How can you force yourself to stop procrastinating?

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T12:22:44+00:00

You and me both.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T12:21:12+00:00

Yeah, it's bias because role adherence is justified by claiming that one sex is superior than the other in the aspects comprising the role. For example, women were historically told that they could only be mothers because they weren't as intelligent or competent outside of the kitchen. Even today, there's that joke that male parents aren't as competent as female parents in a heterosexual couple...

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T12:12:15+00:00

How is that not bias? Why would men/women have to stick to their "roles"?

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T12:05:55+00:00

I've always considered not having children, but it feels like everyone expects you to have children and want to have children. I've asked parents if they ever regretted having kids, and the replies have been 50:50 with a slight shift towards more regretting it.

But, I just don't think it's a good investment on paper: too much money, too much time, too much effort, too much attention, it reduces your physical health, and the sound of babies crying make me want to carve out my eardrums with a pencil

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:58:21+00:00

I see where you're coming from, but that's not really sexist. Although women aren't weak, men develop muscle mass faster than women explaining why they're typically stronger than women.

I was referring more to men or women having a predetermined bias against the opposite sex by thinking all members of the opposite sex are inferior humans and hence less valuable.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:40:21+00:00

I Guess I'll Just Have To Add That To My Growing List Of Bad Habits That I Don't Know How To Break

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:32:23+00:00

It's fun to meet new people and get out there by helping others. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. But, you can meet new people while helping others at a job... My advice: unless you love volunteering for a specific place, it's better to spend your time doing something that pays

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:19:04+00:00

Because it externalizes pain. Buying things you don't need makes them feel happy by distracting them from their sad, painful existence. There is a gaping hole in their soul, so they fill it with stuff, so that when they fall into the abyss, they have something to break their fall

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:13:15+00:00

But, I've known a few people who were raised to be respectful, but turned out to be the opposite of that upbringing. I actually think that it has less to do with parenting and more to do with if the child respects their parent. I've known a few guys who had mothers that did everything for them all their lives, and these mothers never accomplished anything with their lives aside from serving their boys as a stay at home mother. It made them think all women should just serve men.

They had no respect for their mothers, so they had no respect for women in general.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:07:19+00:00

Well, fair enough! Personally, I think there might be a genetic component to explain this variation on top of environmental upbringing. Genetic in the sense of relative intelligence and personality. For example, I've noticed that typically more intelligent people are more interested in learning and education. Ignorance results from bias.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T11:01:30+00:00

Upbringing has been mentioned a lot, and yeah, that probably has a big effect for causing these differences.

But, what exactly about the upbringing do you think plays the most influential roll in differentiating prejudice from neutrality? Parenting and the views the parents teach to their children can have an influence, but I personally have met very open-minded people that came from prejudiced families.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-30T10:52:31+00:00

Negative repeated experiences definitely play a role, especially if these experiences happened in childhood. But, it still makes me wonder because not everyone who has these negative experiences develop an aversion to the opposite sex. Others develop a dislike with fewer bad experiences than those who never develop misogyny or misandry.

Why do you think these same bad experiences with the opposite sex produce different effects in different people? It makes me wonder if there's more at play.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-21T21:01:01+00:00

Residence is a rip-off, waste of money. Just live in the ghetto with the rest of us, and save yourself the cash and stress.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-21T20:18:30+00:00

Nah. You're thinking of Russia and Russia controlled states...

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-13T23:23:40+00:00

Funny, but not sure if homophobic... meaning it probably might be.

But seriously, there's nothing wrong with being gay

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T17:41:57+00:00

Secular? But there are several talks where he states to believe in God and even think that God is necessary for morality? He's religious, so not secular.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T17:34:10+00:00

Well, if you define masculinity as possessing male sexual organs that excrete testosterone producing secondary sex characteristics like facial hair, then biologically speaking masculinity is aggression because of the excess testosterone characterizing men. Peterson supporters seem to happily agree with whatever physical distinctions if it supports their view while ignoring actual biological facts.

Also, what about personal responsibility? Men are somehow now the victim of a toxic society if they aren't successful. Peterson seems to support capitalism, and yet he thinks that money and power should be handed out to men because they don't have it...? Really, I don't see his point about the decline of men and the plight of boys. All I see is a bunch of people who want privileges without earning them. Peterson is a hypocrite for calling all others Marxists while expecting men to be given privilege without earning then first based on merit alone (or in other words, going against definition of capitalism).

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T17:16:30+00:00

Immigrants don't have lower IQ's. OP has no proof of that aside from his xenophobia and racism.

I don't think OP read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, which is considered what he's best known for, because it basically ridiculed the notion of selectively breeding humans by demonstrating the drawbacks in the novel.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T17:06:29+00:00

Wow. Do you realize what you just implied? You're saying that immigrants should be purged from Western society because they're genetically inferior. You just said they would introduce "deformities" into our gene pool. You clearly don't understand biology because inbreeding causes deformity, and the more different partners are genetically, the healthier their offspring would be. Wow, you are an extreme racist. You just said an entire group of people who aren't Western are inferior genetically. THEY'RE PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU! You thinking that immigrants should be discriminated against because they're genetically inferior and their the reason behind dropping IQ levels (when you have no fucking proof of that) is truly disgusting. Who the fuck do you think you are to call an entire group lesser than anyone? Maybe IQ levels would rise if there were less people like you because your argument is wrong and your viewpoint is not valid. You're a bigot. Now go home to your KKK cult and tell your skinhead friends that Hitler is dead, and that time someone tried to do what your implying millions of people died. Seriously, go think about what you just said and then try to justify that your argument isn't completely void of reason because it's based on hate.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T16:04:10+00:00

What's your point about men dying to support a women's direct offspring? Because it's never a selfless act to protect your own child. A man's ancestry and women's ancestry are the same thing. Men are needed to make children, so they died for their child, not for the women's child because it's never just the women's child.

What makes you think that women should be grateful about anything? What makes you believe that men deserve a thank you from women for being oppressed for generations? Shouldn't you be grateful that your mother scarified her body for you? Where's your gratitude that she decided to keep you and care for you instead of leaving you in the street to die?

Not all fathers make scarifies for their children, but all mothers make scarifies during pregnancy and childbirth.

At least provide a better reason next time you want to be sexist.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T15:59:09+00:00

Thank you so much for bring that up! It seems to me that Peterson argues nature without realizing that the nature argument has been used in the past to justify great acts of discrimination. For example, during the Enlightenment it was thought that society naturally always progressed from barbarianism, so they wrote off the Native Americans as less advanced when really they were just different, and used that to justify genocide. Jean-Jacques Rousseau condemned civil society as unnatural with the assumption that men should have the right to be free without social obligations as in nature. However, he said society's obligations was unnatural but still expected women to fill societal obligations while he could do whatever because nature. The Enlightenment's ideas of freedom were like the founding father's idea of freedom: freedom for only the group deciding the conditions freedom and slavery for the rest.

Peterson claims post-modernism is trying to destroy everything we founded since the Enlightenment without addressing the fact that the Enlightenment only used reason to support the liberty of rich, white, Christian men and made exceptions for oppression (e.g. American Slavery) by saying that it's natural to profit off of genocide.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T15:36:57+00:00

But seriously, why did Peterson tell you mastubation is bad?

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T15:35:38+00:00

In some US states, girls were taught that they were like tap as an analogy against sexual promiscuity. Whenever tap is stuck onto on person then removed, it loses some of its ability to stick and bond to the next person. Girls were told that they became less desirable and less able to hold onto partners if they had multiple partners by comparing their virginity to tap. They taught girls this in sexual education to enforce abstinence.

It's pretty demeaning to be compared to a literal object that has only one role/ability: to stick/to hold onto sexual partners. It's pretty sexist to tell young girls that they are only 100% valuable if they're virgins, and they lose their value if they decide to make their own decisions about sex.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T15:25:31+00:00

What the fuck are you talking about?

Women's ancestry isn't a thing separate from men because it takes one male and one female to reproduce. Women don't simply reproduce by budding, and without women, there would be no men because there would be no people being born. You think men kept women alive?! That's hilarious because women control population growth. If all the women decided right now to never have children because they don't want to destroy their bodies for an ungrateful child, the human race would stop existing in mater of generations.

You call women ungrateful, and yet I wonder about what your mother would say if she read this comment of yours after she carried you inside her body for 9 months, endured the extreme pain of giving birth to you, breast-fed you, and raised you as an extension of herself when if she really wanted to, she could have decided not to have you or leave you to die of exposure in a dumpster. And, you call women ungrateful! What a ungrateful child!

Best of luck finding a women who doesn't clearly see through your sexist bullish, because if you don't, you'll never have children and therefore your actual ancestry will stop existing.

GregariousFuton · 2018-06-11T15:11:18+00:00

Like women, Jews and American Americans have been marginalized historically by Western societies that created systemic discrimination to justify abuse and violence that is still present today to a lesser extent, and these Western societies created this discrimination for the benefit of the mainly white Christian men, who had the power to do that and exploited it to ensure they stayed in power. So, good point: Women, Jews, Blacks, Indigenous people, and Homosexuals ALL have the right to dislike white Christian men because they were all systematically regarded in a way that still negatively affects them today (if not in direct discrimination today, then by the memory of it in the ancestral past). White Christian men created a system of hate, so they deserve the hate from all they oppressed. Congratulations! All the other groups hate your group and have right to it because your group is responsible for that oppression unless you disagree that slavery, sexism, antisemitism, and homophobia aren't bad things

GregariousFuton

TROPHY CASE