Rare are the times that I have wished for a downvote button on tildes, but this piece has occasioned another of those few. Much of it is the tiresomely familiar evopsych claptrap, which...
Rare are the times that I have wished for a downvote button on tildes, but this piece has occasioned another of those few.
Much of it is the tiresomely familiar evopsych claptrap, which retroactively defines current societal gender roles as intrinsic manifestations of sexual reproduction. Many of these passages would be comfortably at home if inserted into the average Jordan Peterson screed.
And, in similarly Petersonian fashion, it is rife with a set of largely unrelated worrisome tangents, cloaked under a layer of positive suggestions that are uncontroversial to the point of being banal. Yes, approximately everyone agrees that banning pornography and criminalizing prostitutes are bad ideas, therefore[sic] white men are the real victims here. This is then tied--somehow--into an opposition to banning hate speech.
Its central logic is irreparably flawed, and the goal it serves with that logic appears to be smuggling in a political agenda that is (rightly) too unpalatable to be presented directly.
I don't think you can dismiss biology out of hand like your are. Yes, I'll agree the piece close to some unpleasant subjects, but I it still holds merit.
Much of it is the tiresomely familiar evopsych claptrap, which retroactively defines current societal gender roles as intrinsic manifestations of sexual reproduction.
I don't think you can dismiss biology out of hand like your are. Yes, I'll agree the piece close to some unpleasant subjects, but I it still holds merit.
Rare are the times that I have wished for a downvote button on tildes, but this piece has occasioned another of those few.
Much of it is the tiresomely familiar evopsych claptrap, which retroactively defines current societal gender roles as intrinsic manifestations of sexual reproduction. Many of these passages would be comfortably at home if inserted into the average Jordan Peterson screed.
And, in similarly Petersonian fashion, it is rife with a set of largely unrelated worrisome tangents, cloaked under a layer of positive suggestions that are uncontroversial to the point of being banal. Yes, approximately everyone agrees that banning pornography and criminalizing prostitutes are bad ideas, therefore[sic] white men are the real victims here. This is then tied--somehow--into an opposition to banning hate speech.
Its central logic is irreparably flawed, and the goal it serves with that logic appears to be smuggling in a political agenda that is (rightly) too unpalatable to be presented directly.
I don't think you can dismiss biology out of hand like your are. Yes, I'll agree the piece close to some unpleasant subjects, but I it still holds merit.
I'm going to remove this. @Elishah explained enough about why (thank you).
I think you overstepped here, but it's your website