Please, let me break it down to you: 1) Zizek is NOT saying one should let one's house untidy, but simply that we can have it both ways: not just set our house in order, but ALSO try to change the world in the meantime. They should not be mutually exclusive things. Zizek's house itself is meticulously tidy (just look at his VICE interview). The argument that Zizek is just trying to justify his own mess at his house is not only a nonsense, but childish; 2) Zizek is just saying that real change does not begin with personal responsibility (like Gandhi thought with his famous "be yourself the change you want to see in the world"), but by addressing the way society itself reproduces itself. Individual responsibility, for Zizek, is an ideological trick whose ultimate aim is precisely to AVOID radical change, a false bargain. His example of ecology goes in the same direction: the more we are told we are personally responsible for ecological catastrophies, the less mega changes in the way the system reproduces itself are made. You're welcome. :)
@@okuyasu4033 I'm not sure if that was Ivo's point, and I would agree that individual action is not likely to make a big difference for such concerns. Maybe I misunderstood but I took him to mean even legislation would be unable to help, when really it can.
@@Makaneek5060I don’t think it was just legislation I think it was due to the fact that the ozone hole had the potential to grow and cause the same problems it had caused in Australia across the globe. The possibility that you could get skin cancer so easily anywhere now forced the change not mainly just the legislation
That's actually a healthy debate. Kudos to both parties. I wish people were able to do this wholeheartedly with the intent of gathering more life experience and learn a thing or two.
This is the only time I think I've ever tried to wipe the inside of the screen of my smartphone. Why does he look like a homeless person trying to defend his right to sleep in a vacant house's bath tub?
Having a messy room doesn't mean you're not a functional member of society, on the contrary, you can be even in the top 1 percent. but when you want to bring order to your room, you know you are capable of it. There's a difference between being able to do something but choosing not to do it, and not being able to do it even if you wanted to. Some people's psyches are so messy that they may be in such a bad state that they can't bring order to their room even if they wanted to.
@@user-yk5xu8gr1e Beyond a single person's ability**. Being beaten half to death by a cop for no reason is ultimately a personal problem, but maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place before you sign up for martial arts classes.
Actually it might work to some extent only the other way round. But more likely by taking social problems seriously, you create additional personal problems to yourself 😅To solve social problems through taking seriously personal problems is not possible, unless you are so powerful to do it. Let's say Hitler after seized power in 1933 could solve social problems by solving his own problems, however the problem was that he himself was lifted to power by those social problems. He was in a way their product.
The thumbnail for this video was made with the pure and obvious intention of misrepresenting the discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Both individuals displayed nothing but patience, focus, and respect for one another.
@@RatafakTehPlachta It's people like _YOU_ and your ilk that are the problem with society. Anyone who argues against free speech is at the root of social issues and this is simple fact. No one of any societal importance cares about your feelings being hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, even if they do so wrongly.
@@kooldudematt1 and may i see, my good sir, where did i actually argue against free speech? im all for it. part of the free speech is to disagree with the fact that someone who pampers to a neo nazi audience gets public space and gets to influence the minds of young people - fragile and easily manipulated. that is my opinion. that is me expressing my free speech. you have a problem with that, maybe you have a problem with free speech. you only yell free speech when it suits you and it is in alignment with your world view, well, some bad news for you, society doesnt work like that. meaningful boundaries based on sound arguments will always be a thing, thank fuck. and again, my feelings? bold assumptions, since nowhere in my previous statement have i said anything about feelings. societal importance? like who? president of the universe papa jordan? get a hold of yourself, you sound hysterical
@@RatafakTehPlachta Care to explain what part of anything that Jordan said here caters to a Neo-Nazi audience ? Or is it that you just like to throw around the term "Neo-Nazi" without understanding it's meaning and application ? The fact that Jordan is sitting there side-by-side with an individual who almost completely disagrees with everything he stands for and having a civilised discussion, kind of proves that he is the exact opposite of a Neo-Nazi. Because Nazis (or Neo-Nazis) were never known for their tolerance or patience.
Peterson and Zizek showed ultimate professionalism during this debate. Both were incredibly respectful even in spite of the 7th grade audience members repeated sophomoric interruptions.
Jordan Peterson was a joke, he admitted that he didn't even bother engaging with the literature in preparation for this debate. If you did that at even an undergraduate level, you would expect to be expelled from all future debates. What a pathetic sophist.
@@lisztdylan7846 Yeah he's a fucking moron. Is this news to you? His sophomoric, veiled christianity bullshit is responsible for delaying our inevitable attainment of Socialist utopia by at least a couple of years. Have you read his book? If you haven't, congrats, don't.
What a wonderful and rare setting. I miss debates like these so damn much. The contention, the value, the language, the thought process, everything just exudes pure passion and intelligence from both sides. Zezek is such a good piece of chaos and thought-provoking energy and Peterson with his passionate aspiration to speak orderly, eloquently and truthfully. Both are amazing. You could see Zezek trying his utmost to confine his point into a good package that is worth contending with. You could also see Peterson wrestling with all the vocab and knowledge in his head to put out an answer that is worthy of the question. You know every time I see Peterson's habits and body language when answering questions, I'm always jealous. Within his brief silence when he is formulating an answer, you could almost see him looking within himself, searching very carefully and attentively through his knowledge and expertise, picking the exact right words to respond with, then almost simultaneously but slightly before every word he says, you could feel a process of self-debate and curation to guarantee that every word uttered is necessary and adds value to is being said. There are no fillers or spiced up vocab than many intellectuals fall in the habit of using. His statements end being pure essence of his collective cabacity as an educator, guide, intellectual and at the base of it all, a clinical psychologist. While respect is said to be earned, in Peterson's case, you could see it being demanded and rightfully given.
Both had very convincing arguments. Everyone praises the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. Sure, that's a standard you can use. And it must feel like a breath of fresh air if you spend a lot of time on social media. To me, a great debate is when what you've heard makes you want to order your own thoughts and come up with a reply as if you could join the debate. The following is what I came up with. A truly scary obstacle will make it tempting to get caught up in deflecting your energy and time towards inconsequential goals. Given this general mechanism by which the mind protects itself, the individual and the social arenas do not present equal risks. When choosing your battles, you have to take into account that you are way more likely to get lost and achieve nothing if you focus on social problems. This is because it is vastly more difficult to take meaniningful action on a social level than on an individual one. You have way more control on what you do than on what others do. Before you go on the offensive, you have to actively protect yourself against getting sidetracked. It doesn't mean that focusing on your personal problems won't get you sidetracked. Navel-gazing is a real risk. But you do have to make a choice whenever one option presents a lower risk of getting lost in meaningless action. And picking between the social and the personal is one of those choices. What matters is that you strengthen the ability to not lose focus whenever you have the chance. Because you will need that ability when things get really scary.
You make a good point, and I believe that emphasizes Peterson's focus on how it plays out in clinical situations. In my opinion as a mental health therapist, I have seen many cases where there is a truly unjust situation someone is stuck in (abuse, difficult relationships, bullying) and sometimes, especially with children, they are incapable of just removing themselves from the situation or magically having a new job with a nicer boss. Sometimes the most you can do is help them work on themselves to be more resilient in the face of difficult circumstances. It increases their wisdom, insight into themselves, and sometimes that can translate into insight regarding other people's suffering, thus increasing their own patience towards others.
This is an excellent point well made in my opinion, and helped me verbalise some thought I have had alot around this subject. Thanks for putting across your thoughts into the pool, I greatly appreciate it.
I've always said that society is pretty sick but if you look after your own corner you can make that better. If everyone done this things would become a whole lot better.
@@dlee73 Or you'll hold protests and marches after your little brother is murdered by government officials, and then people will ask you why you aren't cleaning your room
@@auralit3624 maybe you should ask why that happened to your brother. Or maybe you should ask why you weren't there for your brother to stop that situation from happening. Was your brother on drugs? Depressed? Angry? Did you talk to him? Did you try to help? Maybe you were estranged, and could have reached out. It's very easy to blame others. It's very easy to blame the government. However, what could you have done? I think that's a question that one shouldn't ignore. You need to take responsibility first. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen. I'm just saying that you can speak with truth when you come from that perspective.
Hi @@bernie2124. I think the emphasis that a lot of people are placing right now on personal responsibility is a coping mechanism. It ties into the "just world hypothesis," which you can google if you're interested. The thing is that if there's always some way you can take personal responsibility, it inoculates you psychologically against the threat of a cruel, unpredictable, and often unjust world. I think the desire for that psychological security makes many people callous.
“The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the level of darkness you’re willing to forthrightly confront.” I’m gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
@@zicokahuroa3660 That seems about right, where "light" is true contentment and "darkness" is everything that separates you from that contentment. In order to have absolute contentment, you need to have successfully navigated through the entirety of your own personal "hell," which is a gargantuan task. At least that's my takeaway.
Light is the polar flip of dark and all polarities need each other to exist.until you know the duality of a subject you can only know up to half of its nature
@@zicokahuroa3660 to better convey what i mean, i like the way Allen Watts put it .you cannot have a background without a foreground you cannot have good without bad dark without light or a wave without a crest.an in its nature you can only know part of anything by looking at one of its angles.our conscious egos have driven us to unnatural conclusions and expectations.the dark will never defeat the light they cannot be without each other.its for these same reason love is so close to hate and all passion is just a color
Maybe some people get themselves in order by trying to help save the world. I’d also say, that having your house in order can make you more effective at saving the world, on the flip side, with your house being in chaos, you have now another point of view to learn from, and are more rounded on what you understand.
That second sentence was honestly 85-90% of the point Peterson was making: If you can't get your own life in order, how do you expect to change anybody else's? Which is a simple concept honestly that people are overcomplicating for some reason.
I think I’ve heard that phrase maybe 2 years ago and since then I still think it’s the most terrifying phrase (in a good way) if we make the necessary changes.
Very rare when Peterson meets someone who is actually an intellectual, who somewhat and quite a bit is able to debate his own subjects, so he is honored, so much so he can't help it.
@@robertskensberg Indeed, but is it just me, or does JP have a very different tone when addressing people who he may believe (most likely believes imo) are not on his intellectual level? At least to my mind he can be rather curt at times; almost for effect. I still agree with a lot of his arguments mind.
@@AnthonyDonnellyTT I think it is because he is delighted and excited to finally have the debate with someone who challenges him intellectually on such a high level when usually he looks as if he is cold to other people he dabates. He probably just tries to be objective and professional. Maybe he sometimes is too hard on people but I would be like it too because of listening over and over the same arguments and often stupid opinions of some people.
What you learn in school (to listen to each other, discuss and let others finish) and eventually profit from having different truths to center and focus a problem from different angles towards the center is a big difference to the debates on a lot of political exchanging journalism platforms, where they fight for which truth wins, because only one is allowed to exist and therefore move to left or right and are not balanced.
Omg, I thought that I have made my google account in dutch or something that's why youtube tries to put dutch subtitles on zhizhek, but no, it's like that for everyone hahahaha it's so funny because i can agree that zhizhek speaks as Dutch is written xD
Man, I could listen to debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate where both sides give one another the opportunity to express everything that they want to say without cutting in and changing the trajectory of the debate in a mindless fashion.
I agree, but it is kind of off putting that there are no longer discussions like this with very attentive audiences. I recently watched the Foucault Chomsky debate and not only was it as respectful as this through a language barrier but the audience didn't give a standing ovation each time their favorite guy made a point, let alone really clap at all.
@SebkarpO :: My admiration for your deep interest in "debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate ..." It reminded me of my own likes :: _Man, I could listen to opera for hours._
I could understand it’s a two sided basis. Having your own life in order is beneficial to being able to control your life and be able to see the chaos in the world and where exactly it is, but the contrary to that is you may be born or through happenstance be put into a position where everything around you is chaotic and if only you could see that it can be peaceful you’d be able to find the motivation in yourslef to get your life together. I think it can ho both ways. They’re both taleneted and highly knowledgeable, so again it’s always going to be back and forth on what the right answer is.
I find so sad that there are so much people who view this debate as a puerile attempt from either part to "obliterate" the other, and not as the lesson on civil and productive debate that it is. This type of debate is the stuff that human progress is made of.
No, no! I think about the contribution, the amalgamation that the clashes/skirmishes of those brilliant minds create! the perspective! Ah! it's very very very intriguing!
Unfortunately there are certain topics we can't debate. Just ask the ADL. Until there is zero censorship and 100% scientific transparency, we'll remain stagnant.
Jordan’s main point is basically control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
This is *exactly* the problem I have with many people in my generation (Milennials). They are looking to the government and to society for their wellbeing. No one will ever give a fuck about you as much as you care about you (okay, maybe your mom or somethin). Your responsibility is to make due with what you got. Most people are expecting a clean house without first cleaning their room. Sure, society might shit on you but they're always gonna do that and, many times, they won't be held to account for it. Nevertheless, you have to continue, because you want a clean room. Separate yourself from the people harming you and clean your rooms till your house gets clean.
@@baronvonbeandip doesn't make anything true. What is the ”right thing“ to do? Is it what Peterson wants or what others want? Even all mothers will have a different kind of caring, what is a different order to any house, clean to any house?
It took Peterson a minute but the main gist of his answer is around 6:40. Basically, set yourself in order so that when trying to solve much broader problems, you can do so in a more productive and responsible way.
LUF LUOS Lol you made yourself look like one of those “sound smart” guys and then failed. Abir wasn’t saying Paul is not being clear, in fact he’s saying the opposite. He’s being clear with what he understood. He’s literally talking about interpretation.
I think Peterson's position is, we've got the right guys working on, we don't need to hear any dissent unless you're perfect or have risen through the official channels and have been tapped by the powers that be to be a credible sane enlightened voice. Yeah, he speaks some truth and his mental organization and retention are impressive, he always seems to have his partiality. You don't need to know who said something to know if it rings true, ideas stand on their own merit apart from the messenger.
Nobody is perfect and nobody gets there house in order. They can do there best through the utmost unpredictable battles. What Jordan teaches is how to manage life positively and intelligently rationally through life's battles. Thank you J. P
SHAME - the image of Zizek supposedly sticking his middle finger up to Peterson is so NOT representative of this debate. This is one of the most respectful debates imaginable, where both debaters were so open to listen to one and other. Although the full debate is over two and a half hours, it is very much worth watching.
Yeah, the point is that since the personal problem stems from a social problem, you would solve the personal problem by solving a social problem. But no matter how many clean rooms there are, there will be a space outside of those rooms that is still filthy, because in the end, a lot of the problems we have are in the fucking hallways.
The ecology example was an EXCELLENT example!! They encourage individual to recycle, but yet it is the major corporations causing the majority of the global pollution.
They've created a society of corporatism where at the personal level you would look stupid playing your part saving the environment. I've tried this at my workplace minimizing the printing of papers and I was literally about to lose my job. They now force you to wear the silly environmentally deadly masks and they can take disciplinary actions if not complied but when it comes to environment they care hell, rather they've created useless Audit procedures which compel you to exploit nature and rape ethics.
@@lola1987fudgeyouu yeah... like Jordan had said.. I am not saying there is no domain for public/social acts in your life but you have to first set your house in order before going for reorganising the world ... Start change from individual smaller level then proceed towards higher purpose...
@David Winehouse i dont have stats on me but last time I looked into individual pollution vs corporate one it was comically low....our actions trully have barely noticeable effect on the issue at hand (it got even worse when china stopped accepting recycled materials because its cheaper for them to make new plastic than to process recycling now..so In many regions even tho you throw plastic bottles into a specific "recycling bit" company that collects trash will toss it into the same pile....reason why they are not announcing this is that, it will be hard af to train people to recycle)....regardless, we as a individuals have little to no impact on this issue, its all in hands of corporations.
This was a beautiful debate, very respectful and interesting. Ironic that the "Radical Revolution" posting this here as a prize fight is exactly the kind of group-versus-group craziness that both speakers were deploring.
Zizek: Society is fucked up for so and so reasons. What happens when you clean your room and you’re still stuck in North Korea Peterson: He thinks localism and individualism will be superior. Because the Bible and his archetypal narrative about redeeming fallen humanity. Zizek is right, the answer is yes, please. Both cleaning your room and helping to democratically involve yourself in the transformation of society. Peterson argues for a false Libertarian utopia that cannot solve the global problems we face like Climate Change (he’s a denier), and really has no existing form of localism that actually exists. It seems to only empower what’s already there, strong multi-national corporations who would benefit from the reduction of government institutions.
@@DZ-yk2ew most climate change deniers dont actually deny that the climate is changing. What they argue agains tis the fear mongering death cult that have turned it into the next apocalypse. Just look at who's funding all the groups and who has all their money in green energy and renewable shit. We're not going to die and our western societies have the greatest level of hygene and cleanliness that we have ever had comparitively speaking to the population. The problem with that as well is that 99% of the time when people replace tyrants, they replace them with another tyrant because they have no other model of the world except of what they know. When you can set yourself in order you can then go on to take responsibility to lead the revolution to greater things rather than go out and do the same shit as the dictator you just usurped.
@@MrJabbothehut don’t play that dumb ass game with me. We are obviously referring to anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is having permanent damage on the climate and ecology. The whole world of experts is a death cult? You’re a fucking goner mate, no sense in reasoning with delusional conspiracy theorists who don’t know the science. People like you and Peterson merely need to be defeated, the debate is over on this issue.
@@DZ-yk2ew woah you sound really not angry and speaking/acting out of pure fear. You must be a blast to know irl. I didnt say the whole world of experts. I said that those who screech that the world is going to end are using completely unreliable models and suggesting completely stupid methods without even realising how much progress has been made in cleaning up our societies. You my friend probably live every day in fear and negativity because youve worked yourself up to the point where you have nothing better to do than worry about the weather when you know barely jackshit of how unreliable climate models are and how industries and markets work and drive progress. Guess what, there are more trees on planet earth now than there were 100 years ago. We recycle way more now and are infinitely more efficient and less wateful than 100 years ago. Go complain to the chinese about your climate cult but leave me and others the fuck alone with your doomsday bullshit.
It's always refreshing watching Peterson criticise ideologues whilst laying out his ideology. It shows me there are spheres of thought well beyond his. Lots of room for humans to grow. _No need to be shackled to silly ideas._ I understand Peterson, I think. He's a psychologist, and well-versed in his field to his credit. It's worth noting though that the rigour of psychology is significantly less robust than that in traditional sciences (for now at least). Conclusions drawn in this field should be tentatively asserted and abound with caveats. 1 So when we make statements relating to thought & psychology, we should never speak in definitive terms but rather make cautious assertions and have numerous suggestions for follow-up experiments that might refine our understanding of the issue at hand. _Peterson, however, speaks with conviction (and rarely suggests follow-up experiments) when frequently his claims are resting on axioms made of blancmange._ It's a sad sight. This doesn't mean he hasn't got useful things to say. I agree with many of his psychological analyses. As soon as he steps outside of his purview into the science realm though, he is in a world where logic, reason and empiricism guide us. His weak axioms seem foolish and fall apart under close scrutiny. It's slightly like the last scene in Total Recall. Peterson's ideological eyeballs pop out of his head and he struggles to breathe. What's this though? Salvation! Patreon dollars fall from the sky, insert themselves into every orifice of our Peterson/ Arnie hybrid and he can breathe once more [cut to a resolving image of a beautiful Mars landscape set to classical music.] Sadly, this touching scene doesn't increase the veracity of any of Peterson's statements, simply the number when he checks his bank account. Who needs axioms when you've got the Benjamins, says the self-interested promoter. "They love me!" 1 *We simply don't have the precise tools and understanding of the metrics involved and their inter-relationship to be able to make definitive statements. Psychology is essentially full of clever guesswork. That's fine. It's a tough field by virtue of the complexity of the human mind, a supercomputer evolved over billions of years. It's a shame the field is largely populated by people who can't do maths very well - Peterson included (by his own admission).*
IDK, I feel like this says more about the expectations of the viewer. Anyone mildly familiar with Zizek will know he's not going to be literally shouting aggressively/angrily at a person but instead having an intelligent discussion, basically, with perhaps some jokes and at most a little fun sarcasm.
Well a challenge isn't something evil, it is just that. I think it actually hit on point this time. You don't even have to disagree with someone to challange them. For example if i challange a friend in her/his beliefs. It is just used as another word to instigate discussion.
Well, it appears that Peterson is organized, hence, he has taken actions toward aiding others (society) in reorganizing their lives. Many individuals have fundamental issues, and he is assisting them in rectifying these challenges. For me addressing personal matters first before engaging in societal betterment make perfect sense. Once personal affairs are in order, we can then contribute to society,that is engaging in both endeavors simultaneously.
dude is full of shit like all these help self gurus.... probably had asshole parents. when shit hits the fan, it benzo time for people like him. his whole message is basically "you need to toughen up"... just he basic abusive parents shit.
Screw that click-baity thumbnail. I hope everyone realizes that this is amazing. Having two individuals of this kind of intelligence in an actual conversation and free for everyone to watch. I think they're having a blast! I think Zizek is having a blast because he is a pure thinking machine who's interest in thinking about the problems is higher than the temptation to arrive at any particular conclusion. And Peterson must have given him new perspectives to think from because I could not Imagine this man sitting quietly and listening for so long. Also I think Peterson really enjoyed this conversation because it must be so refreshing, soo much more rewarding to have a civil, focused and productive conversation, with someone equally intelligent I would say, who is also interested in the truth rather than A truth. We need more of this, much more, and less "Zizek crushes Peterson on X subject" or "Peterson obliterates Sam Harris on Y subject". If you think that's what it's about you're missing the point.
Thanks dude. I've watched this entire debate and it's so much more than clean your room. I think JBP fans who are only fond of his so called destruction videos are missing the crux of what JBP is all about. It's unfortunate. I hope they get him/his message someday.
Exactly! I do love Peterson even if I'm an atheist that doesn't mean we can't appreciate others opinions, agreeing with them or disagreeing as long as are doing it in a"civilized" way! That's what a debate is all about
George, your thought provoking, perhaps newly understood inclusion is what all this free thought is about. and, yes, if people thought more about how perfectly our uniquness as individuals works WITH and toward the common good and LESS about how we have the chance to call conquered or crushed, we'd have less North Koreas and more South Koreas. God bless the first amendment and capitalism.
@@androgynousmaggot9389 I'm a Christian, and as much as I hope you come to know Jesus as your savior, I cannot begin to tell you how important your voice is in the exchange of ideas. As much as I hate for you (but completely understand) your doubt in God, I think I understand why you lean toward doubting his existence rather than affirming it. Im no Bible beater but I wish I could hear your story. if you can message me on this feel free to.
Very true its not about the winning individual within the conversation , whats important are the questions brought up from such debate and how we intellectually pick them apart. I agree fully being able to listen to such intellectuals without paying a fee is quite the thing in its self. Thought provoking both men are the height of critical thinking, if each of us takes a positive from this its not who won, we all win from the knowledge both men hold. Its the fact we take away things to question and expand ones own thinking brain with guidance from greatness for free 😁
Listen when you work toward fixing yourself you become better for society. Most everyone legitimately working on themselves leads to a healthier society. So yes clean your room, literally and figuratively, speaking before attempting to "fix" society because in doing so you are helping fix society. Just as the words attributed to Jesus Christ stated " pull the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your brothers eye" None of this is new. These things have been said for thousands of years. Theres nothing these two could say that hasnt already been expressed in detail by the masters of the past.
the issue is that if you support individuality without also supporting societal change and development (if u support peterson's view here), you are operating on idealism. ''if everyone was a good person and acted well, and took care of themselves than society would be perfect'', thats a true statement, but its also an unrealistic idealistic statement, you cannot expect societal issues to improve by just saying ''everyone should take care of themselves and get better'', everyone already knows you should take care of yourself and be a better person, yet these issues still exist, and you have to face these problems at their root. and the root of these problems are very well researched in social anthropology and sociology.
I think peterson has this perspective as he is primarily a psychologist, not a sociologist. Hence, his point is centred around overcoming psychological or psychiatric imperfections first and only then you tackle the bigger picture of what is wrong with society. Zizek is a sociologist and hence, he views the world as sociological systems and taking action means confronting societal ills. I think both speakers are right to a certain extent.
Zizek is not a sociologist... He has extensive understandings of and experience with psychoanalysis. He is one of the most educated intellectuals of psychoanalysis alive.
A true psychologist, understands that the individual does not exist as a monad, but as a being in intimate and constitutive relationship with the Other. In any case, from the perspective of the poorest psychology, Peterson's argument (the "rule") is a fallacy. That is, in the perspective of being "primarily a psychologist" he is also wrong (Sorry if there are mistakes, it is not my native language).
@@evolution__snow6784No clean you’re room is find you’re inner flaws recognize them work on them so you can work of society. Even if you are in Korea, for example if you are in a Dictatorship and you’re being indoctrinated by a certain idea you need to clean you’re room. But what does that men ?; It means identify that you’re being indoctrinated , find the flaws do you’re homework fix you’re self and try to fix society for example or try to make the best of the situation. Some times beating the system is almost impossible so you need to reinvent yourself, find meaning in that society and make it the best you can. An example of not cleaning you’re room is the great number of voters that don’t find there inner flaws of their thinking or morality but want to fix society not knowing what they really want. And I am with Zizek in this, I have a pessimist view on the people. People are lazy to really inform themselves. And they make lazy assumptions or accusations.
Anyway, this sort of discussion between two men with opposing viewpoints, with a crowd of peasants to cheer and boo at what each other says, which is so popular today, is very weird. They each just say whatever knowledge they memorized beforehand, without even being able to listen to each other in that noise. Far from an interesting thing for me. It just makes me anxious.
Zizek’s point is soo fkg salient. I feel like Jordan Peterson gives advice to type A people. Because for me getting things in order is my greatest cope for not progressing in life or just being generally productive. I can organize and clean everything in my house before finding motivation to write my fkg anthro essay for class that’s due tomorrow.
He's talked about this in one of his videos. Even if you're doing something that is normally considered productive, it's still a form of procrastination as long as you're doing it to avoid achieving the more important goals. Cleaning your room doesn't have to involve obsessively scrubbing every inch of everything you own to the point where it's the only thing you do.
@@failedabortion1894 how do I curb this issue though. I can only be disciplined for a two month cycle and then I get sent into dopamine overdrive. Also I feel like when I’m on top of everything being the most productive I don’t get to live. It’s like wake up, do a bunch of work and then sleep
“What is the measure of good health in a world that is profoundly sick?” I admire his point. Most neglect to acknowledge the norms of society and how crooked they are.
@@gavielrodriguez9258 Peterson makes a very personal point. We all get it, but might not be comfortable accepting it. It took him a great deal to answer a simple question, though; the question was not simple.
Whut?? How in the world could you ever recognize a world that is profoundly sick if you don't have an idea of what it means to be rightly oriented and healthy??? Sickness inherently points toward the healthy. It is inherently an inversion of what should be, of what is good. The statement answers itself.
and then again you cannot straighten a crooked line just from the edges because knots may form, you have to apply yourself locally. Make incremental steps and you got yourself a straight line
No the position is that if each of us takes care of our neighbor, cleans our house, brings others to this ethos, then all will work out. One doesn’t need grand schemes to fix the world according to one’s own utopian dictates. This is the point of Peterson’s position.
@@emmanuelatti86 Yeah, from my perspective, the herd-applause mentality is more present in North American culture. We like to reduce debates and discourse to egotistical rebuffs.
All of Jordan Peterson's fans only argument against zizek in this comment section is that he looks, talks, and acts weird. Which is very childish and nonsensical.
7:04 "If you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem." I think in Žižek's universe this quote could be true only on condition that the social problem was already solved.
Zizek and Peterson is literally on the same boat. What I am seeing from this debate is that Zizek is constantly trying to help Peterson to let loose of himself and become much aggressive and go on the strategically-offensive against his "enemies" in this theory.
I dont see that he killed him in anything. Zizek is just asking with questions, like usual balkanik communist who wants to make other in insecurity with questions. Peterson gave all answers like high power.
Lot of people missing Zizek's point, I would say. He is not stating that it's just society's fault that your house is in disorder; he is stating that your personal problems and/or bad decisions are NOT the only cause why your house may not be in order. It would be pretty naive (and perhaps even dangerous) to suggest that your problems stem exclusively from you. Indeed, sociopolitical environments can have a tremendous impact in how your 'room' looks like. This does not mean that one should use the old excuse of 'this country's a ruin, so of course my life is miserable'. As in any philosophical debate, Zizek is challenging - and these challenges are necessary.
darkanguiel -Peterson, unlike some commenters, understood his point and either countered it, refined his point, or agreed with Zizek’s point and expanded on it to show how it agreed with his view. Peterson’s point is to find a place to focus and move out from that, and since you can control your behavior, that is where you will learn about making successful decisions and making corrections will be easier which will in turn create confidence for addressing those issues outside of the self.
@@chadmwilliams89 A dangerously wrong, but somewhat popular view. First define "society". It doesn't matter what form (save defining it as "an unchangeable thing", another easily disproved claim) that takes, it is still possible for an individual to affect change within or upon it. Look no further than Zizek for proof, though there are many examples both good and bad.
It's alot more effective to fix your own issues than others for many reasons and if society did that as a whole each individual did it then many of the issues the bigger issues in the society group would automatically start being fixed. It's a very simple concept and that's why it's gained so much traction from so many so fast
You can get your house in order by paying closer attention to how you treat yourself, and how you treat others. Two roads that lead back to the same cleaner place. Considering how we treat each other plays an equal role in how we see and feel about ourselves. These two approaches are not at odds with each other:)
If you want to get Zizek's 'I WOULD PREFER NOT TO' t-shirt you can do so here:
i-would-prefer-not-to.com
I remember when this debate first happened, I looked at the comment section and saw "Kermit the Frog v.s Donald Duck" and haven't been the same since
LMAOOO
That mental image doesnt ruin this discussion.
Id anything, it just made it better. 😁😁
@@Wavemaninawe It definitely does
I wish there was a LMAO LOLOLOLOL button on YT.
OMG 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 AHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
I have never seen someone so upset about being told to clean his room
well,it would mean he has less time to attack decent folk...
Hes not upset its passion...
he honestly seems like his house is really dirty
high in neuroticism
Mom: clean your room its a mess
Me:
Please, let me break it down to you:
1) Zizek is NOT saying one should let one's house untidy, but simply that we can have it both ways: not just set our house in order, but ALSO try to change the world in the meantime. They should not be mutually exclusive things. Zizek's house itself is meticulously tidy (just look at his VICE interview). The argument that Zizek is just trying to justify his own mess at his house is not only a nonsense, but childish;
2) Zizek is just saying that real change does not begin with personal responsibility (like Gandhi thought with his famous "be yourself the change you want to see in the world"), but by addressing the way society itself reproduces itself. Individual responsibility, for Zizek, is an ideological trick whose ultimate aim is precisely to AVOID radical change, a false bargain. His example of ecology goes in the same direction: the more we are told we are personally responsible for ecological catastrophies, the less mega changes in the way the system reproduces itself are made.
You're welcome. :)
I see but counterpoint, people have fixed ecological disasters before. The hole in the ozone layer is in much better shape than 30 years ago.
Because this changes on used gases on industries doesn't break the economy. The challenge we face today need profound changes on society
@@Makaneek5060
that wasn’t individual action that solved it though though, i believe it was heavily legislated in the montreal protocol
@@okuyasu4033 I'm not sure if that was Ivo's point, and I would agree that individual action is not likely to make a big difference for such concerns. Maybe I misunderstood but I took him to mean even legislation would be unable to help, when really it can.
@@Makaneek5060I don’t think it was just legislation I think it was due to the fact that the ozone hole had the potential to grow and cause the same problems it had caused in Australia across the globe. The possibility that you could get skin cancer so easily anywhere now forced the change not mainly just the legislation
That's actually a healthy debate. Kudos to both parties. I wish people were able to do this wholeheartedly with the intent of gathering more life experience and learn a thing or two.
Peterson didn't even bother to read Marx. Peterson is a clown, this was not a debate but a pitiful attempt to grab some fame from JP
I think Zizek and Peterson are both honest people.
They have to be legitment in talk, example someone's who want to debate earth flat
"actually"
@@jamesmcinnis208 would you like to elaborate?
Zizek sounds like he’s talking through dimensions
None of which is ours
@@myronkipa2530 😂😂😂😂
That's because he actually is
sounds more like he speaks from inside of trash bin ... where he belongs
@@Petrhrabal its funny to imagine the satisfied impression on your face when you hit send on such a moronic comment hehehe
His voice tricks my brain into thinking I'm being sprayed with water
Never heard about lisping ?
@@Naeinsengimnida I listened to this as a podcast. Thought it was a text to speech at first 😂😂🤣🤣
This is the only time I think I've ever tried to wipe the inside of the screen of my smartphone.
Why does he look like a homeless person trying to defend his right to sleep in a vacant house's bath tub?
@Anderson Silva 😂🤣☠️ best comment ever. Thank you
@Ra Li I don't think he can even understand himself.
A valid question with a thoughtful answer. This was a great interview
Great one indeed 🙌🙌
"Accept the unjustness of your tortured mortality". Wow, what a line to start my weekend.
"and so on and so on" vs "roughly speaking"
Jaajaja brilliant
Hahahahhaa
Yadayadayada...
I believe 'and so on and so on' is the winner of the debate
"or whatever, whatever.."
His accent is so strong that the subtitles are in another language
And yet.....you can understand it all 😂
😂😂
Such an underrated comment 😂
Hahaha fuck
OMG yes 😂
He has a point. It crossed my mind too. "be what you want to see in the world" is not easy when the worlds full of clowns.
You are seemingly no different from the masses you are referring to.
Peterson is the CLOWN with a drug problem .
twas never about being easy. just being achievable with proper effort. let's go put in some effort
What you want to see- not what you see.
Once you learn that the clowns are there to entertain, nothing bothers, you still stick cleaning your room you can't change that
Having a messy room doesn't mean you're not a functional member of society, on the contrary, you can be even in the top 1 percent. but when you want to bring order to your room, you know you are capable of it. There's a difference between being able to do something but choosing not to do it, and not being able to do it even if you wanted to. Some people's psyches are so messy that they may be in such a bad state that they can't bring order to their room even if they wanted to.
I can imagine young zizek saying this when his mother tells him to clean his room lol
...or to blow his nose....
What a poor mother she spends her salary on towels
@@sendmeyourlocation1145 dude I'm dying 🤣🤣🤣🤣
" In mother Slovenia, you do not have a room, room has you.
If you've ever seen both their living spaces, you would know that Zizek is significantly tidier than Peterson
This guy's got built in reverb and delay/echo.
Hahahahaha nice
Zizek 2120 Audio Processor mixer
Echoboy by Zizek
He could be a nice addition to my rig 😎
I can hear some overdrive goin on too...
7:04 "If you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem." - Carl Jung
If only was that easy. Material conditions also matters, that's why it's so difficult to change the world.
@@OsvaldoBayerista because some personal problem are beyond human capacity to solve…
@@user-yk5xu8gr1e Beyond a single person's ability**. Being beaten half to death by a cop for no reason is ultimately a personal problem, but maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place before you sign up for martial arts classes.
Actually it might work to some extent only the other way round. But more likely by taking social problems seriously, you create additional personal problems to yourself 😅To solve social problems through taking seriously personal problems is not possible, unless you are so powerful to do it. Let's say Hitler after seized power in 1933 could solve social problems by solving his own problems, however the problem was that he himself was lifted to power by those social problems. He was in a way their product.
so articuculate always, it`s always a real pleasure to listen to Peterson`s way of thinking and reasoning.
The thumbnail for this video was made with the pure and obvious intention of misrepresenting the discussion between Peterson and Zizek. Both individuals displayed nothing but patience, focus, and respect for one another.
one individual also displayed an alt right audience. oh sorry, nazi*, was a typo
exactly, now we must downvote
@@RatafakTehPlachta It's people like _YOU_ and your ilk that are the problem with society. Anyone who argues against free speech is at the root of social issues and this is simple fact. No one of any societal importance cares about your feelings being hurt by the fact that people disagree with you, even if they do so wrongly.
@@kooldudematt1 and may i see, my good sir, where did i actually argue against free speech? im all for it. part of the free speech is to disagree with the fact that someone who pampers to a neo nazi audience gets public space and gets to influence the minds of young people - fragile and easily manipulated. that is my opinion. that is me expressing my free speech. you have a problem with that, maybe you have a problem with free speech. you only yell free speech when it suits you and it is in alignment with your world view, well, some bad news for you, society doesnt work like that. meaningful boundaries based on sound arguments will always be a thing, thank fuck. and again, my feelings? bold assumptions, since nowhere in my previous statement have i said anything about feelings. societal importance? like who? president of the universe papa jordan? get a hold of yourself, you sound hysterical
@@RatafakTehPlachta Care to explain what part of anything that Jordan said here caters to a Neo-Nazi audience ? Or is it that you just like to throw around the term "Neo-Nazi" without understanding it's meaning and application ? The fact that Jordan is sitting there side-by-side with an individual who almost completely disagrees with everything he stands for and having a civilised discussion, kind of proves that he is the exact opposite of a Neo-Nazi. Because Nazis (or Neo-Nazis) were never known for their tolerance or patience.
Peterson and Zizek showed ultimate professionalism during this debate. Both were incredibly respectful even in spite of the 7th grade audience members repeated sophomoric interruptions.
Yep - i just saw another clip and the whooping totally turned me off. But this was quite an interesting exchange.
Those 7th grades are better behaved than the students who attend these harry potter academies, that are called universities.
Right on. Then again, it`s not all that surprising that a leftist and a centrist could be so agreeable.
Jordan Peterson was a joke, he admitted that he didn't even bother engaging with the literature in preparation for this debate. If you did that at even an undergraduate level, you would expect to be expelled from all future debates. What a pathetic sophist.
@@lisztdylan7846 Yeah he's a fucking moron. Is this news to you? His sophomoric, veiled christianity bullshit is responsible for delaying our inevitable attainment of Socialist utopia by at least a couple of years. Have you read his book? If you haven't, congrats, don't.
What a wonderful and rare setting. I miss debates like these so damn much. The contention, the value, the language, the thought process, everything just exudes pure passion and intelligence from both sides. Zezek is such a good piece of chaos and thought-provoking energy and Peterson with his passionate aspiration to speak orderly, eloquently and truthfully. Both are amazing. You could see Zezek trying his utmost to confine his point into a good package that is worth contending with. You could also see Peterson wrestling with all the vocab and knowledge in his head to put out an answer that is worthy of the question. You know every time I see Peterson's habits and body language when answering questions, I'm always jealous. Within his brief silence when he is formulating an answer, you could almost see him looking within himself, searching very carefully and attentively through his knowledge and expertise, picking the exact right words to respond with, then almost simultaneously but slightly before every word he says, you could feel a process of self-debate and curation to guarantee that every word uttered is necessary and adds value to is being said. There are no fillers or spiced up vocab than many intellectuals fall in the habit of using. His statements end being pure essence of his collective cabacity as an educator, guide, intellectual and at the base of it all, a clinical psychologist. While respect is said to be earned, in Peterson's case, you could see it being demanded and rightfully given.
What a crack of sh*t.
Nice excerpt🎉 do you know the minute from the full video interview?
Mom: clean your room
Me: I must say I'm Hegelian here
hahah
You need to turn the room in itself into a room for yourself.
@Yonis Ali still you must persevere and take up your responsibility in the face of hardship.
Mom: then you must sublate your room into a clean one
I wish this debate had happened in 2020 (i.e. without that goddamn audience).
Same.
Talk about annoying People...
Innit. You shouldn’t be whooping and hollering and clapping at a philosophical debate. It debases the whole thing.
@@williameggly145 how…
hahah good one
Both had very convincing arguments. Everyone praises the civil manner in which they conducted themselves. Sure, that's a standard you can use. And it must feel like a breath of fresh air if you spend a lot of time on social media. To me, a great debate is when what you've heard makes you want to order your own thoughts and come up with a reply as if you could join the debate. The following is what I came up with. A truly scary obstacle will make it tempting to get caught up in deflecting your energy and time towards inconsequential goals. Given this general mechanism by which the mind protects itself, the individual and the social arenas do not present equal risks. When choosing your battles, you have to take into account that you are way more likely to get lost and achieve nothing if you focus on social problems. This is because it is vastly more difficult to take meaniningful action on a social level than on an individual one. You have way more control on what you do than on what others do. Before you go on the offensive, you have to actively protect yourself against getting sidetracked. It doesn't mean that focusing on your personal problems won't get you sidetracked. Navel-gazing is a real risk. But you do have to make a choice whenever one option presents a lower risk of getting lost in meaningless action. And picking between the social and the personal is one of those choices. What matters is that you strengthen the ability to not lose focus whenever you have the chance. Because you will need that ability when things get really scary.
Well put
You make a good point, and I believe that emphasizes Peterson's focus on how it plays out in clinical situations. In my opinion as a mental health therapist, I have seen many cases where there is a truly unjust situation someone is stuck in (abuse, difficult relationships, bullying) and sometimes, especially with children, they are incapable of just removing themselves from the situation or magically having a new job with a nicer boss. Sometimes the most you can do is help them work on themselves to be more resilient in the face of difficult circumstances. It increases their wisdom, insight into themselves, and sometimes that can translate into insight regarding other people's suffering, thus increasing their own patience towards others.
This is an excellent point well made in my opinion, and helped me verbalise some thought I have had alot around this subject. Thanks for putting across your thoughts into the pool, I greatly appreciate it.
Peterson points are 100% fallacies.
I've always said that society is pretty sick but if you look after your own corner you can make that better. If everyone done this things would become a whole lot better.
Mom : Clean your room.
Me: But the society...
Then you'll hold protest and marches outside because you were forced to clean your room
@@dlee73 Or you'll hold protests and marches after your little brother is murdered by government officials, and then people will ask you why you aren't cleaning your room
my room my choice!
@@auralit3624 maybe you should ask why that happened to your brother. Or maybe you should ask why you weren't there for your brother to stop that situation from happening. Was your brother on drugs? Depressed? Angry? Did you talk to him? Did you try to help? Maybe you were estranged, and could have reached out. It's very easy to blame others. It's very easy to blame the government. However, what could you have done? I think that's a question that one shouldn't ignore. You need to take responsibility first. I'm not saying that bad things don't happen. I'm just saying that you can speak with truth when you come from that perspective.
Hi @@bernie2124. I think the emphasis that a lot of people are placing right now on personal responsibility is a coping mechanism. It ties into the "just world hypothesis," which you can google if you're interested.
The thing is that if there's always some way you can take personal responsibility, it inoculates you psychologically against the threat of a cruel, unpredictable, and often unjust world. I think the desire for that psychological security makes many people callous.
“The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the level of darkness you’re willing to forthrightly confront.” I’m gonna let that one sink in for a bit.
Scott Hutchison so basically he means the reward is the same as the risk?
@@zicokahuroa3660 That seems about right, where "light" is true contentment and "darkness" is everything that separates you from that contentment. In order to have absolute contentment, you need to have successfully navigated through the entirety of your own personal "hell," which is a gargantuan task. At least that's my takeaway.
Light is the polar flip of dark and all polarities need each other to exist.until you know the duality of a subject you can only know up to half of its nature
Doc Silver what’s your point?
@@zicokahuroa3660 to better convey what i mean, i like the way Allen Watts put it .you cannot have a background without a foreground you cannot have good without bad dark without light or a wave without a crest.an in its nature you can only know part of anything by looking at one of its angles.our conscious egos have driven us to unnatural conclusions and expectations.the dark will never defeat the light they cannot be without each other.its for these same reason love is so close to hate and all passion is just a color
I Enjoyed this dialogue👌🏾
Maybe some people get themselves in order by trying to help save the world. I’d also say, that having your house in order can make you more effective at saving the world, on the flip side, with your house being in chaos, you have now another point of view to learn from, and are more rounded on what you understand.
That second sentence was honestly 85-90% of the point Peterson was making: If you can't get your own life in order, how do you expect to change anybody else's? Which is a simple concept honestly that people are overcomplicating for some reason.
Old Buddhist saying "How you do anything is how you do everything"
I stay with the Bible that Just say you are a sinner.
I think I’ve heard that phrase maybe 2 years ago and since then I still think it’s the most terrifying phrase (in a good way) if we make the necessary changes.
There is a Brazillian saying: "dont be a shithead"
That’s a wise statement.
If you can't do your room, don't do the world
- Confucius
No joke, thats the first time i saw Peterson laughing "warmly"😂
Very rare when Peterson meets someone who is actually an intellectual, who somewhat and quite a bit is able to debate his own subjects, so he is honored, so much so he can't help it.
@@robertskensberg totally agree 👌
@@robertskensberg Indeed, but is it just me, or does JP have a very different tone when addressing people who he may believe (most likely believes imo) are not on his intellectual level? At least to my mind he can be rather curt at times; almost for effect. I still agree with a lot of his arguments mind.
@@AnthonyDonnellyTT I think it is because he is delighted and excited to finally have the debate with someone who challenges him intellectually on such a high level when usually he looks as if he is cold to other people he dabates. He probably just tries to be objective and professional. Maybe he sometimes is too hard on people but I would be like it too because of listening over and over the same arguments and often stupid opinions of some people.
@@robertskensberg intellectuals tend to stay away from him and prefer to involve in more progressive conversations
Where do we find the complete debate
What you learn in school (to listen to each other, discuss and let others finish) and eventually profit from having different truths to center and focus a problem from different angles towards the center is a big difference to the debates on a lot of political exchanging journalism platforms, where they fight for which truth wins, because only one is allowed to exist and therefore move to left or right and are not balanced.
When my mom told me, clean your room..!!
I automatically become a zizek (o_Ó)
I would advise against that. Even Zizek doesn't want to be a Zizek.
and started spitting everywhere 😂😂
i wish i were half as good a rhetorician as zizek.
:))
I'm gonna go out on a limb, and say that the guy in the middle is much dryer on his left side.
A lot less slippery too
🤣
Genuinely found it hard to pay attention to what he was spraying......I mean saying.
Imagine having a argument with that man in 2020
Mr Nice guy . Hahahahaha.
And alot dumber and/or filled with deep seated daddy issues
full debate?
nice question and nice answer by peterson. how often do we see that?
Mom: Clean your room!
Zizek: *Conducts an entire orchestra out of frustration*
🤦♂
Lmao
Peterson: but what do you mean by 'clean'?
That’s because he is slob and his house a disaster. Seen the documentary. It’s disgusting.
🤣🤣🤣
"You have unfairly tasked me with three difficult questions."
"That's life"
Not really.
Life is not usually being questioned , on stage, by a blovating conflationist.
@@cindysmith765 it was funny, get off your high horse doctor.
@@cindysmith765 Ughh. Please jog on you bore.
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 not an argument
@@joshuadougall2544 correct
What research is Jordan refering to at 9:18? Does anyone have some doi?
The light you discover in your life is proportionate to the amount of darkness you are willing to confront.... That is an amazing ...statement
I like that neither of them seem genuinely upset, just passionate about the points they’re making.
me: *activates subtitles to understand Zizek*
Subtitles: voor die knie of your slogan signore boek hierover
The subtitles are confusing for everybody. It looks like nonsensical Dutch, filled with some random English.
Omg, I thought that I have made my google account in dutch or something that's why youtube tries to put dutch subtitles on zhizhek, but no, it's like that for everyone hahahaha it's so funny because i can agree that zhizhek speaks as Dutch is written xD
@@andrepretorius4702 dankie
@@andrepretorius4702 nee fok, lees dit n bietjie. Dis n mengelmoes v alles wat geen sin maak nie.
Man, I could listen to debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate where both sides give one another the opportunity to express everything that they want to say without cutting in and changing the trajectory of the debate in a mindless fashion.
I agree, but it is kind of off putting that there are no longer discussions like this with very attentive audiences. I recently watched the Foucault Chomsky debate and not only was it as respectful as this through a language barrier but the audience didn't give a standing ovation each time their favorite guy made a point, let alone really clap at all.
do it.
1 more o then the other but alright man
Peterson strategy is to ridicule his opponent with the ad hominem fallacy "clean your room."
He's not an intellectual. He's a manipulator.
@SebkarpO ::
My admiration for your deep interest in "debates like this for hours. Pure intellectual debate ..."
It reminded me of my own likes ::
_Man, I could listen to opera for hours._
I could understand it’s a two sided basis. Having your own life in order is beneficial to being able to control your life and be able to see the chaos in the world and where exactly it is, but the contrary to that is you may be born or through happenstance be put into a position where everything around you is chaotic and if only you could see that it can be peaceful you’d be able to find the motivation in yourslef to get your life together. I think it can ho both ways. They’re both taleneted and highly knowledgeable, so again it’s always going to be back and forth on what the right answer is.
Zizek wipes his nose exactly 57 times in this 10 minute clip
@nah bdy nah I was just high
@@TheALLVEGAS hahahahaah
at this point, we can agree its a tic
Bruto
@@TheALLVEGAS Must be some bad weed to give a shit about such stupid things. Must have synergized with your adderal you loser LOL.
I find so sad that there are so much people who view this debate as a puerile attempt from either part to "obliterate" the other, and not as the lesson on civil and productive debate that it is. This type of debate is the stuff that human progress is made of.
Agreed. Great debate.
No, no! I think about the contribution, the amalgamation that the clashes/skirmishes of those brilliant minds create! the perspective!
Ah! it's very very very intriguing!
Peterson not being familiar about Marxism opens him up for ridicule,he didn't study for the exam.
Exactly, it's much more of a phylosophical discussion than a debate
Unfortunately there are certain topics we can't debate. Just ask the ADL. Until there is zero censorship and 100% scientific transparency, we'll remain stagnant.
Excellent analysis
What a response to rightly expressed generalized view about setting menial tasks in order. Kudos
It's a metaphor not literal.
Jordan’s main point is basically control all the things you can control to the best of your ability and that will position yourself best to deal with things you can’t control.
Underrated comment
And people get so mad lmao
This is *exactly* the problem I have with many people in my generation (Milennials). They are looking to the government and to society for their wellbeing. No one will ever give a fuck about you as much as you care about you (okay, maybe your mom or somethin). Your responsibility is to make due with what you got. Most people are expecting a clean house without first cleaning their room. Sure, society might shit on you but they're always gonna do that and, many times, they won't be held to account for it. Nevertheless, you have to continue, because you want a clean room. Separate yourself from the people harming you and clean your rooms till your house gets clean.
Yes, may be this his point but doesn't make it reality.
@@baronvonbeandip doesn't make anything true.
What is the ”right thing“ to do? Is it what Peterson wants or what others want? Even all mothers will have a different kind of caring, what is a different order to any house, clean to any house?
It took Peterson a minute but the main gist of his answer is around 6:40. Basically, set yourself in order so that when trying to solve much broader problems, you can do so in a more productive and responsible way.
That's the part you could understand - you mean.
@@AbirHasanDipu Could you share with us the part you understood?
@@ConsumeristScroffa he understands faaark all. Just one of those "sound smart" guys. What paul said was perfectly clear
LUF LUOS Lol you made yourself look like one of those “sound smart” guys and then failed. Abir wasn’t saying Paul is not being clear, in fact he’s saying the opposite. He’s being clear with what he understood. He’s literally talking about interpretation.
@@AnonURnot true story 👌 add dragons next time aye
I think Peterson's position is, we've got the right guys working on, we don't need to hear any dissent unless you're perfect or have risen through the official channels and have been tapped by the powers that be to be a credible sane enlightened voice. Yeah, he speaks some truth and his mental organization and retention are impressive, he always seems to have his partiality. You don't need to know who said something to know if it rings true, ideas stand on their own merit apart from the messenger.
Nobody is perfect and nobody gets there house in order. They can do there best through the utmost unpredictable battles. What Jordan teaches is how to manage life positively and intelligently rationally through life's battles. Thank you J. P
SHAME - the image of Zizek supposedly sticking his middle finger up to Peterson is so NOT representative of this debate. This is one of the most respectful debates imaginable, where both debaters were so open to listen to one and other. Although the full debate is over two and a half hours, it is very much worth watching.
Watch as ____________ DESTROYS ____________!!!!!!
Senzational clickbait > real journalism
When you ad censorship to all that you get a mess
It's more of like a friendly fuck you. For being right. Like dammit fuck you.
Uyi Oip I mean it isn’t really a fuck you at all cuz he doesn’t give Peterson the middle finger at all. It’s part of his example
@@callumdavis8307 that's how the post is depicting it. It's representative of this little quarrel they have
More like this, TH-cam Algorithm. More like this.
@jay Peterson all hail the TH-cam algorithm
Hahahahaha
Yes. Yes yes
Good question. Brilliant answer!!
He only needs a better mic. I love this conversation, I could use more.
"if you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem" -Jung
Spot on
Say that to a guy in north korea.
That's what the Incel movement is all about.
Yeah, the point is that since the personal problem stems from a social problem, you would solve the personal problem by solving a social problem.
But no matter how many clean rooms there are, there will be a space outside of those rooms that is still filthy, because in the end, a lot of the problems we have are in the fucking hallways.
@@jajjfajsidjoigfe lol.
The ecology example was an EXCELLENT example!! They encourage individual to recycle, but yet it is the major corporations causing the majority of the global pollution.
They've created a society of corporatism where at the personal level you would look stupid playing your part saving the environment. I've tried this at my workplace minimizing the printing of papers and I was literally about to lose my job. They now force you to wear the silly environmentally deadly masks and they can take disciplinary actions if not complied but when it comes to environment they care hell, rather they've created useless Audit procedures which compel you to exploit nature and rape ethics.
Corporations consist of “individuals”...
@@lola1987fudgeyouu yeah... like Jordan had said.. I am not saying there is no domain for public/social acts in your life but you have to first set your house in order before going for reorganising the world ...
Start change from individual smaller level then proceed towards higher purpose...
@@lola1987fudgeyouu well according to Seaspiracy it isn't even corporations but fishing boats that's causing the whole problem.
@David Winehouse i dont have stats on me but last time I looked into individual pollution vs corporate one it was comically low....our actions trully have barely noticeable effect on the issue at hand (it got even worse when china stopped accepting recycled materials because its cheaper for them to make new plastic than to process recycling now..so In many regions even tho you throw plastic bottles into a specific "recycling bit" company that collects trash will toss it into the same pile....reason why they are not announcing this is that, it will be hard af to train people to recycle)....regardless, we as a individuals have little to no impact on this issue, its all in hands of corporations.
This was a beautiful debate, very respectful and interesting. Ironic that the "Radical Revolution" posting this here as a prize fight is exactly the kind of group-versus-group craziness that both speakers were deploring.
Masterclass!
Jordan: clean your room
Zizek: my room is messy because of society
Zizek: Society is fucked up for so and so reasons. What happens when you clean your room and you’re still stuck in North Korea
Peterson: He thinks localism and individualism will be superior. Because the Bible and his archetypal narrative about redeeming fallen humanity.
Zizek is right, the answer is yes, please. Both cleaning your room and helping to democratically involve yourself in the transformation of society. Peterson argues for a false Libertarian utopia that cannot solve the global problems we face like Climate Change (he’s a denier), and really has no existing form of localism that actually exists. It seems to only empower what’s already there, strong multi-national corporations who would benefit from the reduction of government institutions.
@@DZ-yk2ew most climate change deniers dont actually deny that the climate is changing. What they argue agains tis the fear mongering death cult that have turned it into the next apocalypse. Just look at who's funding all the groups and who has all their money in green energy and renewable shit. We're not going to die and our western societies have the greatest level of hygene and cleanliness that we have ever had comparitively speaking to the population. The problem with that as well is that 99% of the time when people replace tyrants, they replace them with another tyrant because they have no other model of the world except of what they know. When you can set yourself in order you can then go on to take responsibility to lead the revolution to greater things rather than go out and do the same shit as the dictator you just usurped.
@@MrJabbothehut don’t play that dumb ass game with me. We are obviously referring to anthropogenic climate change, that human activity is having permanent damage on the climate and ecology. The whole world of experts is a death cult? You’re a fucking goner mate, no sense in reasoning with delusional conspiracy theorists who don’t know the science. People like you and Peterson merely need to be defeated, the debate is over on this issue.
@@MrJabbothehut hygiene and cleanliness? Holy shit you’re a useless moron.
@@DZ-yk2ew woah you sound really not angry and speaking/acting out of pure fear. You must be a blast to know irl. I didnt say the whole world of experts. I said that those who screech that the world is going to end are using completely unreliable models and suggesting completely stupid methods without even realising how much progress has been made in cleaning up our societies. You my friend probably live every day in fear and negativity because youve worked yourself up to the point where you have nothing better to do than worry about the weather when you know barely jackshit of how unreliable climate models are and how industries and markets work and drive progress. Guess what, there are more trees on planet earth now than there were 100 years ago. We recycle way more now and are infinitely more efficient and less wateful than 100 years ago. Go complain to the chinese about your climate cult but leave me and others the fuck alone with your doomsday bullshit.
Clickbait thumbnail.
I had the feeling that was the case and that intuition is what baited me into clicking to see if I was right. The fisherman always wins.
I do think it's a distasteful and immature thumbnail
@@MixMastaCopyCat Ah are you American? You not know the dielectic significance of the Middle finger as Hegel once put it "Fuck you daddy"
k
@@MixMastaCopyCat what do you expect from a youtube channel that dubs themself "RaDiCaL rEvOLuTiOn" 😂
BRAVO
It's always refreshing watching Peterson criticise ideologues whilst laying out his ideology.
It shows me there are spheres of thought well beyond his. Lots of room for humans to grow.
_No need to be shackled to silly ideas._
I understand Peterson, I think. He's a psychologist, and well-versed in his field to his credit. It's worth noting though that the rigour of psychology is significantly less robust than that in traditional sciences (for now at least). Conclusions drawn in this field should be tentatively asserted and abound with caveats. 1
So when we make statements relating to thought & psychology, we should never speak in definitive terms but rather make cautious assertions and have numerous suggestions for follow-up experiments that might refine our understanding of the issue at hand.
_Peterson, however, speaks with conviction (and rarely suggests follow-up experiments) when frequently his claims are resting on axioms made of blancmange._ It's a sad sight.
This doesn't mean he hasn't got useful things to say. I agree with many of his psychological analyses. As soon as he steps outside of his purview into the science realm though, he is in a world where logic, reason and empiricism guide us. His weak axioms seem foolish and fall apart under close scrutiny.
It's slightly like the last scene in Total Recall. Peterson's ideological eyeballs pop out of his head and he struggles to breathe.
What's this though? Salvation! Patreon dollars fall from the sky, insert themselves into every orifice of our Peterson/ Arnie hybrid and he can breathe once more [cut to a resolving image of a beautiful Mars landscape set to classical music.]
Sadly, this touching scene doesn't increase the veracity of any of Peterson's statements, simply the number when he checks his bank account.
Who needs axioms when you've got the Benjamins, says the self-interested promoter. "They love me!"
1 *We simply don't have the precise tools and understanding of the metrics involved and their inter-relationship to be able to make definitive statements. Psychology is essentially full of clever guesswork. That's fine. It's a tough field by virtue of the complexity of the human mind, a supercomputer evolved over billions of years. It's a shame the field is largely populated by people who can't do maths very well - Peterson included (by his own admission).*
NO ONE WANTS TO READ UR BOOK NERD
@@chesster5981 Just delete yourself...
Just seems like a healthy, passionate discussion to me.
I know! People are just reducing it to a "us vs them" mentality
These youtube titles are ridiculous
@@NoVisionGuy Well he quite literally did challenge Dr. Peterson, did he not? They describe it as so in the actual discussion. LOL
@@VicSellsPeace my bad, I've seen too many thumbnails that I automatically assume titles get dramatic, this kind of thumbnail is one of em
it actually exposes the pseudo intellectualism of Peterson.
"Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean." - Goethe
Problem is people will sweep their dirt onto your doorstep.
"Let the Domino's trucks get stuck in traffic, ALL our pizzas will be free."
- Bill Hicks
@@bink You Legend hahahahah
mujaku: "division of labor will delegate sweeping to sweepers, and the nation will be clean AND WEALTHY." Adam Smith
@@daedalosmaycry Hicks fan I presume?
These r two of my fave people
Jordan Peterson used to be an interesting person to listen to before the right wing pundit cycle threw him through the woodchipper
the thumbnail is extremely deceptive, the entire discussion was very civil.
agreed. They just had a disagreement thats all. Every one should learn from them how to lead a civil life.
On the other hand. 💊I'm sharing Acts 2:38 with anyone who wants it bless
Extremely misleading thumbnail. But that’s life nowadays
IDK, I feel like this says more about the expectations of the viewer. Anyone mildly familiar with Zizek will know he's not going to be literally shouting aggressively/angrily at a person but instead having an intelligent discussion, basically, with perhaps some jokes and at most a little fun sarcasm.
Well a challenge isn't something evil, it is just that. I think it actually hit on point this time. You don't even have to disagree with someone to challange them. For example if i challange a friend in her/his beliefs. It is just used as another word to instigate discussion.
Jabba the hut vs kurmit the frog
But with their ideologies switched lol
dudeee
Boss nass more like it
More like Daffy duck vs Kermit the frog.
Sylvester the cat vs. Kermit the frog!
If you tied both these guys' hands down, when they had to speak, they'd go nuts.
Well, it appears that Peterson is organized, hence, he has taken actions toward aiding others (society) in reorganizing their lives.
Many individuals have fundamental issues, and he is assisting them in rectifying these challenges.
For me addressing personal matters first before engaging in societal betterment make perfect sense.
Once personal affairs are in order, we can then contribute to society,that is engaging in both endeavors simultaneously.
"The light that you discover in your life is proportionate to the amount of the darkness you are willing to forthrightly confront." 4:46
and theres no necessary upper limit to that :)
dude is full of shit like all these help self gurus.... probably had asshole parents. when shit hits the fan, it benzo time for people like him.
his whole message is basically "you need to toughen up"... just he basic abusive parents shit.
@@nobodynowhere5213 try being more quiet, at least we won't know just how ignorant you are
@@bonniethomas7235 no it's fo bullshit wisdom speaking without saying anything
@@nobodynowhere5213 I bet your room isnt in order.
Screw that click-baity thumbnail. I hope everyone realizes that this is amazing. Having two individuals of this kind of intelligence in an actual conversation and free for everyone to watch. I think they're having a blast!
I think Zizek is having a blast because he is a pure thinking machine who's interest in thinking about the problems is higher than the temptation to arrive at any particular conclusion. And Peterson must have given him new perspectives to think from because I could not Imagine this man sitting quietly and listening for so long. Also I think Peterson really enjoyed this conversation because it must be so refreshing, soo much more rewarding to have a civil, focused and productive conversation, with someone equally intelligent I would say, who is also interested in the truth rather than A truth.
We need more of this, much more, and less "Zizek crushes Peterson on X subject" or "Peterson obliterates Sam Harris on Y subject". If you think that's what it's about you're missing the point.
Thanks dude. I've watched this entire debate and it's so much more than clean your room. I think JBP fans who are only fond of his so called destruction videos are missing the crux of what JBP is all about. It's unfortunate. I hope they get him/his message someday.
Exactly! I do love Peterson even if I'm an atheist that doesn't mean we can't appreciate others opinions, agreeing with them or disagreeing as long as are doing it in a"civilized" way! That's what a debate is all about
George, your thought provoking, perhaps newly understood inclusion is what all this free thought is about. and, yes, if people thought more about how perfectly our uniquness as individuals works WITH and toward the common good and LESS about how we have the chance to call conquered or crushed, we'd have less North Koreas and more South Koreas. God bless the first amendment and capitalism.
@@androgynousmaggot9389 I'm a Christian, and as much as I hope you come to know Jesus as your savior, I cannot begin to tell you how important your voice is in the exchange of ideas. As much as I hate for you (but completely understand) your doubt in God, I think I understand why you lean toward doubting his existence rather than affirming it. Im no Bible beater but I wish I could hear your story. if you can message me on this feel free to.
Very true its not about the winning individual within the conversation , whats important are the questions brought up from such debate and how we intellectually pick them apart. I agree fully being able to listen to such intellectuals without paying a fee is quite the thing in its self.
Thought provoking both men are the height of critical thinking, if each of us takes a positive from this its not who won, we all win from the knowledge both men hold. Its the fact we take away things to question and expand ones own thinking brain with guidance from greatness for free 😁
Listen when you work toward fixing yourself you become better for society. Most everyone legitimately working on themselves leads to a healthier society. So yes clean your room, literally and figuratively, speaking before attempting to "fix" society because in doing so you are helping fix society. Just as the words attributed to Jesus Christ stated " pull the beam from your own eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your brothers eye" None of this is new. These things have been said for thousands of years. Theres nothing these two could say that hasnt already been expressed in detail by the masters of the past.
the issue is that if you support individuality without also supporting societal change and development (if u support peterson's view here), you are operating on idealism. ''if everyone was a good person and acted well, and took care of themselves than society would be perfect'', thats a true statement, but its also an unrealistic idealistic statement, you cannot expect societal issues to improve by just saying ''everyone should take care of themselves and get better'', everyone already knows you should take care of yourself and be a better person, yet these issues still exist, and you have to face these problems at their root.
and the root of these problems are very well researched in social anthropology and sociology.
ahhhh....our Žižek and Peterson ... exquisite
I think peterson has this perspective as he is primarily a psychologist, not a sociologist. Hence, his point is centred around overcoming psychological or psychiatric imperfections first and only then you tackle the bigger picture of what is wrong with society. Zizek is a sociologist and hence, he views the world as sociological systems and taking action means confronting societal ills.
I think both speakers are right to a certain extent.
If you look more closely at Zizek, you will find that he is neither.
Zizek is not a sociologist... He has extensive understandings of and experience with psychoanalysis. He is one of the most educated intellectuals of psychoanalysis alive.
A true psychologist, understands that the individual does not exist as a monad, but as a being in intimate and constitutive relationship with the Other. In any case, from the perspective of the poorest psychology, Peterson's argument (the "rule") is a fallacy. That is, in the perspective of being "primarily a psychologist" he is also wrong (Sorry if there are mistakes, it is not my native language).
Exactly! But I believe zizek ends up more accurate in the long term, as individual behavior tends to be negligible compared to the collective.
Parker Johnson
It is individuals that affect the group.
Peterson: clean your room
Zizek: and i took that personally
Hahaha yup
No he said: lets clean society
@@evolution__snow6784 they both did actually
@@iansantos3808 no Peterson says clean your room, like the clip you just watched said
@@evolution__snow6784No clean you’re room is find you’re inner flaws recognize them work on them so you can work of society. Even if you are in Korea, for example if you are in a Dictatorship and you’re being indoctrinated by a certain idea you need to clean you’re room. But what does that men ?; It means identify that you’re being indoctrinated , find the flaws do you’re homework fix you’re self and try to fix society for example or try to make the best of the situation. Some times beating the system is almost impossible so you need to reinvent yourself, find meaning in that society and make it the best you can. An example of not cleaning you’re room is the great number of voters that don’t find there inner flaws of their thinking or morality but want to fix society not knowing what they really want. And I am with Zizek in this, I have a pessimist view on the people. People are lazy to really inform themselves. And they make lazy assumptions or accusations.
Anyway, this sort of discussion between two men with opposing viewpoints, with a crowd of peasants to cheer and boo at what each other says, which is so popular today, is very weird. They each just say whatever knowledge they memorized beforehand, without even being able to listen to each other in that noise. Far from an interesting thing for me. It just makes me anxious.
Especially one who snots everywhere
Zizek’s point is soo fkg salient. I feel like Jordan Peterson gives advice to type A people. Because for me getting things in order is my greatest cope for not progressing in life or just being generally productive.
I can organize and clean everything in my house before finding motivation to write my fkg anthro essay for class that’s due tomorrow.
He's talked about this in one of his videos. Even if you're doing something that is normally considered productive, it's still a form of procrastination as long as you're doing it to avoid achieving the more important goals. Cleaning your room doesn't have to involve obsessively scrubbing every inch of everything you own to the point where it's the only thing you do.
@@failedabortion1894 how do I curb this issue though.
I can only be disciplined for a two month cycle and then I get sent into dopamine overdrive.
Also I feel like when I’m on top of everything being the most productive I don’t get to live. It’s like wake up, do a bunch of work and then sleep
Someone should do a looney tunes parody of this with Sylvester and Marvin the Martian.
You sir, have won the internet!!! 😂. I love the comment.
Oh my goodness I hadn't even heard Jordan Peterson yet in this video and died laughing. 😆☠️
🤣🤣 that would be epic!!
Your comment is gold.. 🤣
My God I was crying imagining this. I still can't stop laughing
“What is the measure of good health in a world that is profoundly sick?”
I admire his point. Most neglect to acknowledge the norms of society and how crooked they are.
@@gavielrodriguez9258 Peterson makes a very personal point. We all get it, but might not be comfortable accepting it. It took him a great deal to answer a simple question, though; the question was not simple.
Whut?? How in the world could you ever recognize a world that is profoundly sick if you don't have an idea of what it means to be rightly oriented and healthy??? Sickness inherently points toward the healthy. It is inherently an inversion of what should be, of what is good. The statement answers itself.
and then again you cannot straighten a crooked line just from the edges because knots may form, you have to apply yourself locally. Make incremental steps and you got yourself a straight line
That means that society is inferior to the society that's doing better
Well many would say the answer is Christ or God
No the position is that if each of us takes care of our neighbor, cleans our house, brings others to this ethos, then all will work out. One doesn’t need grand schemes to fix the world according to one’s own utopian dictates. This is the point of Peterson’s position.
Dude the subtitles of the video🤣🤣🤣
Amazing discussion, insufferable audience.
Nba game
That's the problem with audiences composed of fans present to cheer their champion instead of people actually interested in the discussion.
@@emmanuelatti86 Yeah, from my perspective, the herd-applause mentality is more present in North American culture. We like to reduce debates and discourse to egotistical rebuffs.
This comment section gave me cancer.
I had a good laugh actually
All of Jordan Peterson's fans only argument against zizek in this comment section is that he looks, talks, and acts weird. Which is very childish and nonsensical.
@@comradezvezda Not really. Yes it is mostly in jest, but as you should know living in modern society, appearances mean everything.
Chainheart Machine that’s not a good excuse for shitty behavior.
@@85MasterV So he should spend hundreds of a good suit for what? Impressions for who? He can dress however he likes.
I can't help it but i love both points of view
7:04 "If you take a personal problem seriously enough, you will simultaneously solve a social problem." I think in Žižek's universe this quote could be true only on condition that the social problem was already solved.
I expected JP to be completely soaked in spit by the time the camera turned to him.
Hahahaha That’s hilarious 😂
The echo AND the lisp... ☔😳 too much
🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂
😂😆😅😝😜🤐😁😎😂😢😆
The amount of respect that Dr.Peterson has for Zizek shows in his lectures and references to Zizek.
Zizek and Peterson is literally on the same boat. What I am seeing from this debate is that Zizek is constantly trying to help Peterson to let loose of himself and become much aggressive and go on the strategically-offensive against his "enemies" in this theory.
Zizek destroyed Peterson here. Anything else is a romantic view.
I dont see that he killed him in anything. Zizek is just asking with questions, like usual balkanik communist who wants to make other in insecurity with questions. Peterson gave all answers like high power.
@@ctrldelete1763 👍🏼
@@ctrldelete1763 that's not the point of a debate, you sophistic pedant
I tried turning on the subtitles and it did not help
Zizek’s last comment 😂 he really knows how to lighten the mood
Lot of people missing Zizek's point, I would say. He is not stating that it's just society's fault that your house is in disorder; he is stating that your personal problems and/or bad decisions are NOT the only cause why your house may not be in order. It would be pretty naive (and perhaps even dangerous) to suggest that your problems stem exclusively from you.
Indeed, sociopolitical environments can have a tremendous impact in how your 'room' looks like. This does not mean that one should use the old excuse of 'this country's a ruin, so of course my life is miserable'. As in any philosophical debate, Zizek is challenging - and these challenges are necessary.
darkanguiel -Peterson, unlike some commenters, understood his point and either countered it, refined his point, or agreed with Zizek’s point and expanded on it to show how it agreed with his view. Peterson’s point is to find a place to focus and move out from that, and since you can control your behavior, that is where you will learn about making successful decisions and making corrections will be easier which will in turn create confidence for addressing those issues outside of the self.
You can't control society though. The only changes you can make are in your personal life.
@@chadmwilliams89 A dangerously wrong, but somewhat popular view. First define "society". It doesn't matter what form (save defining it as "an unchangeable thing", another easily disproved claim) that takes, it is still possible for an individual to affect change within or upon it. Look no further than Zizek for proof, though there are many examples both good and bad.
It's alot more effective to fix your own issues than others for many reasons and if society did that as a whole each individual did it then many of the issues the bigger issues in the society group would automatically start being fixed. It's a very simple concept and that's why it's gained so much traction from so many so fast
Fix what you have agency of then move on to the ones you don't.
mom: “clean your room”
me:
Patrick Notstar underrated comment lol
Reminds me to a comedian, with the ticks and nose touching and that . I love both guys
You can get your house in order by paying closer attention to how you treat yourself, and how you treat others. Two roads that lead back to the same cleaner place. Considering how we treat each other plays an equal role in how we see and feel about ourselves. These two approaches are not at odds with each other:)
My uncle, a professor at Cornell, loves to say this: we academics argue so much because the stakes are so small.
@Chrystal Blu I would disagree to a certain extent. They do influence the thoughts and behaviors, especially of young people.
🤣
Yeah, your uncle isn't a professor
Your uncle, we academics, is irrelevant. Those who can do, those who cannot teach! Yay Cornell teacher who knows all but,... huhh ya nothing!
@@gerardjayetileke4373 Indeed, Captain Obvious.
Now I know what Sylvester the Cat would sound like with a Russian accent.
It is a Russian accent.
@@ukaszszczepaniak1338 It is slovenian accent but we slavs have very similar accents
@@liltrump799 And your people have vays of making people talk?
@@joeyselder5693 no
@@liltrump799 Yes, I made a mistake. I was going to write "It is NOT a Russian accent".
That thumbnail is nuts 😂😂