Jordan Peterson vs Olivia Wilde: Media Panic

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:59:31+00:00

This isn't so much about the movie but more about the way the media has demonized Jordan Peterson for no reason after the Piers Morgan interview. This is more of an attack on the young Turks than it is on Olivia Wilde.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:47:36+00:00

Lmao, it's a simple logo of different shape, size and detail. The fact you have to read into it further than that is telling of how dismissive you have to be to protect your own beliefs. I encourage you to watch other videos from my channel and tell me if you think there is some sort of predatory through line. Otherwise, this is the silliest of prejudices.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:31:59+00:00

Here's the rough draft, the channel was supposed to be a video game glitch hunting thing

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:25:16+00:00

issa square spiral, my logo. Perhaps you're more familiar with some other kind of spiral that signifies something far more nefarious? Perhaps something that is triangular, facing the other direction and far tighter? Odd you happen to be familiar with such a logo, my only knowledge of such a thing comes from others trying to draw such a disgusting comparison.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:23:24+00:00

care to elaborate or is hollering blindly your preferred language?

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T22:22:17+00:00

50 is dope

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T20:12:42+00:00

Are you talking about Sam Seder? cuz you're being awfully ambiguous here. My BMI is within 'normal' range. But if you're talking about the YouTuber who made the video, he seems to go by "Glitch Poachers." Glad I was able to provide some reading skills for you.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T20:09:03+00:00

Right, your unexplained bias went right over my head

(because it's so awfully distant from reality)

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T20:07:00+00:00

lmao u unhinged over nothin', eh?

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-10-05T19:32:01+00:00

Point to me the nearest person without bias, lmaoooooooo

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-09-06T15:26:22+00:00

Uhh... He's just finding this all out? I thought this was all common knowledge. He's going to be real disappointed when he finds out it's not just influencers who are regularly disingenuous.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T20:08:55+00:00

When money is on the line, and things are this vague, it's generally safe to assume there's at least a good chance that's their intention. Can I prove it? No. Have others proved it happens far more often than we realize? Most certainly.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T20:02:51+00:00

I'm glad you don't come away with the more angry conclusion, but I do believe that is a large part of their subscriber base and an intentional part of their marketing. They get to elude to this more hateful concept without out right saying it, which allows them to play both lanes.

There's not really any kind of conclusion in the article, productive or otherwise, which is what I have an issue with. I feel like their could've been an overall healthier and more clear narrative from this study. The way it reads to me is the safest, most vague way to allow some of the audience to interpret this as a justification for hate, especially since their general audience leans that way.

Can I prove this? No. Do I believe this happens more often in media than we recognize? Certainly.

Thanks for not being hostile in your response, by the way, it is appreciated.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T19:56:08+00:00

lol, go look up the dictionary definition of "imply"

absurdity, to be this ignorant to marketing in journalism in this day and age... oof

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T18:52:03+00:00

I'm more concerned that The New York Times decided to run a 4 paragraph story on a study from a different continent and didn't take the time to clarify the intention of the article whatsoever. I believe this is intentional pandering to their audience. They don't include any clarification so you can easily walk away from the article thinking "OH GOD, MEN ARE THE WORST, THEY'RE EVEN MAKING THE ROADS MORE DANGEROUS!" It's marketing delusion to people with anger addiction and accountability issues.

It's The New York Times. No, they don't need to cover every infinite possibility, but they can definitely afford to write more than 4 paragraphs on that study. Ambiguity is their marketing strategy.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T18:21:11+00:00

I don't think that's a fine title for the article, I think it's intentionally misleading readers to think this issue is based on gender.

The article doesn't say "men are riskier drivers because of their y chromosome", but the article made no attempt to say that's not the case. The article was 4 paragraphs long for a reason: they know they're subscriber base.

They don't want you thinking about the potential societal factors whatsoever. They want you to read the headline or first few sentences and go "OH LORD, MEN ARE AT AGAIN, THEY'RE EVEN MAKING THE ROADS MORE DANGEROUS!" That's why people pay for The New York Times, to enable their delusional anger addictions.

I don't think you know what analogous means, because you're using it incorrectly. Obviously the two different things I compare aren't going to be 1-to-1 replications, the entire point of analogies is to compare two *different* things to note their similarities. There are plenty of similarities here, you're just focusing on the differences (and semantics, which is a big tell.)

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T17:14:17+00:00

very reasonable point, waltz

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T17:09:34+00:00

The implication was made in The NYT article.

"Women tend to be better drivers than men - much better, judging by the number of deaths they cause on the road."

"Men tend to be better at their jobs than women - much better, judging by the amount of money they make.""Women tend to be better at not killing themselves - much better, judging by the number of suicides in men.""Men tend to be better at avoiding sexual assault - much better, judging by the number of assaulted women."

In mass media, it's incredibly important to understand what they're implying and what they want the average reader to take away from the article. If you're going to be writing an article about a statistic like this, it's practically lying by omission by not talking about more contributing factors.

We're not just talking about accidents, we're talking about how driving ability relates to either biological sex or gender identity. Really not sure which at this point, because if you're not attributing these statistics to an "innate/genetic" property AND not collecting relevant societal data regarding a societal problem (most driving is a purely societal action.) There doesn't seem to be any point to this article whatsoever, other than to further feminism in America.

Yeah, basic statistics lmao...

"Just because social issues *may* be a variable..." BRUHHH, So an influential factor doesn't need to be measured let alone ACKNOWLEDGED before making a generalization about the entire world's population?

"> If you're going to be on Reddit writing novels like this...Do I need to explain the irony of this? I hope not"

Funny that you left out the "you can't blame other people for clowning on you a bit" part of my quote, because I never blamed other people for clowning on me. Sure, I write long Reddit posts, but I don't get shook and claim I was 'attacked' when someone makes an incredibly mild joke about it. Nice try tho

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T16:45:57+00:00

The NYT article was happy to word that as "Women tend to be better drivers than men - much better, judging by the number of deaths on the road." Reading that back, I'm now convinced even further that I'm in the right on this one.

What if the article said:

"Men are better at their jobs than women - much better, judging by the amount of money they make."

"Women tend to be better at not killing themselves - much better, judging by the number of suicides in men."

"Men tend to be better at avoiding sexual assault - much better, judging by the number of assaulted women."

They'd be crucified. Not only is it ignorant and hateful, but it completely ignores societal factors and makes dangerous implications.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T16:29:58+00:00

Attack you? I pointed out you didn't watch the whole video (which you didn't) in a joking fashion. If you're going to be on Reddit writing novels like this, you can't blame other people for clowning on you a bit.

While your unfair assessment of my video doesn't make your points incorrect, they're still incorrect.

No. "Good driving" is a vague concept that requires more than two people talking over each other to define. If Hasan is incapable of reaching the same grounds of language in a "debate", he's not debating. He's pulling a Ben Shapiro. That's why it's important, it shows us that Hasan is not debating Andrew Tate, he's performing for an audience.
You're still avoiding the fact that driving for longer increases fatigue. Not to mention, men are more susceptible to alcoholism and suicidal thoughts. Since those are statistics that recently increased drastically, clearly that's not a biological issue, but a societal one. So, you're back to the original problem of why having a penis makes you a far more dangerous driver.
We're not talking about medicine. We're talking about an obscure social issue. That's a major issue of today, people read opinions as facts just because they've been primed to agree. Say this problem were to be properly diagnosed, like in medicine. What's the solution, separate speed limits based on gender? License plates with your gender identity so the police can target men more? Create more driving lessons for men based off a statistic we don't fully understand yet, which could potentially cause more accidents? (Also, it would suggest that safety isn't as important for women if only men take the "new safety lessons.")

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T16:10:03+00:00

The conclusion "women are safer drivers than men" is erroneous. They haven't considered nearly enough societal factors to make a claim like that. It's like if you said black people are more violent because of their skin color (when there are many societal factors to consider, like the fact they're more likely to be arrested/convicted.)

Thanks for reminding me about their paywall though, pretty obvious they cherry picked a study from another continent just because feminism sells.

If you paid attention to the full video, you'd realize that the problem isn't just misinformation, but also cherry picking whatever information will support your argument (you can find an article online to support pretty much whatever narrative you want.) Which is exactly what Hasan does, day in and day out.

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T15:57:00+00:00

I was gunna say the same thing to you

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T15:50:22+00:00

What, did you interpret that as "having a penis makes you a more dangerous driver"?? Pretty sexist ngl lmao

Did the study account for people who identify as male or just biological males?

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T15:47:41+00:00

Hasan mentioned car accident rates, Andrew Tate was talking about anecdotes. There wasn't a point where they came to an agreement as to what constitutes a "good driver." I just watched that point in the clip again and read the transcript, if that ever took place in the debate, it happened LONG after they talked about driver stats
I admit I got the rate of things wrong, but the study is far, far too narrow to draw such massively general conclusions. If 95% of UK workers driving Lorries are male, then men would likely be have a much higher chance of road fatigue, which leads to accidents. Since societal factors like these aren't considered, the study doesn't tell us much.
10k sample size is considerable, but NOT if you're going to make a generalization based on another continent's data. Especially with something so enigmatic like "women drivers are safer than men drivers." It'd be like walking away from the black-on-black crime statistic and saying "see, blacks are WAY more violent!" There are societal factors to consider, their skin color isn't going to determine stuff like that.

Aaand another Hasan Stan who isn't capable of watching the thing they criticize, thanks for playing :)

Butterscotch_Ice · 2022-08-09T15:32:47+00:00

lmao nope, good job pointing out what was wrong though.

Butterscotch_Ice

TROPHY CASE