Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.1 - It's not Transgender it's nonbinary.
2 - It's something with literally 0 scientific evidence supporting it but has been glomming itself onto Transgenderism (which has scientific evidence supporting it).
Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.1 - It's not Transgender it's nonbinary.
2 - It's something with literally 0 scientific evidence supporting it but has been glomming itself onto Transgenderism (which has scientific evidence supporting it).
I have not misrepresented the data of the study.Yes. You have. And you're still trying to overrule the study and the definitions provided by that study, its author, and the psychological journals with pop-sci editorials mischaracterizing it.
So you just ignore the studies in the article?Pop science editorials are really the best you've got? Next.
So everything on Dunning-Kruger post the study says it doesn't exist means basically nothing?So what you actually mean is that another study was done using computer-generated data instead of human self-evaluation, and it went.... partway (though not fully) towards a similar-ish graph.
This is "covfefe" levels of stroking out in the middle of a sentence.Thank Godnyiirndays are nimbered.
en.wikipedia.org
I still think you're not going to unseat Schrodinger's cat anytime soon.Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.
I believe that's called 'Arguing from a Superposition'.Hey, I may or may not exist! Good to know.
What on earth are you talking about?except this lot spent every waking minute seemingly angry and hyperfocussed on blaming 1 person for all their issues no mater how nonsensical and were being paid by others like them to keep doing it. At least Peterson and Trump had variety in who they insulted.
Are you pretending that there is a genetic reason for women to wear dresses? Does having a vagina mean you HAVE to shave your legs? Does the fact that you can produce eggs means you can only have long hair?1 - It's not Transgender it's nonbinary.
2 - It's something with literally 0 scientific evidence supporting it but has been glomming itself onto Transgenderism (which has scientific evidence supporting it).
Yes, you have. This is not a negotiable point nor a matter of opinion. You are objectively wrong and doing nothing more than throwing a childish temper tantrum over it.I have not misrepresented the data of the study.
I really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.So you know when a certain side are trying to claim they're not planting certain ideas or trying to "groom" kids to adopt certain ideas?
You have a habit of citing studies that prove you wrong.So you just ignore the studies in the article?
Yes, it's very rhetorical. There's "teaching", but if someone doesn't like what people are being taught, it gets called "indoctrination" or even "brainwashing". If they want to add in additional implications of sexual abuse, then they call it "grooming". And thus the particularly malevolent use with respect to transgenderism or homosexuality, because it taps into the grotesque prejudice that they promote sexual abuse, especially of minors.I really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.
Except generally they don't make arguments or try to argue points they go for pure ad hominem constantly.What on earth are you talking about?
How is blaming 10 people for all your problem better than blaming one? Like Trump blames whole country for his problem. He can't take responsibility for anything because he always blamed others for everything. Peterson blames anyone who disagrees with him and THEN calls them woke.
As stated, we are talking about people who respond to Peterson.... when Peterson goes around and insults people FIRST. These are random attacks, they are treating Peterson they exact way Peterson treats others
They are also responding to specific people so you might think they are 'hyperfoccused' but they are doing a huge variety of things. For example, one of the respondents is Robert Evans, who writes and produces history podcasts about dictators etc. He has targeted Reagan (for Contra), Mao, Stalin, a Warlord in China before the nationalist government took over 100 years ago, Papa Doc, Nxvium, Scientology, the doc who mutilated people as they were giving birth. They aren't 'hyperfocussed'. They are doing a variety of things, one of which is targetting Peterson AFTER Peterson targets minorities. Just because you only see them when they target Peterson, does not mean they aren't doing things with their lives elsewhere
On dresses, no, nor on the other stuff. HOWEVER.Are you pretending that there is a genetic reason for women to wear dresses? Does having a vagina mean you HAVE to shave your legs? Does the fact that you can produce eggs means you can only have long hair?
Because these has far less evidence then Non-Binary existing.
No, I don't. I know of a certain side that wants to teach children that being gay, trans, and non-binary is a thing some people are and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just like that "incriminating" clip said. It's that other certain side that equates this to "planting ideas", sexual deviancy, and grooming.So you know when a certain side are trying to claim they're not planting certain ideas or trying to "groom" kids to adopt certain ideas?
Time for an answerI really don't get this use of the word grooming. Looks completely empty and purely rhetorical.
As I understand grooming, it's what happens in Molière's School For Wives. A man uses his seniority to educate a very young girl in order to make her his very obedient wife later.
Societies always educate children in order to make them compatible citizens. They are being taught values, by the parents (is it grooming), by schools (is it grooming), by the medias (is it grooming) and by their peers. Churches, fairy tales, fictions, parents, teachers, all teach them to, say, be polite, be helpful, and (let's be generous ourselves I know it's far from always the case) be generous, don't be racist, don't pull the other kids' hairs, don't kick dogs, don't litter, don't judge people on appearances, don't follow strangers, don't be an absolute twat. All the stories have meanies (look how mean they are) and nice people (look how nice). Models, counter-models. Is it grooming ?
Now, don't be homophobic, don't be transphobic, are being added to don't be racist. It switches from "education" to "grooming" because of that ?
If anything, conservatives were even more on education than progressives ("wife, fetch me my respect-inducing belt"). So it's just the old "theirs is propaganda, ours is education" with a new fashionable word ? A moral panic using new moral panicky words in order to denounce the fact that children are taught to be polite and accepting in front of sexual minority just as well as in front of ethnic minorities ?
Does it even feel self-serious to use that word ?
Yes, it's very rhetorical. There's "teaching", but if someone doesn't like what people are being taught, it gets called "indoctrination" or even "brainwashing". If they want to add in additional implications of sexual abuse, then they call it "grooming". And thus the particularly malevolent use with respect to transgenderism or homosexuality, because it taps into the grotesque prejudice that they promote sexual abuse, especially of minors.
Yes. Conservatives believe that Sesame Street planted ideas in kids heads. Ideas like being gay is okay, being a boy who shows emotions is okay, being black is okay, being a woman who likes science is okay, having two moms or two dads is okay, being a Jew is okay. Things conservatives openly believe are not okay.No, I don't. I know of a certain side that wants to teach children that being gay, trans, and non-binary is a thing some people are and that there's nothing wrong with that. Just like that "incriminating" clip said. It's that other certain side that equates this to "planting ideas", sexual deviancy, and grooming.
Was Sesame Street also "planting ideas" when teaching kids about math and literacy?
Yeah, but a gay guy once did a sexual assault, and a drag queen also did a bad thing once, so see, conservatives are actually right in thinking kids are being indoctrinated.Yes. Conservatives believe that Sesame Street planted ideas in kids heads. Ideas like being gay is okay, being a boy who shows emotions is okay, being black is okay, being a woman who likes science is okay, having two moms or two dads is okay, being a Jew is okay. Things conservatives openly believe are not okay.
Sesame Street, Mr. Rodgers, Barney, Blue's Clues, Dora the Explorer, Teletubbies. All these seemingly harmless shows about getting kids to laugh, learn basic math and reading skills, and begin to understand multiculturalism are all Marxist George Soros funded 5G brain-wave indoctrination camps where boys learn to hate dicks unless its in their mouths, and girls learn reading and to be themselves!
But every fucking time some-one bring up how you know something may be an issue and maybe a bit more caution like I don't know actually checking the people being hired to read to kids aren't convicted sex offenders then people yell that said people are homophobic because apparently being a drag queen can't possibly mean they are potentially criminals too like any normal person. No all drag queens absolute perfect people who couldn't possibly ever be criminals so no need to check like you would do for any normal person for almost anything else.Yeah, but a gay guy once did a sexual assault, and a drag queen also did a bad thing once, so see, conservatives are actually right in thinking kids are being indoctrinated.
Also, we should probably stop women from being in childrens media too, because young impressionable boys might see them and want to copy them, put on their mom's dress, and then their brains will overload due to sexual confusion. And next thing you know they're turning tricks for crack on the street.
Translation: "Certain kinds of people being portrayed in a kids show is grooming. But only kinds of people we don't like".So you know when a certain side are trying to claim they're not planting certain ideas or trying to "groom" kids to adopt certain ideas?
Yeh bad look when it's apparently suddenly in pre-school shows