(August 13, 2018 at 2:24 am)paulpablo Wrote:(August 13, 2018 at 2:05 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Accept the fact that he saying complacent in their own harassment by what they are wearing
Well that's a different claim to what you said.
In relation to this different claim the only time I heard him mention complicitness is when he says something and doesn't finish his sentence.
He says "I think the issue of complicitness......"
He goes onto say that make up and high heels are a sexual display but that he's not saying that means whatever happens to women after that is ok.
The thing is that in order to understand him, you have to listen a pretty long time. The PC people get triggered by a few sentences, and this makes it very difficult for them to really absorb the full message.
The full message is that much of our problem with sexuality is rooted in our evolution, that clothing and fashion behaviors are closely linked to sexuality, and that it's actually quite difficult to moderate sexual behavior without completely shutting it down in the style of Maoist communism.
He also gave specific examples of corporate attempts to define harassment, things like no eye contact more than five seconds, which as a psychologist he finds laughable.
The problem from the left PC is that as soon as you don't just say "Of course everything's fine, and X should always be blamed completely for behaviors toward Y," you shut down dialogue and prevent getting ACTUAL solutions to problems rather than just knee-jerk ones.
