Comments by "D. R. Stewart" (@drstewart) on "Jordan B Peterson Clips" channel.

You've just told everyone that you're heterosexual to prove how you've never felt the need to tell anyone. Congrats on the self own. You've also never, not once, been denigrated for attractions that you never consciously chose. Once you've been soundly condemned by one or several institutions for something as integral as who you're attracted to, tell me how that goes. In that context, the idea of countering negative connotations with positive ones might begin to make a little sense, if you're a analytical, considerate person. Or, just keep going with default thinking for a default identity and tell yourself you're awesome for doing so.
3
@moma-b "I've never had, or felt the need to tell anyone else that I'm heterosexual." "I'm heterosexual." "Technically he didn't state it, he has just indicated it." But you're explaining the meaning of words to me, right? Girl, bye.
2
@jen7662 No, actually it's not sexist. Tell me how, in a societal setting where heterosexuality is the default and the most widespread, is a heterosexual male going to encounter any form of trauma specifically linked to to his sexual orientation from any institution? How about from the vast majority of peers, who are of the same orientation? Once again, you prove my point. In affirming the idea that identity and labels are futile, you make sure to list yours to lend some sort of imagined credibility, because your point cannot stand on its own without such.
2
@Marinus_Calamari I'd have to agree. Then they break their arm patting themselves on the back for "not announcing" their sexual preferences or not having to declare what is essentially a social default. When a person can go out in public and not see public displays of affection or hand holding among any couples, then the argument may hold some water. Until then, it's foolish. For the most part, those who have never been socially castigated or outcast for their attractions have no conception of what it's like to have to monitor every expression, nuance and behavior. Then they make up unrealistic contexts for strawman arguments. It's essentially the pigeon on a chess board meme.
2
@Marinus_Calamari Exactly this, yes. The "don't shove your sexuality in my face" types are totally oblivious to the fact that their sexuality permeates nearly every aspect of social interaction. It's just typical behavior to them. When encountering social expression of sexuality that doesn't match their own, suddenly it's an issue. While I think it's true that identity is arbitrary and doesn't entirely define you as a person, to pretend that such things don't matter, or to be hostile to someone for defining themselves when your own identity is the default and socially approved is rather tone deaf and hypocritical. Also, the irony of multiple people in this thread including their identity markers as proof that identity markers don't matter is simply incredible.
2
@patrikb315 Thank you for the reasonable question. The answer is that it depends on the situation, who's involved and what happens. There are situations where conflict and physical confrontation are either unavoidable or the most effective method of solving the problem. But the might is right mentality shouldn't be the default, or even the first choice if there are other avenues of redress. Forcing a child to fight because that's what makes a "real" man, as in OP's story, is simply abuse. All it teaches is that violence is the answer to every conflict, and if you can cause pain in someone else, that's all the justification that's needed. It's a great way to make a future bully, as presented in the OP's comments.
1