Video of Camille Paglia and Jordan Peterson

[LittleLebowski]

I can't sum it up yet, still listening. I'm a huge of fan of both of them so this ought to be good. Here's the Youtube description:


In this wide-ranging discussion, we cover (among other topics) the pernicious influence of the French intellectuals of the 1970's on the American academy, the symbolic utility of religious tradition, the tendency toward intellectual conformity and linguistic camouflage among university careerists, the under-utilization of Carl Jung and his student, Erich Neumann, in literary criticism and the study of the humanities, and the demolition of the traditional roles and identity of men and women in the West.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM

[JAD]

That's interesting. I find Paglia to be one of the most disgusting pieces of filth to wear skin; I like and respect JP. Should I watch the video?

[LittleLebowski]

That's interesting. I find Paglia to be one of the most disgusting pieces of filth to wear skin; I like and respect JP. Should I watch the video?

Depends on how much time you have. I don't have the same impression of her as you do and the video is mainly about Marxism/false liberals teaching in colleges along with a healthy smattering of exposing the higher education fees scam.

[JAD]

Depends on how much time you have. I don't have the same impression of her as you do and the video is mainly about Marxism/false liberals teaching in colleges along with a healthy smattering of exposing the higher education fees scam.

Are you aware that she has repeatedly advocated for pedophilia? That's my main hangup.

[TheNewbie]

That's interesting. I find Paglia to be one of the most disgusting pieces of filth to wear skin; I like and respect JP. Should I watch the video?

I’m like LL. From what I’ve seen, I like her. She and I probably differ on some things, but I haven’t seen anything that makes her filth.


Can you elaborate? You’re not one for over the top responses, so I’m genuinely wondering what I don’t know that I might need to know.?

[JAD]

I’m like LL. From what I’ve seen, I like her. She and I probably differ on some things, but I haven’t seen anything that makes her filth.


Can you elaborate? You’re not one for over the top responses, so I’m genuinely wondering what I don’t know that I might need to know.?

These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.


~ Camille Paglia, activist and author in Sexual Personae (New York,Vintage Books1991).

On September 19, 1991, Paglia published an essay entitled 'Crisis In The American Universities', in which she defended herself from accusations of being a neoconservative by listing the degeneracy that she adamantly supports, including "kiddie porn": "I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs. This is neoconservative?"

n the October 1991 issue of Esquire magazine, Paglia stated that she sees pedophilia to be "perfectly natural": "Worldwide, in Greece and Rome as in the Near East, China, and Japan, pretty boys have usually been considered by men to be as sexually desirable as women. This seems to me perfectly natural. Judeo-Christianity is unusual in finding the practice of boy-love abhorrent." This essay of hers was later republished in her 1992 book 'Sex, Art, and American Culture'

A reader had written Paglia a letter, asking her what she thought of Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, to which Paglia replied: "As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love. In 'Sexual Personae,' I argued that male pedophilia is intricately intertwined with the cardinal moments of Western civilization." She argued that Ginsberg was "the apostle of a truly visionary sexuality," explaining that from a pagan perspective "Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless, demonstrating the limitations of Judeo-Christian paradigms of sexuality."

[TheNewbie]

These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.


~ Camille Paglia, activist and author in Sexual Personae (New York,Vintage Books1991).

On September 19, 1991, Paglia published an essay entitled 'Crisis In The American Universities', in which she defended herself from accusations of being a neoconservative by listing the degeneracy that she adamantly supports, including "kiddie porn": "I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs. This is neoconservative?"

n the October 1991 issue of Esquire magazine, Paglia stated that she sees pedophilia to be "perfectly natural": "Worldwide, in Greece and Rome as in the Near East, China, and Japan, pretty boys have usually been considered by men to be as sexually desirable as women. This seems to me perfectly natural. Judeo-Christianity is unusual in finding the practice of boy-love abhorrent." This essay of hers was later republished in her 1992 book 'Sex, Art, and American Culture'

A reader had written Paglia a letter, asking her what she thought of Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, to which Paglia replied: "As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love. In 'Sexual Personae,' I argued that male pedophilia is intricately intertwined with the cardinal moments of Western civilization." She argued that Ginsberg was "the apostle of a truly visionary sexuality," explaining that from a pagan perspective "Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless, demonstrating the limitations of Judeo-Christian paradigms of sexuality."






Woah. Thank you for pointing this out. It is disturbing, disappointing and vile. Just wow.

[LittleLebowski]

Are you aware that she has repeatedly advocated for pedophilia? That's my main hangup.

I've only heard of it and that's pretty damn disappointing.

[GardoneVT]

These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal....

Maybe she states her personal advocacy for child abuse more directly elsewhere , but that text to me is just a verbose statement of record. The practice (repulsive as it is) was factually common in previous societies , and still is in some subgroups (see Catholic Church).

That is not advocacy, it is historical fact. Insofar as her “natural” comment, it’s appropriate to remember that murder ,violence & greed are natural instincts also. Perhaps I’m missing the context but those quotes are simply stating facts, and her personal belief Judeo-Christian sexual mores are wrong. That’s not the same thing as personally encouraging child abuse.

In any event, I’d trust her moral compass over those of Congress and the President.

[Wondering Beard]

These days, especially in America, boy-love is not only scandalous and criminal, but somehow in bad taste. On the evening news, one sees handcuffed teachers, priests and Boy Scout leaders hustled into police vans. Therapists call them maladjusted, emotionally immature. But beauty has its own laws, inconsistent with Christian morality. As a woman, I feel free to protest that men today are pilloried for something that was rational and honorable in Greece at the height of its civilization.


~ Camille Paglia, activist and author in Sexual Personae (New York,Vintage Books1991).

On September 19, 1991, Paglia published an essay entitled 'Crisis In The American Universities', in which she defended herself from accusations of being a neoconservative by listing the degeneracy that she adamantly supports, including "kiddie porn": "I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films. I'm pro-prostitution--I mean really pro, not just pro-prostitute and against prostitution. I'm pro-abortion, pro-homosexuality, pro-drag queens, pro-legalization of drugs. This is neoconservative?"

n the October 1991 issue of Esquire magazine, Paglia stated that she sees pedophilia to be "perfectly natural": "Worldwide, in Greece and Rome as in the Near East, China, and Japan, pretty boys have usually been considered by men to be as sexually desirable as women. This seems to me perfectly natural. Judeo-Christianity is unusual in finding the practice of boy-love abhorrent." This essay of hers was later republished in her 1992 book 'Sex, Art, and American Culture'

A reader had written Paglia a letter, asking her what she thought of Ginsberg's support for NAMBLA, to which Paglia replied: "As far as Ginsberg's pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love. In 'Sexual Personae,' I argued that male pedophilia is intricately intertwined with the cardinal moments of Western civilization." She argued that Ginsberg was "the apostle of a truly visionary sexuality," explaining that from a pagan perspective "Ginsberg's celebration of boy-love was pure and sinless, demonstrating the limitations of Judeo-Christian paradigms of sexuality."





You will still find the video interesting.

[JAD]

You will still find the video interesting.

Cool, I will give it some time.

[CWM11B]

Maybe she states her personal advocacy for child abuse more directly elsewhere , but that text to me is just a verbose statement of record. The practice (repulsive as it is) was factually common in previous societies , and still is in some subgroups (see Catholic Church).

That is not advocacy, it is historical fact. Insofar as her “natural” comment, it’s appropriate to remember that murder ,violence & greed are natural instincts also. Perhaps I’m missing the context but those quotes are simply stating facts, and her personal belief Judeo-Christian sexual mores are wrong. That’s not the same thing as personally encouraging child abuse.

In any event, I’d trust her moral compass over those of Congress and the President.

In the quoted material she states she adamantly endorsed kiddie porn and snuff flicks. Dont know how much more direct she could be. That is pure, concentrated evil in my book.

[CWM11B]

Double tap

[GardoneVT]

In the quoted material she states she adamantly endorsed kiddie porn and snuff flicks. Dont know how much more direct she could be. That is pure, concentrated evil in my book.

Perhaps a reading of the source article will explain matters. The quote is taken out of context.

http://gos.sbc.edu/p/paglia.html

The salient quote is ten paragraphs down, although it’s best to read the essay through that point for clarity. The context is around explaining why labeling her a neocon is ridiculous. I seriously doubt she’s endorsing sex trafficking of children.

I don’t personally side with Paglia, but cherry picking quotes to support an agenda is dishonest in my book.

[Totem Polar]

Goddamit, JAD, you just forced me to go down a research rabbit hole that I didn’t really have time for today (solo recital tonight). Looks like I have little choice but to change my signature later this evening upon my return. Too bad, since I like the quote. I just dug up enough to see where she’s coming from and, while I believe the quote to be taken out of context, it’s nowhere *near* far enough out of context for me to be comfortable supporting her, even for a separate, valuable quote. FML; live and learn.

[CWM11B]

When someone says this:

"I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films"

I take them at their word. I read the article. I'll read it again more thoroughly and see how there is a "context" in which being pro child pornography and murder can be explained away. I'm not seeing it. Dishonesty is not a trait I have. There is no context in which those statements quoted above is ever going to be remotely acceptable to me. Moral relativism is how atrocities are justified.
That said, I'll also give the video a listen when I have time. It's good to know how one who may be an enemy thinks.

[Casual Friday]

When someone says this:

"I'm someone who is on the record as being pro-pornography--all the way through kiddie porn and snuff films"

I take them at their word. I read the article. I'll read it again more thoroughly and see how there is a "context" in which being pro child pornography and murder can be explained away. I'm not seeing it. Dishonesty is not a trait I have. There is no context in which those statements quoted above is ever going to be remotely acceptable to me. Moral relativism is how atrocities are justified.
That said, I'll also give the video a listen when I have time. It's good to know how one who may be an enemy thinks.

I cut ties with a person a couple years back over one statement he made that I could not square myself with. It was no real loss, we weren't close friends and hadn't known each other long. He is a libertarian who went so far down the NAP rabbit hole that during a discussion we were having over someone local being busted with child porn, he said he didn't believe that simple possession of child porn should be illegal, because they're just images. The only person that should be criminally liable are the ones responsible for taking the pictures and exploiting the child. There are some things that I just can't tolerate whatsoever, one is people who harm kids and the other are people who make excuses for it and/or explain it as being normal.

[Bart Carter]

I cut ties with a person a couple years back over one statement he made that I could not square myself with. It was no real loss, we weren't close friends and hadn't known each other long. He is a libertarian who went so far down the NAP rabbit hole that during a discussion we were having over someone local being busted with child porn, he said he didn't believe that simple possession of child porn should be illegal, because they're just images. The only person that should be criminally liable are the ones responsible for taking the pictures and exploiting the child. There are some things that I just can't tolerate whatsoever, one is people who harm kids and the other are people who make excuses for it and/or explain it as being normal.

Another side to this is the fact that it is NOT just the possession of child porn, but the profits from child porn promotes the exploitation of children. That is also why I have nothing to do with people that do illegal drugs. Many Hollywood elites don't consider that the use of drugs enrichen scum and ruin the lives of many users.