|
|
Post by rememberhalifax on Jul 17, 2023 19:13:15 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 That's the spirit! you will be ridiculed by some for your positivity but hang on in there, up the Rovers! |
|
|
|
Post by Tilly's Thighs on Jul 17, 2023 19:19:23 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 I'll second that!  |
|
|
|
Post by gulfofaden on Jul 17, 2023 20:47:11 GMT
I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience. Finally a well thought out and reasoned post on this. I totally agree with almost everything you've written. I don't agree with everything Peterson says but he definitely is interesting. I recently listened to a podcast about Pedos called Hunting Warhead. It was super interesting but that doesn't make me a pervert. It goes without saying I don't like Barton at all but we don't know if Barton found Tate interesting because he agrees with him or if it gave him a "lightbulb" moment where he went "ah, so that's why so many blokes are into this". Would help if there was more context to Bartons remark, but without it its unfair to either defend or condem him. Was probably a bit stupid of him to have mentioned it though. More unnecessary noise. There’s a first Hugo. Thanks 👍 And agreed, you mention Tate and it’s always going to attract attention. I listened to him without prejudice until he revealed he had a romance scam operation. You know, the “fake ticket to US and oh I have to pay medical bills” type scam. This is a dishonourable things to do and among other things, like polygamy etc, I can’t really join this cult. I think he’s too far gone even for me, given I’m about as woke as Enoch Powell and Thatcher’s love child, that’s saying something! |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Jul 17, 2023 22:39:05 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 I think this has been a very interesting discussion and is food for thought. Unlike the nuclear sausage rolls coming our way soon. |
|
|
|
Post by rememberhalifax on Jul 18, 2023 7:00:38 GMT
Oh I just can’t wait for the season to begin , bring on the ⚽️!!!!!!! 🤗🤗🤗 Utg 💙 I think this has been a very interesting discussion and is food for thought. Unlike the nuclear sausage rolls coming our way soon. Like your post as it highlights how the debate has moved on from JB'S tweet on the subject to a more general debate on the merits or otherwise of the subject matter( i don't know enough about same to comment) while at the same time injecting a bit of clever humour! |
|
|
|
Post by phillistine on Jul 18, 2023 7:13:31 GMT
Isnt it rather ironic that people who come to have a go at JB about a tweet then spend the next week discussing the very subjects that he drew their attention to? How is it that you guys can discuss these things in depth and yet our manager cannot tweet a single line without getting criticised? I would have thought that was blindingly obvious. Firstly, people aren't posting a single line. So they are adding more information about what they do/don't agree with. The fact it was a single line was the most problematic element. Secondly, this forum has far less reach and none of the people posting on it are the figurehead for our football club. You simply MUST be able I see the difference? I see that one is not trying to impose personal views but is stating simply that he found an interview interesting and that it gave him food for thought. He didn’t adopt a patronising attitude by using capitals in his posting . He didn’t personalise it with his own judgements - thus making the interview the purpose of the discussion rather than his opinion of it - unlike the people who condemned him on this discussion . The perception that he damages the reputation of our club is imagined as he attracted his notoriety or fame as an individual and not as manager of Bristol Rovers and I suspect that 99.9% of the people who follow him do not associate his views with that of his employer . The only way that that would change would be if said employer started to involve themselves in the narrative by commenting on what he said or attempting to censor him in some way. He is what he is and no amount of back- biting on a football forum is going to change that . |
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 19, 2023 15:37:38 GMT
Post by gasify on Jul 19, 2023 15:37:38 GMT
I don’t care for Andrew Tate at all, I do like Dr Peterson. Andrew Tate is a very low resolution version of masculinity which mostly is to promote his course and products to young men who can’t get girlfriends. It’s important to think of why Tate exists and why he’s been succesful. You’ve got a generation of young men raised by mothers, without good male role models and that’s what he’s playing in to. This is a backlash essentially to progressive ideas which label a man’s masculinity as toxic, and Tate really has defined a real definition of what toxic means. It’s very much “If you want toxic, here you go” Whenever societies have lost young men without purpose, and without fathers, they are always ripe for an extreme movement to sweep them up and that’s kind of what’s happening with Tate. We need to think hard about how we are shaping the lives and minds of young men. Very easy to dismiss this with a waving hand of misogyny, and it IS misogyny, make no doubt, but that doesn’t solve the problem. Much of what Tate espouses can be seen as positive in terms of being disciplined, being critical and honest but the goals are the issue. Tate’s objectives are the manifestation of narcissism. Jordan Peterson’s view is that responsibility and meaning are the goals to which one would aim, and that’s something much healthier and beneficial to all. The underpinning idea is the same as was depicted in the 90s in Fight Club - a sterile, consumerist lifestyle is terrible for young men, who need discipline and purpose to stop them losing their marbles and going awry. Peterson solves this by showing a route to self reliance and responsibility whereas Tate addresses the issue by showing the route to fulfilment of grandiose narcisstic fantasy. There is a big difference between the two but they are playing to the same problem and the same audience. Finally a well thought out and reasoned post on this. I totally agree with almost everything you've written. I don't agree with everything Peterson says but he definitely is interesting. I recently listened to a podcast about Pedos called Hunting Warhead. It was super interesting but that doesn't make me a pervert. It goes without saying I don't like Barton at all but we don't know if Barton found Tate interesting because he agrees with him or if it gave him a "lightbulb" moment where he went "ah, so that's why so many blokes are into this". Would help if there was more context to Bartons remark, but without it its unfair to either defend or condem him. Was probably a bit stupid of him to have mentioned it though. More unnecessary noise. Please don't get your perverts mixed up with your nonces. The following is a list of things that some would say perverts do (obviously with consent - not an exhaustive list): Use sex toys Promiscuity Anal Sex Coz play Enjoyed Lingerie However, none of those are illegal |
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Jul 19, 2023 16:00:51 GMT
I watched the interview and thats 2.5 hours of my life I won't get back. Summary is: "I am being charged with the offence of Human trafficking and that the detail is that I used the 'loverboy' technique" www.government.nl/topics/human-trafficking/romeo-pimps-loverboysThere isn't really any way that I could fact check this. "I won't ever kill myself" He just kept saying it over and over, just to keep the conspiracy theorists happy. "Interesting" Both say "Interesting" a huge amount of times. Surely, they use the term to insinuate nefarious behaviour by "The Matrix" (Deep state) He is an anti vaxer and he went to Sweden during the pandemic. He thinks that Men should be Men and that the government is giving messages to women (who accept an emotional argument more) to suppress a Man's behaviour away from being a 'proper' Man. He says that any man who doesn't get all the sex that they want has no one else to blame than themselves. Its due to their body and attitude. For me, I am struggling to understand that Women are more likely to respond to an emotional argurment whilst he is making an emotional argument, trying to appeal to men. He makes references to anyone thinking like himself as being more intelligent and independant thinkers. Bullshit detector went off quite a bit at that point. There is no evidence in anything he seems to be saying in the interview. One thing that has a little truth is the Sweden thing. They didn't have lockdowns but studies since are reporting that they let their elderly down and lots of elderly died prematurely. So, gave him a chance. Turns out I don't agree with anything that he says. Looks to me (As I said in a previous post) he has paid Tucker Carlson to do the interview. There is no independence in it, Tucker is agreeing with most of the things he says. Very similar to the Putin propaganda we see when he is bare chested riding horses and wrestling with bears. |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Jul 19, 2023 17:14:33 GMT
I find the whole 'Toxic Masculinity' and 'Misogyny' stuff thrown about and labelled towards people like Tate, tiresome.
The same people who call out Tate, also call out people like JK Rowling or Sharon Davies for their views on certain Transgender issue's.
I would class certain Transgender issues like biological Males entering Female sporting events as a far worse form of 'Toxic Masculinity' than anything Andrew Tate says, for example.
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 19, 2023 17:41:55 GMT
Post by Topper Gas on Jul 19, 2023 17:41:55 GMT
I find the whole 'Toxic Masculinity' and 'Misogyny' stuff thrown about and labelled towards people like Tate, tiresome. The same people who call out Tate, also call out people like JK Rowling or Sharon Davies for their views on certain Transgender issue's. I would class certain Transgender issues like biological Males entering Female sporting events as a far worse form of 'Toxic Masculinity' than anything Andrew Tate says, for example. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Who doesn't call out the utter nonsense he comes out with? Assuming the following quotes are genuine then surely you don't feel it's in order for somebody to say what it does with a straight face? dotesports.com/streaming/news/40-most-controversial-andrew-tate-quotes |
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Jul 20, 2023 4:44:19 GMT
I find the whole 'Toxic Masculinity' and 'Misogyny' stuff thrown about and labelled towards people like Tate, tiresome. The same people who call out Tate, also call out people like JK Rowling or Sharon Davies for their views on certain Transgender issue's. I would class certain Transgender issues like biological Males entering Female sporting events as a far worse form of 'Toxic Masculinity' than anything Andrew Tate says, for example. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Who doesn't call out the utter nonsense he comes out with? Assuming the following quotes are genuine then surely you don't feel it's in order for somebody to say what it does with a straight face? dotesports.com/streaming/news/40-most-controversial-andrew-tate-quotesThat's absolutely fine. Ive got no problem whatsoever if you think what he comes out with is utter nonsense. My point being is people like Tate are vilified rightly or wrongly for being posterboys of Toxic Masculinity and they somehow represent a threat by championing such a dangerous ideology. So much so that Joey Barton can't even mention that he finds an interview with him interesting,without any backlash. While on the other hand, biological Males are able to enter Female events, whether they're sporting events, beauty pageants, or whatever it is to the detriment of women. Not only in the sporting events where they've been getting absolutely trounced by biological men, or the beauty pageants where a big bloke called Brian has just put a bit of lippy and a dress on and wins it, but it's also the women like JK Rowling and Sharron Davies who it's had a detrimental effect too. Whether it's loss of work, loss of earnings or just being completely vilified. Funnily enough mostly abuse from biological men. Transgender issues like these are far more severe cases of 'Toxic Masculinity' than quotes from Andrew Tate. Yet Andrew Tate is labelled the 'King of Toxic Masculinity' and a 'Dangerous Misogynist. Just doesn't make any sense. |
|
|
|
Post by puregas on Jul 20, 2023 6:34:45 GMT
It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue though is it? You can disagree with biological men taking part in women’s events AND think that Tate is a truly disgusting piece of sh**.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gastafari on Jul 20, 2023 7:51:47 GMT
It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue though is it? You can disagree with biological men taking part in women’s events AND think that Tate is a truly disgusting piece of sh**. Of course. However if Joey Barton had said he found a biological man winning a Miss World competition or a Female Swimming race, 'interesting' or 'food for thought' would he be getting such a backlash? I very much doubt it. |
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 20, 2023 9:00:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 20, 2023 9:00:59 GMT
What is “toxic masculinity” exactly?
I mean I have it down as you’re being a dick, whether that’s in your behaviour or views, which is nothing new, and hasn’t been cured and given the passage of time, can’t be cured.
Does it mean that “toxic femininity” exists too?
I mean in the days of gender neutralisation, or the attempt of it at least, it must affect both male and females..?
|
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 20, 2023 9:37:00 GMT
Post by percy on Jul 20, 2023 9:37:00 GMT
What is “toxic masculinity” exactly? I mean I have it down as you’re being a dick, whether that’s in your behaviour or views, which is nothing new, and hasn’t been cured and given the passage of time, can’t be cured. Does it mean that “toxic femininity” exists too? I mean in the days of gender neutralisation, or the attempt of it at least, it must affect both male and females..? I'm sure you think this is a clever point? Like "where is straight pride", "what about white lives matter" etc etc. If you cant see the difference then maybe a little reading required Time this trash can of a thread was locked or moved to general chat i think |
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 20, 2023 10:18:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2023 10:18:48 GMT
It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue though is it? You can disagree with biological men taking part in women’s events AND think that Tate is a truly disgusting piece of sh**. Of course. However if Joey Barton had said he found a biological man winning a Miss World competition or a Female Swimming race, 'interesting' or 'food for thought' would he be getting such a backlash? I very much doubt it. Perhaps But most of us would p*ss ourselves laughing at another stupid comment |
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 20, 2023 10:20:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2023 10:20:27 GMT
What is “toxic masculinity” exactly? I mean I have it down as you’re being a dick, whether that’s in your behaviour or views, which is nothing new, and hasn’t been cured and given the passage of time, can’t be cured. Does it mean that “toxic femininity” exists too? I mean in the days of gender neutralisation, or the attempt of it at least, it must affect both male and females..? Perhaps male group thought and behaviour that leads to the exclusion of others? |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 20, 2023 11:53:37 GMT
What is “toxic masculinity” exactly? I mean I have it down as you’re being a dick, whether that’s in your behaviour or views, which is nothing new, and hasn’t been cured and given the passage of time, can’t be cured. Does it mean that “toxic femininity” exists too? I mean in the days of gender neutralisation, or the attempt of it at least, it must affect both male and females..? I'm sure you think this is a clever point? Like "where is straight pride", "what about white lives matter" etc etc. If you cant see the difference then maybe a little reading required Time this trash can of a thread was locked or moved to general chat i think I really don’t. The phrase toxic masculinity is banded around, but it seems without definition or cause. I’ve seen it asked by Matt Walsh and Jordan Peterson to many people, male and female and people either struggled to answer the question or couldn’t answer it at all. Is being masculine in all its forms toxic? Males are masculine by nature in the large part. Is Andrew Tate the definition of toxic masculinity? Or is he, as we have outlined, just a bit of an arrogant twat unable to deviate from his own views on how life as a decent human should be lived? |
|
|
|
Barton
Jul 20, 2023 12:41:37 GMT
via mobile
percy likes this
Post by oldie on Jul 20, 2023 12:41:37 GMT
I'm sure you think this is a clever point? Like "where is straight pride", "what about white lives matter" etc etc. If you cant see the difference then maybe a little reading required Time this trash can of a thread was locked or moved to general chat i think I really don’t. The phrase toxic masculinity is banded around, but it seems without definition or cause. I’ve seen it asked by Matt Walsh and Jordan Peterson to many people, male and female and people either struggled to answer the question or couldn’t answer it at all. Is being masculine in all its forms toxic? Males are masculine by nature in the large part. Is Andrew Tate the definition of toxic masculinity? Or is he, as we have outlined, just a bit of an arrogant twat unable to deviate from his own views on how life as a decent human should be lived? Try this "A study in the Journal of School of Psychology uses the following definition to explain toxic masculinity: “the constellation of socially regressive [masculine] traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence.” In modern society, people often use the term toxic masculinity to describe exaggerated masculine traits that many cultures have widely accepted or glorified. This harmful concept of masculinity also places significant importance on ‘manliness’ based on: strength lack of emotion self-sufficiency dominance sexual virility According to traditional toxic masculine values, a male who does not display enough of these traits may fall short of being a ‘real man" |
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jul 20, 2023 13:57:28 GMT
Hmm, "exaggerated masculine traits"..so it means being a bit of a dick then.
For example, I always have been and always will be completely self sufficient in every way. Its part of my make up but also driven to be even more that way by a female that was once in my life who let me down badly. I also do lack emotion in certain areas, not all, but some.
I'm married, I'm a father, I love my family and I know that they benefit greatly from those traits as my wife is a bit of a worrier by nature so it evens the keel me being almost the polar opposite. When my son was severely poorly, being not the overly emotional type helped to keep a clear head with consultants and drs and understand the gravity of the situation and ask the right questions.
Being self sufficient has enabled me to be fairly decent in business, both employed and self employed.
Does this mean I portray toxic masculinity or is it just part of me which makes me an incredibly driven individual who is able to ascertain to use the correct amounts of each emotion to the correct degree? Or does being like me influence my views a certain way? Again who decides?
|
|
