5 ms·

Well, there is a video where Zhukov tells that he doesn't agree with principle of collective responsibility advocated by _some_ feminists. Calling him anti-femi

Well, there is a video where Zhukov tells that he doesn't agree with principle of collective responsibility advocated by _some_ feminists. Calling him anti-feminist after that is kind of big jump, isn't it?

nopriorarrests 7y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILuxlimdWoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILuxlimdWoc this is a part of his interview called "there is no such thing as patriarchy". He says following things: -- Jordan Peterson is essentially correct in most of things he says. -- Current left wing is all about collective identity (such as "straight white man"), and there is no such thing as "collective identity". -- This is absolutely unacceptable for me, and I do not believe in patriarchy at all. Basically, he is your run of the mill right-winger with libertarian bent, nothing special about him, but his anti-feminist stance is pretty clear. I think that he and Ben Shapiro will find common ground in a minute.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 7y ago
  I'm not sure how you get "right winger" out of someone who doesn't believe in identity politics. I'm basically a socialist christian who voted for Trump (but will go Bernie next time), but I'm not into equality of outcome between social segments. Am I supposed to be right wing because I don't subscribe to liberal attempts at equality of outcome (between socially delineated groups)?
  - krastanov 7y ago
    I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas. I have seen liberals push for detailed understanding of what leads to different outcomes and for "equality of opportunity". And I have seen only far right people bring up the notion of "equality of outcome", usually as a strawman as above. And yes, being against the government helping with upward social mobility (the only way I can rephrase what you described, but I sincerely hope you will correct me if I misunderstood) is certainly part of modern American right wing politics.
    - Supermancho 7y ago
      > I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas These are in the wording of initiatives across multiple US states with broad enough support to pass (eg California Senate Bill 826). The mainstream term is affirmative action; a proportional equality of outcome. If you havent seen mainstream liberal eoo, I can only assume that it is due to willful ignorance.
      - krastanov 7y ago
        Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome" - that would be a silly and unsustainable model. Most of the efforts in that direction are about "ensure there are women and PoC at the interview" and "blind the interview", not about hiring people based on gender or race without consideration of their abilities. To your particular example, see section 1.c and 1.g for research on the usefulness of their mandate. I personally feel that more research is necessary to understand these effects, I can even agree with someone saying that these efforts are a silly and unpractical bandaid. But instituting a rigid rule against measurable biases is not "equality of outcome", it is very much "equality of opportunity" (nobody would hire an incompetent woman as a board member if that is what worries you)
        Supermancho 7y ago
        > Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome Yes it is. Creating orthogonal standards to meet, in order to axjieve a quota is for the purpose of eoo, within a series of (future) outcomes.
        krastanov 7y ago
        You disregarded most of my comment: The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards. Affirmative action, when done properly, is about ensuring you have diverse candidates for the job, the rest comes naturally without lowering the standards.
- penguintester 7y ago
  It should be obvious, if you are a supporter of democracy, that the right to free speech, expression and the right to not be dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and sent off to the Siberian gulags should be indispensable in any developed society today. All of these values form the foundational core from which a healthy society can thrive and grow and love (according to his definition of it in the article). Yet all of these qualities are sorely void in the Russian state today. In their place is a corrupt apparatus put in place by Putin and his underlings, with the intent of efficiently plundering and exploiting the country's assets for their own personal gain. Any resistance to this on going robbery are put down by a brutal, organized network of thugs with the full backing of "the state". This klepocratic system have the Russian people locked into a vice grip while their futures and their childrens futures are slowly bled out of them like blood from a giant leech. The young man decided to take a stand against this system, to speak out against their blatant corruption, fully accepting that he might lose some of the brightest years of his life locked up in a Russian jail cell. And what's even more impressive to me is that his resistance may very well be for naught, besides adding a name to a long list of dissidents that have been imprisoned/murdered for daring to speak out against the regime. Even being fully aware of these facts, he has chosen to stand for something that he believe is worth fighting for, consequence be damned. This act had taken more courage than anything that I've ever done in my entire life, combined. And yet your take away from this article is he's a Jordan Peterson fan. Fucking LMAO.

nopriorarrests 7y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILuxlimdWoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILuxlimdWoc this is a part of his interview called "there is no such thing as patriarchy". He says following things: -- Jordan Peterson is essentially correct in most of things he says. -- Current left wing is all about collective identity (such as "straight white man"), and there is no such thing as "collective identity". -- This is absolutely unacceptable for me, and I do not believe in patriarchy at all. Basically, he is your run of the mill right-winger with libertarian bent, nothing special about him, but his anti-feminist stance is pretty clear. I think that he and Ben Shapiro will find common ground in a minute.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Supermancho 7y ago
I'm not sure how you get "right winger" out of someone who doesn't believe in identity politics. I'm basically a socialist christian who voted for Trump (but will go Bernie next time), but I'm not into equality of outcome between social segments. Am I supposed to be right wing because I don't subscribe to liberal attempts at equality of outcome (between socially delineated groups)?
- krastanov 7y ago
  I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas. I have seen liberals push for detailed understanding of what leads to different outcomes and for "equality of opportunity". And I have seen only far right people bring up the notion of "equality of outcome", usually as a strawman as above. And yes, being against the government helping with upward social mobility (the only way I can rephrase what you described, but I sincerely hope you will correct me if I misunderstood) is certainly part of modern American right wing politics.
  - Supermancho 7y ago
    > I have never seen a mainstream liberal to push "equality of outcome" ideas These are in the wording of initiatives across multiple US states with broad enough support to pass (eg California Senate Bill 826). The mainstream term is affirmative action; a proportional equality of outcome. If you havent seen mainstream liberal eoo, I can only assume that it is due to willful ignorance.
    - krastanov 7y ago
      Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome" - that would be a silly and unsustainable model. Most of the efforts in that direction are about "ensure there are women and PoC at the interview" and "blind the interview", not about hiring people based on gender or race without consideration of their abilities. To your particular example, see section 1.c and 1.g for research on the usefulness of their mandate. I personally feel that more research is necessary to understand these effects, I can even agree with someone saying that these efforts are a silly and unpractical bandaid. But instituting a rigid rule against measurable biases is not "equality of outcome", it is very much "equality of opportunity" (nobody would hire an incompetent woman as a board member if that is what worries you)
      - Supermancho 7y ago
        > Modern "affirmative action" is not about "equality of outcome Yes it is. Creating orthogonal standards to meet, in order to axjieve a quota is for the purpose of eoo, within a series of (future) outcomes.
        krastanov 7y ago
        You disregarded most of my comment: The whole point is that you can have affirmative action without different standards. Affirmative action, when done properly, is about ensuring you have diverse candidates for the job, the rest comes naturally without lowering the standards.
penguintester 7y ago
It should be obvious, if you are a supporter of democracy, that the right to free speech, expression and the right to not be dragged out of your house in the middle of the night and sent off to the Siberian gulags should be indispensable in any developed society today. All of these values form the foundational core from which a healthy society can thrive and grow and love (according to his definition of it in the article). Yet all of these qualities are sorely void in the Russian state today. In their place is a corrupt apparatus put in place by Putin and his underlings, with the intent of efficiently plundering and exploiting the country's assets for their own personal gain. Any resistance to this on going robbery are put down by a brutal, organized network of thugs with the full backing of "the state". This klepocratic system have the Russian people locked into a vice grip while their futures and their childrens futures are slowly bled out of them like blood from a giant leech. The young man decided to take a stand against this system, to speak out against their blatant corruption, fully accepting that he might lose some of the brightest years of his life locked up in a Russian jail cell. And what's even more impressive to me is that his resistance may very well be for naught, besides adding a name to a long list of dissidents that have been imprisoned/murdered for daring to speak out against the regime. Even being fully aware of these facts, he has chosen to stand for something that he believe is worth fighting for, consequence be damned. This act had taken more courage than anything that I've ever done in my entire life, combined. And yet your take away from this article is he's a Jordan Peterson fan. Fucking LMAO.