linguistic

creatures. True story, empirically speaking. This

is arguable research and I’m not going to read a book to argue this one.

There is 13 pages of your response to get through. She needs to read up. So does everyone, all the time. Do I need to quote Voltaire

about a plethora of books making us ignorant? You are still arguing

against an opinion piece like it’s a statement of fact. (Some due credit: Paglia is right about “the end of oppositional art”.

And about bureaucratization of academia. And about fragmentation of

teaching, to some extent. These are commonly held positions, which I also

share.) Peterson: 15-16 min. He

suggests that pomo is a radical relativism and interpretationalism and the only thing that is real to

pomos ( postmoderns ) is

power. He wonders what the connection between pomo

and neomarxism really is, given that pomo is relativist and neomarxism

has some rather absolute values. Roughly correct, but a bit

of a strawman. Pomo is not really about relativism, but about the fact

that all knowledge shows up in a context, and that you may uncover hidden

or implicit structures to that knowledge. The structure of the knowledge

claim tends to follower cruder rules that have to do more with power

relations than what is presented at surface level. This is not an

adequate defense against JBP’s point. There are

a significant amount of political activism groups using the fundamentals

of pomo to aggressively push political goals

that do not subscribe to the level of sophistication your rebuttal shows.

You lack the awareness of JBP’s context. By the way, the connection

he is looking for between pomo and neomarxism , and which Paglia

fails to provide, is that both are moral-critical projects which speak to

a fairness-seeking mind: one looks at cultural injustices and

inequalities, the other at economic ones. To the pomos ,

the point is that we should be suspicious of modernist narratives and if

we demask and criticize them, there may be new emancipations – cultural,

economic or both. This is an interesting point. I

would say JBP is more focused on the political application of these ideas

rather than the pure theory. It is interesting to consider that from a

pure theory perspective, but again is usually outside of the scope of

what JBP’s public political videos are about. Paglia goes on to say these

people are poorly educated, but obviously these are the folks with

degrees in history and anthropology, and these people are often very well

read. I dare you to try me on this one: we can find many very well

educated academic pomos . I mean you just picked up Paglia on not

having read one particular book, so the axe swings both ways. I bet you

she could find you a bunch of books you have not read. Paglia : 21:00. She claims that one

must understand neoclassicism and classical theory in order to write about

Western society (which she says Foucault didn’t). No argument is made for why

this is the case. There are always a thousand categories of knowledge

that can be claimed as “necessary”. Again she was

asked for her opinion. In what sense this is an academic paper and not a

discussion between two peers, is beyond me. So this is Bildung snobbism, which would be OK if it

weren’t for the fact that this is her own main charge against the pomos . I think her criticism

of their emotional tone and careerist attitudes is a greater criticism

than a lack of education chops. Also, it would exclude her

interlocutor, Jordan Peterson, who isn’t so big on neoclassicism –

correct me if I’m wrong. It may do. This is not a

significant point. We all meet in the middle when it comes to

conversation. Lest we all be experts in the same thing. Peterson: 21:30-22:30. He

tells us that psychology is science-based and thus protected from the

madness of pomo and neomarxism ,

which makes no quality distinctions. Not

science-based. This is a misinterpretation. Rather BOUNDED BY EMPIRICAL

METHOD. You can fill it up with the subjective as much as you like as long

as it is bounded by empirical method, usually as shown through statistical

analysis. It should be noted that

sociological, critical, and analytical understanding are not simply

reducible to scientific methods. These categories involve critical

re-evaluations of everyday life, social ontology, and so forth. They have

a spiritual or existential undercurrent. They

need not be reducible to it, merely exist within those bounds. It’s not

the same thing. Hence, he is measuring a

distinct social category by the standards of another field. The

sociological imagination includes some deeply counter-intuitive understandings

that are easy to grasp conceptually, but difficult to follow in practice.

He is not measuring the category as a comparison

standard, he is elucidating a difference. That is all. Peterson: 24:30. He tells us

he learned from Robert Zapolsky (the Stanford

primatologist and behavioral biologist) that

zebras are black and white, mainly using camouflage stripes to hide in the

herd, not hiding in grass (being visible from miles away). He means that pomos are like these zebras; they hide in the herd

from lions like himself. He fails to point out that

lions, the main predator of zebras, are colorblind ,

which makes the example less relevant. Lions cannot see the difference

between the whiteness of the zebras and the pale grass. This actually supports his argument or makes no

difference. The only point he is making is that they hide within the

herd. Why did you think this was worth writing down? Also, he gets the pomo logic exactly wrong: pomo

is about trying to claim uniqueness, to stand out, which is one of the

main reasons why it’s linked to narcissism. To quote the über proto- pomo of all

time, Rousseau: “I may be no better, but at least I am different.” You have completely ignored the rest of his point.

Completely ignored. He accuses acamedics of

herding together under the banner of a shared language (presumably pomo ) and being safe because of that. Using anything

out of the definition of what pomo is, to

define your individuality, is by definition supporting his point. Thank

you. Now fuck off. Paglia : 27:40. She says that you

shouldn’t do French Lacan in English, because English doesn’t need it, it

being a richer language than French. Contradicts her former

(manifestly incorrect) statement that language doesn’t need to structure

the contents of experience. Not related topics. She

is arguing English as a language did not need to be reinvented. The idea

that language needs to structure the contents of experience is separate

from a redefinition of the language itself. English doesn’t need to

look at its underlying structures and assumptions? Why ever not? Ask her. Paglia : 28:00. She says that the

US universities should be more like the British departments and that

separate departments are “totalitarian”. Totalitarianism means

something else. She’s making some inference here she needs to clarify.

Sloppy. It’s an apt metaphor. Totalitarianism is

an extreme system of governance, which applies as a metaphor (and

therefore potential criticisim ) for any hierarchically

organised social structure. You have not listed a reason why you think it’s

sloppy. So that’s kind of …. Sloppy. British faculties are also pomo and PC (politically correct), so her proposed

solution does not solve her supposed problem. I’m

not aware of how british faculties are run, but

it’s clear she’s talking about the organisational structure and not the

fact that pomo may be some of the content. Peterson: 32:00. He says he

doesn’t understand the hatred from which pomo

critique stems and why they just want to “demolish” patriarchy, etc. This isn’t hard to answer.

It’s from experienced racism, sexism, social degradation, unfairly

stacked games, and other developmental cluster-fucks that wound people,

hold people back, and create resentment. In their experience, pomo critique offers a tool for resistance and

self-empowerment. Every single word/phrase used

here is extremely debatable. Talk about “talking only within the pomo language as a means for hiding oneself” again

Hanzi the Zebra. The fact that he doesn’t

understand this shows that he fails to see the fundamental source of

social movements, described in so many social theorists, notably Jürgen

Habermas. Habermas and the NSM theory describes

only the left sided political perspective. An argument for quality of

life and identity rights. His comments are entirely separate from the

hate and calls for demolishment and accrual of power at the expense of

all else, you see today. He also fails to understand

the positive “punk” current to this culture, how these ideas and

perspectives soothe aching hearts and give hope and a sense of strength,

meaning, and rebellion to the people who feel society is too harsh and

unfair. This is an insertion of your opinion. To

say he fails to understand it is true, irrelevant and stupid.

people often tend towards simplistic bad-guy models to channel our

resentment if we’re not sufficiently cognitively complex, and if we lack

access to sufficiently correct explanatory mental models of the

injustices. So hurt feelings, plus insufficient cognitive stage, plus

flattened or over-simplified theories explain the pomo

critique and its pathologies. I don’t understand

your point, are you undermining the very people that believe in pomo as a solid philosophy or accusing those that

speak out through a form of hatred as being insufficiently cognitively

complex? That is an easy argument to make. As I argue in The Listening Society people often tend towards simplistic bad-guy models to channel ourresentment if we’re not sufficiently cognitively complex, and if we lackaccess to sufficiently correct explanatory mental models of theinjustices. So hurt feelings, plus insufficient cognitive stage, plusflattened or over-simplified theories explain thecritique and its pathologies. Hence, he misreads the

social forces in play, which causes him to misdiagnose the pomo critique of society, its genesis, and its

pathologies. Social forces is undefined here by

you. The PC leftwing

pomos are indirect followers of Rousseau; they

believe that if life isn’t good, it’s because there is something that

stops people from the natural state of being good: capitalism,

patriarchy, etc. which is why they want to tear these structures down. This is not true. The pomo

political debate does not frame to be about goodness or a natural state

of goodness. They are directly arguing for more power and are willing to

hate and demolish to get it. To describe this behaviour as an indirect

follower of a long dead philosopher is a bit of a stretch simply because

the behaviours on the most surface level match the behaviours Rousseau

described. On a side note, I agree

with him that resentment is a bad place to start if you want to change

the world for the better, or to know the truth for that matter. But to

counter resentment, you must understand what causes it and keeps it

going, and offer other options. Simply telling the resenting party to

stop being wounded doesn’t help. Evidently. He literally

said he doesn’t know why they do that, in question form. You know, a

seeking for information? Questions? Yes? Peterson: 33:30. He tells us

there is no sense of bad motherhood and no sense of good fatherhood in

today’s society (referring to generalized, abstracted archetypes), which

means that we’re stuck with overprotective institutions. Google the phrase – in

quotation marks – “nanny state”. You get lots of hits. Read the wiki

article if you like. The term “ nanny state ”

likens government to the role that a nanny

has in child rearing . Yeah a nanny. Not a mum. Lazy. Google a corresponding

popular term for bad fatherhood on a political level, one used all the

time. What? Why aren’t you doing

it? How come you cannot find a term like that? Um

this doesn’t disprove his point. You are just trying to inject your own

frame unsuccessfully. Because he’s plain wrong:

the current dominant discourse is one against the nanny state (the bad

mother in his own theory of archetypes), not against the paternalistic,

strict society. This is arguable on so many

levels, “current dominant discourse”? Where are you discoursing? The

concept of what dominant discourse is seriously undermined if you’re

going to argue that nanny state makes it up. Nanny state being a nanny

and not a mum. Different roles. He also claims that this

explains why boys do poorly in school, but the line of reasoning is very

unclear. A more down-to-earth explanation may be that boys on average

have a harder time sitting still and concentrating. Agreed, in a discussion between peers that is

acceptable and Paglia moves the conversation on

rather than giving time to explore that, so unless we talk to him we will

never know what his extended line of reasoning is. He is making the

thread that the negative perception of men (as tyrants) is sucking the

life out of men at all levels, including young men at school. But the

direct reasoning for a such a large cultural idea would be sweet to see.

I agree with his supposition but it is fair to criticize it as

unexplored. Sloppy reasoning. Incorrect

inference. Him or you? Paglia : 35:50. She thinks there’s

no cure for the culture’s ills, except if men start demanding respect as

men. Unclear what this means in

practical terms. Maybe it means something clever, but we’re not let in on

it. In the context of the conversation you can

add “respected as good men” in there, or at least respected to be men who

are not tyrannical. The practical terms are to be explored. Let’s keep

treating a conversation between two peers as an academic paper so that

this frame for criticism makes sense and can’t just be hand-waved away as

needing the critiquer ( hanzi )

to actually debate the subjects in a proper debate. She’s being a poor

sociologist here: saying that a collective group’s (“men”) ascribed

agency (which is fictional) can be transposed to the illness of

“culture”, and that they can salvage it. This is collective messianism,

nothing more. Arguing that man’s agency is

fictional, if by definition of being grouped or on the individual level

is not a good argument. You can easily sum the effectiveness of

individual men into a group of statistics and make a group argument for

their agency. Arguing that individual men are separate from cultural

effects is ridiculous. There is a potential observation that her comment

may have a minor messianic emotional tone, but that is not a criticism of

her actual point, which is somewhat valid. It would need to be explored

more, but conversation between two peers, ect . Blah

blah. This is an exact inversion

of the bad kind of feminism. This is bad anti-feminism. In what sense is a support of man anti-feminist? This

is a horrifically oppressive argument to make over man. Peterson: 36:15. He and

others have shown that pomo PC values correspond

with both femininity (high agreeableness), negative emotions, and

personality disorders, and goes on to note that women with harmful

relations to men may dislike all masculinity because they can’t

distinguish between its positive and negative types. Doesn’t say all masculinity. Evidence of your bias. Men

in authority/competence positions and male tyrannical power. Yes, feminism is often a

trojan horse for good old bitterness. Glad we

agree. But then again, he fails to

point out that the majority of PC is explained by high agreeableness and

higher social concern, also being linked to higher stages of personal

development and post-conventional moral development. Glad you sourced the points in that one. Not playing to

the crowd much with that one 😝 . Too much is arguable

there. He wants to pin an “evil

essence” to pomo , but fails to see that it’s a

broad phenomenon where many different psychological mechanisms are

gathered under one banner. This is a weird

comment at this point of the video. You don’t really address anything

specifically with it. He is talking about how unhealthy/mentally ill

women have a rough time with some men, in some contexts and how he knows

how to deal with male conflict himself, then on to how he doesn’t feel he

has the same options to deal with male>female conflict. His argument about an “evil essence” to use a metaphor of yours, would come primarily from Foucault and Derrida as the primary “villains” he has described them as in the past. Bringing up that idea now, makes a concerning link between your perception of mentally ill women and evilness. There are other bodies of

research which show unflattering traits in other collective categories of

people as well. The folks who are authoritarian have higher level of

psychopathy and sadism, meat eaters have lower empathy, people of the

Christian faith (like Peterson) have lower IQ (even if he happens to have

a high IQ). Suddenly, a few negative traits in feminist social justice

warriors don’t seem so spectacular in comparison. Again with your perspective of mentally ill women as “bad”. More

importantly you are not addressing the core of what you think his “evil

essence argument” is, so have fun with that.

Part 2.

And then they start to talk more about

women and gender – this will be the main focus of the comments from here on.

There’s lots of other preposterous stuff going on, but let’s skip past most of

it for the sake of brevity. After all, you get the picture from Part 1.

Peterson: 39:10. He says he feels

helpless because he cannot hit women, or implicitly threaten to hit them. Yes, really, this is what your hero

says. Go listen to it again a few times and let it sink in. And then go

get yourself a new hero, if you still need one. You

literally argued against simplified bad guy models both in your book and

in this critique, but yet here you are making that accusation yourself.

Are you an idiot? Or just have an insufficiently sophisticated

understanding of what a hero is? If you have followed any of JBP’s work

prior you would understand that a hero is someone who holds the light and

the dark in himself as uses both for good. But to get at his underlying

argument, that physical threats between men temper discourse and makes it

flow more naturally, this is a completely incorrect claim. If it were the

case, then discourse would be most functional where violence is most

present, like in criminal gangs. You defeat your

own logic. The increased violence is evidence that it is NOT working.

(???) Peterson: 39:30. He says it’s the

responsibility of the collective category “women” to tell off their “crazy

harpy sisters”. These purportedly undermine the masculinity of culture,

which “really is fatal”. Doesn’t make sense to give

collective responsibility to broad categories. Glad

you elucidated your opinion on this. Guess I’ll just take your word for

it. Never mind that we ascribe collective responsibility to broad

categories like “citizen” and “employee” all the time. How exactly is “the

masculinity of culture” undermined? Are there any ways to measure this

variable and can he show this is happening? I

would normally rewatch the video at this point to make sure you have

correctly interpreted what is said, but I don’t even need to. The nature

of this conversation has included topics like seeing men as tyrannical and

not good. There is a probably more sophisticated argument to be made

against you here, but I posit that what I mentioned suffices. Fatal? That’s a pretty strong claim,

on pretty weak basis. Aren’t we owed a better explanation? After all, the

modern hypermasculine cultures, like Nazi Germany or ISIS, seem pretty

short-lived. Attributing masculinity to

dictatorial control and excessive violence. Good work mate. These are

debatable in many different ways. Fatal seems a fair implication from

falling male performance and the importance of the roles men fulfil. You

can debate it, but you haven’t. You’ve just made a bad simile. It’s

important to note that his gestures and emotional tone he expresses in

the video makes it clear he wants to discuss this and that it is open for

debate. Please, go debate him instead of writing a shit criticism

document. Peterson sounds like… a fanatic – of

the kind he accuses pomos of being. Opinion

without reason. Got it. Paglia: 40:15. She says that the fall

of masculinity leads to the decline of Western culture. Are there other cultures that are

doing much better? By what measures exactly? It is clear that this is

vague and empty speculation. She mentions ISIS but I don’t think she

means it as a positive example in this regard. She

is using ISIS as an extreme example of when masculinity falls and becomes

negative. Quite the opposite I’m sure you’d argue. I’m sure you’d argue

denying women’s identity rights or power roles is what happens when men “fall”

or are “corrupt”. NICK’sNOTE: It’s important

to state HANZI misses out a 2minute (ish) chunk of Camilla talking about a

set of gender roles she remembers from her youth. From her emotional tone

it’s implied she thinks this is a good set of roles. The men and women

operate in different social spheres, have separate authority structures

and older women had more influence over social relationships than young

beautiful women. Paglia: 43:40. She says women of

today are unhappier because of lacking traditional roles. In statistical terms, this isn’t

true. Men and women are both happier today than before, even if the

increase is bigger in men. Self reported data?

Really? You can’t isolate out many variables with this. Companies over

the past few decades have switched from selling products that solve

problems to products that provide a sense of happiness. Like you can buy

it. This massive amount of corporate advertising and behavioural reinforcement

(by participating in that system) is a fundamentally huge effect on how

likely it is someone would self report as happy. Are you going to snub

every purchase they’ve made over the past 5-10years? Are you going to ask

them to do that to themselves? It goes for a developmental axis as

well, more modern countries having happier women. Sure. More

gender-equal countries have happier women. Japan and Korea’s keeping of

traditional gender roles under modern circumstances have proven extremely

detrimental to mental health, gender relations, and family relations. Sure. An explanation

among many. She may still be right that women

are unhappy about this part of their lives, but she owes us

better evidence, or at least better reasoning. So

now you’re responding to her actual point. Good work. And her reasoning

is for this is implied by her previous talk about gender roles that you

ignored. Good work mate. We shouldn’t do

guilt-by-association, but it should be pointed out that her

argument is identical to that of Nazis. That doesn’t make her a Nazi; it

just means she reasons like one on this topic, which might make us think

twice about where following this line of reasoning might lead us. See

here for (almost) identical structure of argument, an essay called “ Women

and National Socialism “. You’re

saying we shouldn’t do it, but are still doing it anyway. To truly not do

it, you would have left this out as it is irrelevant. If her ideas are

the same as the Nazis (unknown, I don’t know nazi ideology) then it

should be easy to counter the specific points. This is a lazy and cheap

attack by Hanzi to do guilt-by-association without taking the blame for

it. He is still doing it. Shame Hanzi, Shame. Peterson: 46:20. He says that gender

differences, according to research, are maximized in the Scandinavian

countries, where equality has progressed the farthest. So basically, he just killed their

whole argument that PC gender equality means that masculinity is

undermined. The most feminist countries get more masculine guys and more

feminine women, who are freed from oppressive norms. This is a conflation and misunderstanding of many points

into one convenient package. It’s super manipulative and to unpack it

feels real dirty. Super super dirty. There’s an misconstrual here that

maximised gender differences/equality means that any of JBP’s concerns

about masculinity in society are eradicated. This is not true. Men can

still underperform, be seen as tyrannical in some ways, ect in a gender

equal environment. On top of that, I don’t know if JBP specifically and

exactly has ever said that gender equality in the Swedish sense directly

undermines masculinity. He may believe that it does, but whether he has

claimed what Hanzi is accusing him of is not clear in my mind. This claim

requires a direct conversation between Hanzi and JBP to be considered valid.

I cannot list every understanding JBP has of masculinity and Hanzi needs

to be responsible for what he has said and his understanding of it. Seriously, he just ignored the fact

that his and Paglia’s main argument against feminism is wrong. Drastic oversimplification, complete lack of

sophistication in debate. Good work. Also, he should point out that men

and women in Scandinavian countries are also more androgynous in their

expressions and demeanors; it’s just the character traits that diverge. Also, he should point out that the

increased gender gaps have to do primarily with statistical measures of

which jobs people choose, and that Scandinavian countries are full of

initiatives for women engineers and tech startups, which is very good for

the economy. That this is good for the economy is

very arguable. Having two parents working instead of one can reduce the

effectiveness of parenting and therefore people’s performance over their

lifetime overall. How many people are addicts, poor performers at work or

otherwise a drain on the economy because of poor parenting? Arguable.

Would we need the mental health industry as a whole if parenting were

done by parents, rather than the state/market via school, counselling and

day care? The context of what “should”

be pointed out here is obnoxious. We are all ignorant of something and

don’t always say everything. Rather than talking through JBP’s mouth via

criticism, this should be an addition, not a criticism. (Due credit: The thing Peterson says

about male and female dominance hierarchies and the differences between

them is true and important.) Paglia: 49:00. She says she likes a

TV show where women have toxic arguments and guys settle the matter with a

good fistfight and then they’re friends. No, physical violence creates

infected, sickly, and sad relationships between men. That’s why sport doesn’t work in any capacity. This

statement by Hanzi is absurd, counter to the vast majority of history and

needs qualification. She was probably never in a

fistfight, which is likely why she references what she saw on TV. I was

in a lot of fistfights when I was a kid and I saw a lot of them and I can

tell you that 99% of them happen when bigger guys pick on smaller or

younger ones, or when robbers smack people in the head to grab their cell

phone and wallet. Oh yeah you got an anecdote? Well

I got an anecdote. I got into fistfights with my brother and they were

key in shaping my character as a person. Fights are an important

regulator of sexual energy in men too, the natural desire is to butt

heads and compete physically for female attention. This is broad as

daylight on worldstar videos. There is such thing as a bad fight, as

described by Hanzi here, but the culture as a whole is negative towards

physical violence so what is the majority of fights outside of structured

sports going to be? Bad. And then there’s night-life

violence, in which very drunk, very hurt people get in pathetic and sad

situations and have to be dragged off by security guards. I’ve studied

police interactions in nightclubs, and all I can say is that violence

isn’t very pretty and only rarely catharsis-inducing. Who knew drink and drugs are bad for people. Drink

increases aggression. A real fight has boundaries. Drunk garbage is drunk

garbage. If a grown man actually hits

another seriously, the risks of severe injuries or even death are very

tangible. Her violence romance is deluded. And it is, unfortunately,

another clear link to Nazism. SOOOOOO guilt by

association MADE REAL. Let’s NOT DO THAT, EY HANZI?. Liar. Shame on you

Hanzi. Shame. Men hit each other all the time and don’t die. It’s called

boxing, mma, rugby, ect. Not to mention all the other athletic sports

that show that men are not made of glass. This is a stupid red herring by

a guy that was bullied as a kid. Get over it and learn to fight, man. Besides, this is an overtly

misogynous and sexist remark. It says she prefers guys to girls. This both a lie and a fabricated one at that. Good work,

putting words in her mouth. Peterson: 49:35. He says that girls

are mean bullies because they go after the reputation of the victim, as

happened to his daughter. First of all, most bullying among

guys follows a similar pattern: teasing, freeze-out, etc. You’re an idiot. Men are mean to each other and they

don’t mean it. A man can be verbally mean precisely BECAUSE conflicts are

resolved physically. It doesn’t actually effect a regular man to be

teased, if it were important it would head to a fight. If you are

incredibly fight averse, like Hanzi, you would not recognize this, due to

bullying, aka negative fights. Secondly, he implies that he would

have preferred a physical male bullying treatment of his daughter, to the

“annoying” female one. He doesn’t. He says his

daughter would somewhat prefer that. Idk what you were watching at this

moment. I’m not saying he prefers his

daughter to be hit with fists and physically abused. I’m just saying he

might not have thought this through. Him or you? And here he joins Paglia in overt

misogyny. Sure, whatever you say bub. Paglia: 50:40. She says that men

tease one another and this toughens them, so they don’t take things so

seriously, whereas women are over-sensitive. Might be true to some extent, but

again, a generalized, loaded, misogynist remark. Literally

anything perceived negative by Hanzi, about women, is declared misogynist.

The word misogynist actually means something, you have to back it up with

hatred of women, not just words you don’t like. I know you’ll have some

pomo definition of misogyny that is separate from the traditional definition.

Zebras abound. Fails to point out that men tease

each other less if they have healthier relations. Insecure

13-year-olds tease the most and pretend they think it’s fun, as do gang

members. Mature, well-developed, functioning guys tease only a tad, and

only in sensitive, good-spirited ways. And they apologize if anything is

taken the wrong way. Hell of a claim. The

quantity of the teasing is not really an important debate point though,

so sure? She clearly has a false,

romanticized view of male ball-busting. Most of it is insecure and

insincere. You’ve never had a real male friend.

(that might actually explain part of your pro-feminist attitudes? A guess

I may hazard…). Paglia: 52:10. She says that

everybody should be better educated and learn about the Stone Age, etc.,

in which case we’d come closer to her conclusions. First of all: People with in-depth

knowledge about our Paleolithic ancestors, historians, archaeologists,

anthropologist etc., generally don’t share her ideas. Good thing you quoted some. Secondly: We should always be

suspicious when someone says that everybody should learn

something. Why this particular thing, instead of say physics, complexity,

self-knowledge, social intelligence, mindfulness, or basic computer

programming? This is literally what you accused

them of. You accused them of not knowing so many things. Alright I’m done

for the night here. You are mentally retarded Hanzi. You contradict

yourself only a few pages into this 13 page demolition of a coherent

attempt at criticism.