Just for fun: Jordan Peterson having a very reasonable calm thoughtful moment.
This dude is still *seething* about seeing one woman on a magazine cover, who looked a little different to what he's used to. He simply cannot get over it.
Imagine the privilege it takes to have a weeks-long tantrum over something like that. pic.twitter.com/swSUdwP0uz
I think he’s just doubling (quadrupling?) down because there is no possible world where his subjective opinion is more valid than anyone else’s, and he knows it. Way to reinforce those stereotypes, professor. Also, why is the model who doesn’t fit the stereotype the only one being exploited? Got news for ya Jordan — they all are.
What makes him think the “swimsuit models” are not being exploited. Of course his male gaze defines the objective standard of what is “beautiful,” so catering to that can’t possibly be exploitation, can it?
Also, how he characterizes S.I. challenging the standard (which I prefer to call stereotype) as a “moral stunt.” I think he’s confusing aesthetics with morality. I see this in religious arguments, ascribing morality to things that can stand on their own without it. I have seen a few talks with him, and part of his rhetorical approach is saying “it goes deeper than that…” in a way that makes him look like he has special insight. In this case no, it’s only about appearances. Exploitation surely brings up a question of morality, but he only uses it here to shake his fist at his detractors from his morally superior (in his view) position, while missing the bigger moral question completely. It goes deeper than that, professor.
Also, how he characterizes S.I. challenging the standard (which I prefer to call stereotype) as a “moral stunt.” I think he’s confusing aesthetics with morality
To be fair, I think his unstated premises here is that SI did this in response to the fat movement (aka fat acceptance movement.) Fat is an identity now, with its own theoretical studies and its own journal. (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current)
Not to imply that SI journalists read the journal, but simply that it’s “in” now (do the kids still say that?) to be “accepting”, so (he’s thinking) they were pandering to the new moralists.
I think he’s just doubling (quadrupling?) down because there is no possible world where his subjective opinion is more valid than anyone else’s, and he knows it. Way to reinforce those stereotypes, professor. Also, why is the model who doesn’t fit the stereotype the only one being exploited? Got news for ya Jordan — they all are.
That struck me, too, twilighter.
What makes him think the “swimsuit models” are not being exploited. Of course his male gaze defines the objective standard of what is “beautiful,” so catering to that can’t possibly be exploitation, can it?
Twit.
Oooh got his knickers in a right twist, hasn’t he? How interesting that this is the thing that snaps him out his patronising detached reasonableness.
Also, how he characterizes S.I. challenging the standard (which I prefer to call stereotype) as a “moral stunt.” I think he’s confusing aesthetics with morality. I see this in religious arguments, ascribing morality to things that can stand on their own without it. I have seen a few talks with him, and part of his rhetorical approach is saying “it goes deeper than that…” in a way that makes him look like he has special insight. In this case no, it’s only about appearances. Exploitation surely brings up a question of morality, but he only uses it here to shake his fist at his detractors from his morally superior (in his view) position, while missing the bigger moral question completely. It goes deeper than that, professor.
twiliter @4
To be fair, I think his unstated premises here is that SI did this in response to the fat movement (aka fat acceptance movement.) Fat is an identity now, with its own theoretical studies and its own journal. (https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/ufts20/current)
Not to imply that SI journalists read the journal, but simply that it’s “in” now (do the kids still say that?) to be “accepting”, so (he’s thinking) they were pandering to the new moralists.