Comments by "Lautaro Quiroga" (@LautaroQ2812) on "ContraPoints" channel.

  1. "Which is true, but is said in the context of the under representation of women in the government, which implies what exactly?". I've watched a couple of your videos, the earlier ones (shorter, I admit) to kind of get an idea of the vibe of your content. I had a lot of fun with "The Left". It was really funny and overall your production quality is too big for YouTube. I'm glad you're getting Ms of views as the length and work put into making such videos (films even), specially for one person, is a lot. So I'm glad with the fact that it doesn't go unnoticed and you're right there on top at quality with other great creators that make the content that I think deserves to be in front, rather than that one horrible Jimmy Fallon segment or whatever. But I digress. Point is, kudos to you. Now, I have to also clarify I am dumb. I'm not nearly as intelligent as you or Mr Peterson. I can't retain shit. I have forgotten a lot of things I've been taught in school. I always "think for myself" and critically, or I try to, but it's always with the on-going wheel of acquiring the information. And English is my second language which don't pose a major problem overall, if the speaker is clear or what's trying to be said is clear like him or even yourself, but some "disturbances in the Force" happen sometimes, with some misconception or meaning of a word that I am confused about which can change the meaning of something in the end. I say all this to leave the door open and admit if necessary that I may be less than qualified to even have an opinion on this. So, from the dumbass perspective, what I gather from your cited examples is that, if I understand correctly and going by what Jordan has said in general, the point of the differences between men and women come to light into the argument of personal decision and how according to the studies he talks about, show that perhaps women tend to have a lower % of subjects (meaning, the subjects in the selection pool, not that women are subjects, please don't kill me) actually capable of the entire work to be done, and how to do it. Of course, this is just one part. One component, as he said himself. We can have a talk whether or not the "history of men always getting the spot" may have or may have not skewed that a bit. This whole thing gets worse, when the other person interjects on what you're saying constantly and brings up different shit to the mix which you have to decide to let go and go back to the basic point (which could lead to misunderstanding and/or worse, misrepresentation that you "backed out of it") or take into account each point, to try to "clear" any of those potential misunderstandings or misconceptions the other person may have which made them bring those points, in that particular way, in the first place. In this case, Cathy, and as I've said before not possible to know whether it's for ill intent or actual incompetence on her part (meaning, she didn't know or she did on purpose), kept as you said yourself, misrespresenting/misunderstanding what he was trying to say constantly. That causes a lot of "noise" in a debate and it's really hard to keep the point clear of any confusing and on the center of a discussion. It happens to me all the time, although again leave the door open for my own mistakes and lack of skills at expressing myself. But I often time feel that majority of people (regardless of their ideology/political isle) have this very big problem of not being able to look at things "as they are" instead of tying them and mixing them with whatever perception they have of it (and opinions) as well as things in the past or the future. Some people (funnily and coincidentally enough, Philosophy people, at least the ones I heard of - I don't think is good or bad, just a funny remark) say this "mixed up term" of his is just bs. And the arguments given, specially by you, were quite sound and solid. Like I said, I'm dumb, I don't know (nor remember if I was ever taught this) what modernism or post modernism is. So I have to take your word for it. At the same time, I don't disagree with his general take. We can argue that it is a bit of "fearmongering" saying "this path will lead to this", but usually that is how history works or at least how we are taught about it. And I do remember being taught in history "these are the bad guys, these are the good poor victims" about important social issues happening here. Not ONCE was there an ounce of possibility that this other side was also putting bombs in places and blowing innocent people up. And so in regards of the bill, his main issue was not that he has to call you "she" or Natalie, or whatever you want to, in an interpersonal engagement. His issue was that is now being policed (sort of speak) by law, which is vastly different. We understand that there is a logical normal limit to things we should be able to say. Certain words in the past were fine, just as being gay was deemed a mental illness. Things change, thankfully some for good. But that is to say, with these people that never have enough and nothing ever is good enough, who is to say that this ruling can't change afterwards? And what is going to happen to people who don't abide by the rule of not saying a word? In my time it used to be that that person was just basically a dipshit and no one liked them. Now it seems (assuming a law would be in place in addition to the identity politics done by the institutions, INCLUDING since I was in school 15 years ago, meaning I bet they've always have been a thing by certain parties) that you can basically lose your job, have your life destroyed or maybe at some point they could go to prison. So I think it's fair to ask: Will they put in prison all the black people calling each other one of the bad words? It would be fair, following the rule guidelines, wouldn't it?. Hell, even I was taught in school by the geography teacher about eskimos. Did you know that now eskimo apparently seems to be a derogatory term?. Would I say that teacher was a bastard? Not at all, she was really nice. I hated her but for different reasons, lol. But like I said, things change and now what it used to be isn't anymore, or what it wasn't, is. And the whole problem for him, the way I understand it, revolves about the fact that is a never changing policy, which sounds good, but it changes almost arbitrarily and drastically all the time, quite subjectively, which brings other problems. I'll end it here because is already too long, even though you won't read it. The video is too old. My conclusion would be that it would be FANTASTIC if you did a video with him or came on his podcast to talk about all this, 1 on 1. I think you're one of the few people actually capable and intelligent enough to be on the same level as him, while not necessarily on the same side.
    1