There are very very few people who argue for equality of outcome though. Even most hard lefties argue for building a stronger worker cooperative sector and well funded local public services like housing, education, healthcare, and utilities. You pay for it by taxing the gains on the people who have the most advantages in our system (and having an efficient budget obviously). Changing the justice and immigration system to ruin less people's lives is another one. All of these things effect outcomes. Again, total and complete equality of outcome is rarely mentioned in my experience with the Majority Report, Jacobin, Chapo Trap House, the DSA, and the Dig.
Michael brooks literally had a video on this channel saying he wanted to cap yearly income at 20 million. that is the beginning of equality of outcome.
thats why i clicked on this vid, after about 2 dozen 3 hour jordan peterson and ben shapiro oil fracking billionaire funded propaganda sessions joe has fully become a reactionary idiot who has lost touch with anything involving reasoning
This video does have a legitimate criticism of Peterson. @ 15:10 This is where Peterson realizes what he is about to say *directly* contradicts himself. And Kudos to Joe for pointing this out.
What's so funny about this example is that they show him receiving a criticism, *acknowledging that it's a valid criticism*, *and taking time to think it through*. What a sad state we're in, when acknowledging a criticism without an immediate response ready is a sign of being wrong. Because if you ask me, the people who are willing to do that are far more likely to be right than those who seem "immune" to criticism.
@@joealias2594 Yes, you can tell peterson is having these discussions in the genuine pursuit of truth and therefore recognizes when there's a valid point being made
@@joealias2594 Yes, he acknowledges the criticism and takes time to think it through, but he just waves it off and doesn't actually address it. And, it is a sign of being wrong, sorry. Just because I can acknowledge a criticism when someone points it out to me and I think about it doesn't mean I wasn't wrong. Peterson didn't produce a counter-argument to what Rogan was saying and just claimed that his point and Rogan's weren't contradictory. Then he moved on to another topic.
And it's not a small point, either. It's a fundamental aspect of his ideology and he consistently complains about "cultural Marxism" yet advocates for it when it's convenient to him and his fanbase. Peterson played himself
Man, it’s so bad for the kids if their mom sleeps around, but it’s not a problem if the kids’ parents don’t have access to healthcare, or housing, or food according to Jordan Peterson.
@@blackfrancis55 Oh? Please show me where Jordan Peterson talks about how these things are huge problems for kids growing up then? If what I'm saying is BS, you should have no trouble producing the evidence.
@@Pierre-gk5ky Your "evidence" is that he doesn't talk about it, so therefore that is what he believes?!? 😆 That's a joke dude. That's why it's BS. You would have us believe that Jordan P. doesn't believe people should have food, housing or healthcare? 😂 Whatever...
@@blackfrancis55 What you (or in this case JP) decide to talk about is pretty solid evidence for what you believe, and what you believe is important. If you decide to bring up a parent's promiscuity as a problem and talk about it on political talk shows, but don't talk about the issues I mention above, then you clearly believe the one you brought up is more important than the other. And if you actually think that promiscuity is more important than healthcare, housing or food, then you're a moron. Like Jordan Peterson.
@@Pierre-gk5ky That makes no sense at all. It's BS, and I think you know it. You're attributing false beliefs to him. It's a devious trick, but a highly transparent one 😂!
From what I've seen the problem is they use so many different ways to play videos there's no way to give him a pause button. Not even like a giant button that presses "spacebar" would work all the time.
This channel also has a video saying that Rogan is enabling right wing extremists apparently, and yet has a lot of videos of him ‘destroying’ people who come onto his podcast. So they’re praising the guy they think does that?
Caleb McFarland the two aren’t mutually exclusive. He argues well with some of these reactionary dolts at the same time as enabling them by having them on so often (thereby giving then disproportionate airtime). He should have on Sam or Michael
I noticed that contradiction in Peterson's two positions as soon as he started talking about enforced monogamy. I wasn't aware that Rogan had called him out on the contradiction. Kudos for Rogan.
@Warren Higgins the difference between enforcement from government, and enforcement from individuals is superficial. It doesn't change the consequences.
Warren Higgins the mental gymnastics Peterson fans have to do in order to defend such a nonsensical point. Any person with common sense will see through it.
@Warren Higgins Ummm.....Neo- Nazis, Antifa, and radical Islamists have sex.Quite a few of them are married or in some kind of sexual relationship. Neo-Nazis especially have a very sexualized culture as do ISIS and Boko Haram. That's one of their recruiting tools. The peeps in Antifa get laid all of the time. They go to protests and settle down with a partner for the duration of the protests or they are already in a relationship. Obviously, not all of them have sex. Not all of them want to. Ijs, it's incorrect to use those groups as an example. Even if sexuality if somewhat repressed like it is in Right Wing Christianity people still have sex. Why do you think so many of these people marry so young?
@Warren Higgins also, since you live under a rock. There are many societies that have monogamy. In Pakistan, the Middle East even though re marrying is allowed in Islam there is a culture of monogamy. Also there is no relationship between women being strong and "fucking guys". This comes from yours and Peterson's extremely poor understanding of feminism. Extremism is caused by many factors but you have absolutely 0 data to support the claim that it comes from sexual frustration. The reason Peterson picks this is because otherwise he will have to address hierarchies, concede that hierarchies being corrupt actually stabilize society i.e mysogny, slavery, racism and so on, and then have to retract his point when he characterizes identifying oppressive hierarchies as complaining or playing indentity politics.
Jordan is sober. His mind was forced to put its energy into something. Some choose fitness. Others choose faith. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for him, he became one of the most influential antisocial psychiatrists with narcissistic tendencies to entertain society.
That's what happens when you're a benzo addict and too pussy to detox, so you go to Russia to get put into a coma for 8 days so you don't have to be awake for withdrawals. He literally fried his own brain. He is, in the most BASIC sense of the word, NOT a smart man.. for a guy who claims to be super intelligent and alpha, he sure doesn't drink his own Kool-ade
Yeah I’m quite upset that he can say such stupid shit, don’t get me wrong he’s great at his job and everything, but well, the environment has nothing to do with psychology.
@@lampseven4894 Please feel free to elaborate. All of us dullards with no common sense are mindlessly waiting for you to usher us onto the path of wisdom.
@@jovaransguplar3019 I understood the message. it just could have been condensed better, it was repetitive and seemed emotionally charged. So who knows
@@haizi7179 thats the issue though. Think about how frequently he gets misrepresented despite his efforts to clarify things. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if he didn't make things that clear. Essentially he is just answering questions that would inevitably be asked anyway. He's being preemptive about it to avoid the headache, and so there's zero excuses for people who do misrepresent his position. I get it.
@Ray Seijas Remember when Harvard discriminated against asians? I honestly don't know a lot in this area so eh. Dont take this seriously I'm just that dumb guy in the back guessing an answer because theres noone else answering
Like all right-wingers, Peterson makes straw-man arguments to push his agenda, which in this case is to attempt to malign the left and validate his incel preconceptions. JP attacks the left in this instance by insinuating that there is some radical yet sizable (enough for consideration) segment of the left who push for general economic equity (which there isn't), while simultaneously (and hypocritically) pushing for sexual equity (which is an absurdly barbaric idea on its own). Joe did well to point out this hypocrisy. Ironically, Sam does some straw-manning of his own by misconstruing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. Since Joe didn't ask JP to clarify what he meant by equality of outcome, it was dishonest for Sam to assume that JP meant it as equality of opportunity. JP is a sophist and deceptively willowy with his words, but you can't fairly attack him on those grounds unless you can first establish what he actually meant.
I'm a lefty. Like in, I'm a leftwing member of a european social democrat party. I have NEVER seen anyone seriously asking or arguing for equality of outcome. Not in my party, not in people interested in social democracy or even in the political left in general.
+LowStuff I guess "equality of outcome" is one of those strawmen that the right love to use, because it's difficult to persuade people that universal healthcare is evil.
Of course no one advocates for it by name, just for policies that call for it, like diversity quotas. A diversity quota requires an organization to select applicants based on inherent characteristics rather than competency. This sounds like equality of opportunity since competency is not an excluder for entry under this system, but once the quotas take effect the competency comes back into play, because now the overall performance of the applicants is diminished compared to applicants chosen only for competency. If the organisation is a corporation, ineffectual people often get promoted rather than fired because there's a lot of them and so they don't do any damage to the operational systems of the business or cost unemployment money, if the organisation is a school academic standards will decrease so the majority of students don't fail and ruin the orgs reputation. In both cases, no one is allowed to fail and everyone above average is being incentivized to mediocrity because their competence has no diversity value. This is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. The left argues for diversity all the time, just because they don't call it by name doesn't change what it is
skyblaze eterno and it does so by encouraging racism sexism and bigotry! Just ask the group of Asian students suing Harvard, or Denise Young Smith, former Apple diversity chief who pointed out that 12 white guys can be diverse and got fired for it. Positive racism is still racism.
Sam Seder is too stupid to actually understand what Peterson talks about. He takes everything he says literally, even though most of what Peterson talks about is either hypothetical or grounded in evidence. Even though Peterson may claim that various forms of equal outcome may be beneficial in some ways, he still stands by his opinion that equal outcome is dangerous, which it is.
@@PogDuncher fucking facts! lol its so easy to interpret. blows my mind how they take his word and make it seem so bad. Sam seder takes it way too literally and his bias really stands out when he does.
It’s easy to do when you understand what Peterson is doing. He cannot condense his ideas. He MUST be vague, convoluted, and complicated so that his opposition feels intimidated. I’ve seen several videos of him being asked very simple questions like “Do you believe god exists”, and Peterson said “Well, that’s a very complicated question. What do you mean by “you”, what do you mean by “god”, what do you mean by “believe”? He skirts around the point so that he doesn’t have to actually explain anything. He sounds very profound to people who don’t realize what he’s doing.
@@mackwhitz5312 I also wanted to see how perverted Sams perspective on this would be. These guys are quacks. People should watch the actual podcast not this garbage. Chopped so much it means nothing, this guy pretends to understand the words JP is saying but its clear hes just puttin his own narrative. Gotta watch the original podcast.
@@AdrianDWolfe I have watched the podcast and that's why I know this moron is just twisting short clips so he can shine his armor and be the swj white knight nobody asked for
“Dr Peterson, what’s your favourite colour?” “Well that depends on what you mean by favourite. And it also depends on what you mean by colour. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”
@@sidarthur8706 no, it much more approximately means equality of opportunity, a base line of decency we all adhere to. But Marx had a critique for equality of outcomes and recocgnized you could never reach true "equality" bc there will always be situational exemptions or disparities. JBP's analysis of marxist postmodernists (a term ive only ever heard used by him and his followers given the two terms individually are largely incompatible) is flat out wrong on just about every level.
I've been watching TMR's old videos for so long and didn't realise that Michael Brooks had passed away. That's so surprising, I'm shocked. Rest in peace, rest easy, man.
I've never seen someone so obsessed with their own intelligence than JP. He tends to make these weird connections, like he's so full of himself that he simply cant be wrong.
Did you listen to his words? He specifically qualifies his statements with “think” or “I believe.” He’s actually super aware of how little he understands which is one of the reasons why he has struck with so many people. Then, Sam and his crew only speak in statements of truth with their ideology being the most right and most righteous. Nowhere can you find qualifiers of “I think” for they are not aware of their own fallibility. You can not like JP, but don’t mischaracterize who he is to avoid engaging with the concepts.
@@FuddlyDud That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right. But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice. With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias. But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?
@@jakublizon6375 "That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right." Thank you Jakub for being open to my argument! :) "But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. " I would say that is on you, unfortunately. :P Honestly, I am a bit of a JP fan and even read his 12 Rules for Life. There are many times he talks with authority, although it is always for a linguistic effect, something he actually specifies in his book. And, when he is talking in absolute terms, it is always on topics JP really does understand. "Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice." If you have any specifics, I am more than happy to go through them! :) Also, as a bit of background, JP inspired me to be more open and honest with myself. So, when I see someone like Sam says JP never has thought about these things, it couldn't be further from the truth and dismisses JP's whole mission. :/ "With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. " I rewatched it and JP made it a point about tilting society to serve those less fortunate, ultimately children, but he reconsidered his statement due to his phraseology and needing to think. He didn't have a prepared response because it was an open dialogue and he tries to be precise, something Sam could learn from JP. :P For, as Sam claims JP was thinking in terms of "outcome" and people having less, JP is clearly trying to give children, the primary reason JP brings up the conversation of enforced monogamy, an equal opportunity by having two parents, one of the most important determinants of success. Sam ignores this though and gleeful claims JP doesn't want to help the less fortunate...like what? 0_0 "Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias." We all have biases of all sorts. Some are more of conscious than others. JP is super conscious, and Sam is totally oblivious. You and I are likely in-between. :P "But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?" I totally do. However, bias does not mean I can't make a competent analysis. JP is one of the few people willing to have open conversations and, ironically, even talks about how outcomes have to be discussed in the last clip, for he knows all of this requires deep and carful dialogue. Sam, however, claims it is a "shtick" and insinuates JP is a dishonest actor. So, while I do have biases, I can support the more good faith individuals over the bad faith ones. I think I am doing an ok job of that for now, but I have plenty of work to do! :P THanks for the chat, see you in the next reply! :)
@@357-swagnumultramagax9 Have you ever heard him talk about why he talks the way he does? It actually is far deeper than what you just described and I'd be more than happy to explain it if you are open to listening! :)
After watching both sides of this argument, it seems obvious to me, that the host of this show is the one that hasn't spent 10 mins to think about what JP is talking about. He just jumps on his soapbox and makes what JP talks about into some clown show, and has nothing to do with what he actually is espousing. Equality of outcome is a big difference from equality of opportunity.
@@sophiasanders8321 yes, I can't stand Peterson, but the host is absolutely attacking a straw man, completely misstating the point. It's very annoying because it is possible to critique what Peterson is actually saying.
Exactly. Well said. This guy kn the glasses can barely string a sentence together. I think this guy is about 80 IQ points below JP and thats his problem perhaps
@@PZBrooklyn great explanation by you and that other guy on why what jordan peterson said was super smart, ACTUALLY it was a very convincing argument and i for one am sorry i doubted the lobster lord's gigantic brain for even a second
Insofar as they both are looking to ca$h in on the stupidity of right wing audiences even if it means saying shit they don't believe or care about...yes. Yes, he is.
Sam. I enjoy watching your videos... however, taking on Jordan Peterson is completely out of your depth. Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity.
Have him on your show, then question him specifically what he means. You’re taking bits of information from another conversation you’re not apart of. You’re grown adults acting like 12 year olds. Instead of insulting a defenseless person, at least invite him on your show and talk with him one on one.
@@erikjohnson8031any left wing commentator would happily have JP on. Hes been invited to have discussions many times and he's declined because he's scared.
Another thing that is simple but underestimated with guys like Jordan is their style over substance. Whether he’s higher percentage right or wrong on a point, similar to Ben Shapiro, he just keeps talking. He starts vague but with high dollar words and phrasing causing people to wait for the next thing he says, then he takes you meandering through pseudo-truths until you’re nodding and thinking he really said something. It’s not fast and trying to intimidate like the insect Shapiro, but it does leave little room or time for many to say “well wait a minute”.
I'm confused. It seems like the commentator is getting equality of outcome confused with equality and then built up his whole point on a misunderstanding. Btw I am no fan of JP
@ 3:25 He makes the equivocation between the two concepts... and you can see him searching his brain for a way to manipulate Peterson's argument. I'm dumbfounded at how quick that happened.
@right right That's a bold claim there, buddy. Peterson is one of the least hate worthy people in academia. I'd love to hear your totally unbiased, super duper objective reasoning for why you hate the guy.
@@danstalter he's a junkie hypocrite blaming his wife's cancer for his dependence. He should take his own advice & "clean up his room" before criticizing the world.
@@evanclealand9231 Do you even know the situation he was in leading up to his health crisis? He wasn't a junkie. His health actually declined because he tried to quit benzos cold turkey after he discovered how adversely they were affecting him, and how much they exacerbated his depression and autoimmune issues. He didn't blame his wife's cancer for his dependence (not abuse) even once. He was dependent on them because if he didn't take them, his symptoms worsened, so the drugs that were slowly killing him were also keeping him alive in the short-term. Smugness born of ideological differences is super cringy, man. Especially when you're inferring such awful, untrue things about the crisis he and his family had been facing just because you disagree with and want to try and invalidate him as a "junkie". That's pretty pathetic. Ad hominem does not an argument make.
My god this did not age well. You knew a whole lot before huh? I’ve known Rogan was a mark since I first heard his Ellen-like bullsh*t back in 2016. You got a long way to go!
As many people of said JP is "taken out context" the way he get people to believe that is that he constantly makes extremely vague statements so that whatever he says can conform to retaliate to criticism, he is never really taken out of context he just knows how to say he is
@@nexya26 so the exact thing whoever made this video is doing, putting words into his mouth and saying “so this is his argument” y’all are so ignorant and lack so much self awareness it’s almost unbelievable
When JP talks about equality of outcome he is talking about having a % of employees be of X race or X gender , equality of outcome in that case will lead to a worse work force because the employer needs to fill in a quota instead of actually getting the people for the jobs . So yes in this case from the first 4 mins he is arguing against something JP doesn't even stand for or mention. I used to like JP but i have my reasons to hate him now , however i do not respect someone pinning ideas on the guy when he never mentioned them just to "hate" on him coz its cool.
I swear Kulinski, Pakman and Sam all talk like they're filling time sometimes; they've got really good points but kind of take the scenic route of getting to them.
@Ben Ghazi i agree with those descriptions. Pakman (whom I actually like) unnecessarily acts as though he needs to hold the hand of his viewer in wading through all the news. Kyle (i like him too) just seems to come what he wants to say before hand and then repeats it several different ways. The ones who actually seem to have the most different points to make are (agree or disagree with them) tyt and also Michael Brooks (rest in peace.)
Because Sam isn't attacking the silly strawman that Peterson throws out. Nobody actually believes in equality of outcome as an ideology except a couple of 19 year old college dumbfucks.
@Kimmminem West Ummm... At no point does he suggest or insinuate such a thing. He is commenting on how imbalances in heirarchies ("become too steep") can destabilize society over time. He uses the sexual domain as an example for where imbalances occur. I would agree that he stumbled a bit, but the context was with regards to putting guardrails on extreme views (in either direction, left/right) to offset the risk of a destabilizing society, as a whole, across the span of generations. Hence "bad for children." JP is speaking from a meta-view (generational) and JR is speaking from a more "personal" viewpoint (that person over there.) There are a multitude of reasons that would cause any group to become so discontent that a revolt would take place. JP doesn't talk about that here. Nor would he lay such a thing at the feet of a single issue, sex or elsewise. Again, it was an oversimplified example. Generally, he speaks against extreme individualism (tyranny) as well as against extreme collectivism (communism).
Kimmminem West equality of opportunity is you and your friend have equal chance of being hired at a factory, and equal chance of getting a raise. Equality of outcome is you faster at making a product in the factory than your friend, so the factory owner forces you to slow down, or pays you less per work done to equalise it. The first one is good, the second one is damn evil.
@@itzzAssassiN So Carlin didn't understand things? Comedians are modern day jesters and jesters throughout time have criticised stupidity of kings, queens and governments. Because usually one who cannot speak succinctly and using common terms so all can understand is a man/woman trying to BS you or trying to sound more intelligent than they actually are, it is the story of the emperor has no clothes only the child has the balls to state the obvious.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
callum aston A good comedian is intelligent and good at observing people.
I'm 70, and chose not to have children because I've always enjoyed a wide range of intimate relationships, and eschew "stable" activities in preference for travelling, mountaineering and spur of the moment stuff. A lone wolf travels further and faster. I'm that archetypal 6'4" handsome fella that Joe described but generally too shy to milk it or abuse it.
So he says that Jordan Peterson is wrong for saying “equality of outcome” is treacherous, then goes on to describe things that he considers “equality of outcome”, then says they aren’t really outcomes they should start at birth. This is not “equality of outcome” then...he is describing something completely different.
I see my 18 year old self in Jordan Peterson. Not to say that these guys know what they’re talking about. However, Jordan Peterson definitely just hears about an idea and then thinks he knows everything. Exactly the way I used to think when I was younger. This man is educated and has had a lot more life experience to be acting this way.
I see where you are coming from but like you said he is well-educated. He does hear about ideas and then studies them thoroughly (he does have slight implicit bias but no one doesn’t) and lectures on the topics. What specific topics do you think he is under-educated on and why?
ItzARevltn I agree with you he is an educated man. However, that’s all he is. He has an education but that doesn’t necessarily make you smart or intelligent. Peterson is a perfect example of that. He refuses to read anything and only forms his opinions on Marxism, post modernism or anything else only based on his feelings and what other people say instead of doing the research for himself. Like an educated man should. He only reads books that support his opinion and those are the only books he cites. Which are usually very misrepresentative. You can be educated and a clown at the same time which is exactly what Peterson is. Since he is a clinical psychologist this behavior is unacceptable.
Seems like I’ve posted this argument to many times on too many comments, but people don’t seem to understand this concept. I can tell you right now that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Cortez very blatantly supports equality of outcome. She may not use those three words, I’m unsure if she has simply because I don’t watch everything she says cause she’s a nut job, but she very readily supports policy that pushes mainstream socialism (newsflash, socialist policies are inherently tailored to equality of outcome). Have we really gotten to a point where someone has to quite literally say they believe in something for us to put the pieces together? It’s incredibly sad. She supports exorbitant taxes for the wealthy, businesses, and huge single payer social programs. It’s very obvious to me. She wants to take everything away from the top, and give to the people at the bottom who either don’t want to work or want to live off the government. Tax the rich until they are poor and give to the poor which won’t make them any richer. That’s equality of outcome.
He’s just spouting the talking points and myths believed by the MRA and incel crowd. He’s talking about “Chads” but with a thesaurus to make it sound intellectual. The guy knows where his bread is buttered. Those are literally the fools writing his paycheck now thru Patreon. Doesn’t matter to him that it doesn’t actually make sense so long as he waves the incel flag and gets paid.
LOLOLOL at "the MRA and incel crowd". Uh, no these are beliefs held by the majority of people. Get out of your SJW echo chamber and come join the rest of the world.
Karen Carpenter They'll never step outside the chamber, that would be far too difficult. He reduced Peterson's argument down to "Chads" because that's the furthest his understanding will go.
Karen Carpenter Maybe those beliefs are held by a lot of people because they don't question what he's saying. It's not hard to quickly rip into what Peterson says, it's not hard to get different perspectives on what he says and realize how flawed he is. And then *you're* the one to suggest people should get out of an echo chamber. FYI you're the one suggesting they're the majority. That awfully sounds like a statement from somebody inside an echo chamber.
Nah, there not. Only lonely people on the spectrum buy into this incoherent garbage. No one except Peterson and his moronic virginal disciples believe limiting "Chad's" ability to get "Stacy" would actually help ugly hateful losers get laid. Stacy still aint gonna fuck you, sweetheart. Get over it.
Sneaky ...Equality of outcome is not the same thing has equality of oportunity. Equality of outcome is the conservative way to spin social democracy into something that it his not .
Hilarious. You admit that people on the left (feminists) push for equality of outcome and then call my comment dishonest. It's not conservative spin. There are literally people on the left calling for equality of outcome and you just admitted as much!
Majority Report algorithm for generating clicks: 1. Title video mentioning TH-cam personality who is WAY more successful than Seder. 2. Talk smack for 10 minutes on said personality. 3. Profit off of revenue generated from mentioning said TH-camr in title. 4. Repeat steps 1-3.
I'm from Ireland. Never knew of the majority report. I just have a strong dislike of trump and by default the current republican machine. Trump brought me here. Now I'm watching this. 😕 Turns out it works.
@@FintBandit why would you hate Trump? He is an undisciplined ninnie who fires from the hip and frequently sticks his foot bbn in his mouth and has some dated social principles but... he's proven to be mostly harmless. To me it seems those who hate Trump are more evasive and authoritarian. If you are invested in any form at all its hard to disapprove of his economic policies. Seems to me the best thing the government can do for poor people is make it easier for them to be hired. 6 million people got off food stamps in his first 2 years. He has pardoned thousands of black people who were wrongfully prosecuted and reformed the penal system so it can happen less frequently in the future. Its hard to deny the success occurring in the US right now which is positively effecting other global markets.
@@korydyson8723 if you think he's mostly harmless with the language that he so flippantly uses then you're sadly mistaken. His tactics have emboldened hard liners around the world. Boris Johnson has seen how his divisive language has worked in America and is using it in their general election. Preying on ppls fear to get elected and further developing their prejudices. Harmless he is not. As for the economy, he inherited a massively improving American from Obama and global economy that was recovering from the worst downturn since the depression as a result of Bush cutting regulation. So the advances made in the first two years had nothing to do with trump. The trade wars that he has engaged in and the cuts he has made to top earners have resulted in another recession around the corner. If he gets elected again then it'll be interesting to see what he'll blame it on. I suspect he'll have hit full dementia by then and will go into full meltdown. Possibly get impeached again and the republicans will finally turn on him. Hopefully the American ppl see sense, vote Bernie and it doesn't come to that though
@@FintBandit what i wonder is who you will blame the success on if the economy continues to grow. Middle class income has increased over $5,000/year in the first 3 years of trump. Obama saw an increase of $1,400/year over his 8 years in office which is respectable while george bush saw only an increase of about $600 over his tenure. Obama was a good president and I voted for him twice. That said my 401k and mutual funds yave never been this profitable. Money is cheap right now so its easy to grow business and hire people. Under the trump economy ive been able to grow as fast as i can hire and my money is growing so fast i am having to diversify more to protect myself which is proving ti be quite lucrative. My long term investments performed okay under Obama but nothing on the short term as corporations were weary of growing and attracting regulatory intervention from Obama's government. Im not worried about the words of either president as i am a grown man with my own thoughts. I worry about their actions and while Obama was more than adequate in most regards his economic policies hardly impacted my wealth as much as Trump's and this is verified through the markets themselves not words.
@@korydyson8723 Economy growing?? You mean the DEBT of the economy is growing. 2 years in power and two years in a row Trump borrows from the Fed $1 Trillion each year. Second, the Fed has had to bailout banks on a daily basis to the tune of hundreds of billions, see the Operation Repo. Feds keep lowering the interest rates, something you do when the economy is in bad shape in order to stimulate growth, well, they keep going lower and lower and lower. Interests rates are going into negative territory now in many areas. Corporate debt is at the highest it has ever been. Student debt, credit card debt, overall national private sector debt is at beyond alarming levels already Half of US people CANNOT afford a simple emergency of $400 or $500 if it happened right now. AN extreme volume of people are just one pay check away from economic disaster. Health care bills are strangulating the economy of the ordinary people The homeless rates are out of control The USA is at the highest debt it has been in a long time. The housing market finance sector looks like it's getting ready to crash ... AGAIN !! Deflation is still ever present and seriously present... spending has been restricted in the private sector of the ordinary economy. Trump has had to bailout the farming/food industry , yep, similar to the bank bailout and auto industry, because they were crashing and eating shit because they were getting their asses kicked by competition from abroad. Socialism for the rich there. Point to me the growth here... after you remove the smoke and the illusion of progress.
I really miss the part where JR obliterated him and the part where you represented JP arguments correctly. Really feels like you are grasping at straws and are trying to misrepresent and misunderstand his arguments just to have any point of discussion. Pointless video.
A shot in the dark here, but I think you've confused what he was trying to say. When referring to "equality of outcome" he's referring to the idea that not everyone is going to get the same results or the same outcome, thus the outcome is not equal. I don't think he was trying to disagree with the idea of equality of basic opportunities and needs. Everyone should have access to the things you've listed, but that wasn't the point being made. Note: Joe Rogan didn't destroy him he pointed out the flaw in his argument as it held a contradiction.
@Creatotron dont be a fucking moron. Of you think nobody is advocating for that, you havent been paying attention. Of course that's completely irrational, but that's exactly his point.
Can we just get to the point where we can all agree that Peterson (like Dave Rubin) discovered he can make a lot of money criticizing the left and that to maximize his income, he avoids making any statements that would lose any other market segment? Safe statements about about Nazis and alt-right ("I generally don't invite them to my parties") or giving long mealy-mouth answers to questions like, "Do you believe in God?" or "Are you a Christian?"
@Action Jackson People generally don't like when people misrepresents people they disagree with while they are being worshipped by their followers for destroying those people with misrepresentations.
@@darkwolf4434 finest observation.. misrepresentation uff rubbish & low level determination of something you can't grasp ..DESTROYING haha beyond belief you sounds dump.Use words properly to convey your low level thoughts to misrepresent someone who you can't matched at any level of intellectual.
What do you mean by.''Jordan'' and ''Peterson''?. Have you read everything he wrote and 50 additional books of obscure and famous authors on the topics?
I feel sorry for people who are too slow to question things we take for granted on a deep level. All you do is mock him because you're too dense to follow it any deeper than what your media sources tell you to believe.
@@jovaransguplar3019 Who? Jordan Peterson? Nah man I researched him myself and I wanted to like him but he morphs conversations, tries to manipulate and I really believe he thinks he can control some people with his mind.
true. A basic minimum for everyone is great. Some people will still get rich and famous and that`s fine. As long as they pay tax because they too want streets and a functioning goverment and people who can pay for the stuff they sell
So Sam declares that Peterson is a charlatan and hasn't spent 10 minutes thinking through his positions, then admits he knows NOTHING WHATEVER about what Peterson does. Is there a contradiction there?
Okay I didn't say he was a genius. He doesn't seem like a total sellout. I guess it must be embarrassing for you, as far as you go I could not possibly care less. Peace.
I think that these IDW guy speak so matter of fact about their bullshit, and so condescendingly, that you cannot help but challenge their ideas. The first Jordan Peterson clip I saw was really positive, and I thought this guy is alright. Then I saw another one, and it is amazing how quick I felt compelled to change my opinion of him.
Peterson is a fraud.. He is like Trump. These guys saw an opening in the market. They noticed that uneducated Right Wing white men were frustrated, so they took advantage of that.. They have all gotten to where they wanted to be. Gotta give them credit for seeing an opening and taking full advantage.. Both Trump and Peterson are Richer, famous and more worshipped by their now by that base...lol
@@messywes dude completely agree. This is first time my watching one of his videos and he right away comes off as an "I know everything dumass guy" maybe he's does know a lot, but the way he presents it, like a stupid annoying teenager and his buddies sound like a bunch of dum fucks at the back of a bus or uber or something like that and you just want turn around and yell shut da fuck up! Lol
@@tylerweitzel7768 well to be fair the transgender community itself is pretty toxic. Well i mean the ones who are always trying to stay in the media and making a big deal about it anyway.
Whenever the right doesnt have a real answer when asked to point out where a behavior is bad they revert to "its bad for kids" even tho its completely unrelated
@Vasilijan Nikolovski it's almost like I'm able to disagree with or condemn an action of someone I'm a fan of. It's called being principled and judging everyone by a consistent standard, regardless who they are and how I feel about them as a person. Is it not possible this is one of those cases where I agree more with Peterson than Sam? You should try being principled sometime. If you agree 100% with everything someone says, it's likely you're not always thinking for yourself.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you realize I am a fan of Sam's, which is what I said. Just that, in this case here, Sam is misrepresenting Peterson's position on equality of outcome. I don't need to accept Peterson's past hypocrisies to side with Peterson on this particular sliver of an issue.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski He didn't "just deflect and come back with word salad," he admitted that Joe had a good point, thought about, even let Joe speak again, and then defended his point. I'm not a fan or viewer of Peterson's or his conservative views but I respect how he can speak like this. Its not every day that an intellectual / scholar gets legitimately stumped by an MMA announcer in front of the biggest podcast audience in the world.
Used to be a big fan of Peterson but woke not a pleasant or genuine guy. His needs to check his ego, ps how can you take him seriously after this and other interviews
Has a Canadian I am woefully ashamed Jordan Peterson shares citizenship with me... He just barely stopped himself from saying 'in the interests of white men.'
@@eyobw6737 Oh he gets afraid, just not in the way we expect it. To teach would mean he gets schooled when he explains his flawed principles; to learn would mean he would have to reinvent himself, which would mean he wouldn't profit on those he's suckered in already.
Tiffian Ruler wouldn’t reinventing himself be a victory...you see I don’t see these debates as competition rather than just two people making each other adequate so that they can achieve common ground it’s not one vs one it’s they vs the problem
This guy is almost as bad as Cathy Newman at understanding Peterson’s points... even when he repeats Peterson’s argument RIGHT AFTER he plays the clip, he can’t get a characterization that’s even close to accurate.
He really doesn't, and his whole argument is built on his complete misconception of equality of outcome. Sam is seeing this debate through a very different lens to mine.
@@blackfangofargentina by some hilarious accident. Can you imagine a woman that loves the unstable directionless fruitloop of a husband that is this guy?
It's bad for children in the long run if we have a few men hogging sex... But, it's totally cool to have them grow up in poor neighborhoods without access to healthcare and quality education for reasons beyond their control. Builds character.
1 in 10 chinese people are related to ghengis khan (supposedly). It's fine if few men are making all the babies, what matters is a support network for childhood growth and health.
8:16 Jordan Peterson the thing you are trying to prevent here is sexual Capitalism. When it comes to wealth, economy and living standard Jordan hates socialism but when it comes to sex he loves socialism. I really wish he could show this kind of concern in other aspects of live and promote socialist ideas where it matters.
@@vahelvoib4203 the population rate of declining in Japan for many reasons. Their strict immigration policies while young people leave to go abroad. Many people feeling financially insecure about starting a family. Women choosing to remain single because a the business culture is such that even a woman with a serous boyfriend will lose almost all chance of promotion because the older businessmen view their risk of getting pregnant too high. It has almost nothing to do with the ramblings of this lunatic.
@@Centhar Women are also choosing to remain single because, statistically, married women with kids are one of the most depressed sub-groups on the planet.
@@vahelvoib4203 What's the solution, then? Have the government force women to marry unattractive men? Women (and men) have always preferred more attractive partners, and the idea that there needs to be some government-enforced *sexual* equality of outcome is ridiculous. And as Centhar said above, the reasons for population decline are not due to pickiness.
@@kevinturner7509 it is part of the reason not the whole, if you're not able to understand this i cant help you. and nobody was saying there should be government enforced sezual equality of outcome wtf are you talking about. He is just saying that of it gets too steep it's bad. Its not an opinion or a solutuon or whatever you want.
Look, if there is no impact to systemic racism, and the real problem is “culture” and the “lack of fathers” in black society in America, then how does Peterson explain the lack of social mobility for all of the very traditional households with a mother and father, both employed, and still struggling, as their parents did, and their parents before them (and usually, if you 3-4 generations back, we were slaves)? Do Conservatives think that there is a way to hinder the development of success in a minority community? How would they go about it? Does anybody remember “Irish need not apply” signs in the early 1900’s? Yeah. Somebody show this to Ben Shapiro and that tw-at Charlie Kirk.
thanks. Just like He talks about communists that execute mothers who pick up a corn of rice so she can try to feed her family, if we wanna frame it in a loaded way. He was referring to enforced monogamy as a societal phenomenon where when his son would come up to him and told Peterson that he cheated on his wife 4 times the last year 'isnt that awesome?' he would probably react in a way to "enforce monogamy" by maybe telling him off or whatever. And that enforcement of monogamy happens on a societal level. That's what he meant. Its not that he wants some draconian policy that forces women to marry men against their will. But thats how the journalist caricatured his idea. If people watched the full podcast they'd know it. Infact I'm gonna search for the link with a time stamp. Brb thisll be edited in a few hours.
That’s because JP is strawmanning in the first place. Literally no one believes in equality of outcome, except in the narrowest and most pedantic definitions. It’s just a talking point of right wingers who have no idea what they’re talking about.
@@interycreeper1152 I think we agree that it is impossible. I have my own reasoning why it is undesirable, and part of that is wasting resources/attention on that which is unattainable. Better to focus on things we can actually change.
BTW liberal, joe likes Jordan if you’ve watched any of the FOUR interviews he’s always in his side. Why do you feel like you have to break down exactly what he is already saying but trying to put your own restarted twist on it?
+12brichards are u a fan of peterson because if so u would know that sam has merley mixed up equality of outcome with oppertunity. peterson has talked with rogan about this subject before and he says somthing similar to what sam is saying
6 ปีที่แล้ว +6
Define "equality of outcome" 12brichards. Be specific.
The intellectual hurdle required to see through your own fallacies, the very same fallacies that you make your career from, makes it impossible for you to question those fallacies. It is fundamentally impossible for Peterson to grow beyond where he is now, lest he sabotage his entire career.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to honestly believe he hasn't thought this all out WAY more than you have? What fallacies? All you people say is vague bullshit like that and then have no argument (just strawmen) to back up your claims.
Cool try using an argument instead of making bullshit claims in an echo chamber of a comments section. This is all people do when they talk about Peterson. No arguments whatsoever just "He's wrong" that's all it ever is. Try doing it without a strawman too cuz I can already see you building it
@@jovaransguplar3019 I love Peterson's speeches on self development. He should stay on that topic only. Here's a simple contradiction in his logic. He's a wealthy person who feels prosecuted for his beliefs, telling others that because we have it better than our grandparents we shouldn't feel prosecuted in any way.
@@wreck-creation I like it how you misrepresented what he's saying here. He never says not to feel prosecuted, he believes it's counterproductive. Which is true, if you feel you're oppressed you can use it as an excuse to achieve less.
@@wreck-creation -- Your comment makes zero sense. If one feels that they are being prosecuted, they should hire a defense attorney. Or do you mean PERSECUTED? If we substitute "persecute" for "prosecute" in your comment, it still makes no sense. You gave no example in your comment, just more of the same old generalizations left-wingers are known for. And if you don't know the difference between "prosecute" and "persecute", you should not be commenting on the intellect of others.
That’s hilarious, Jamie is totally right. It’s as though Peterson inexplicably realized he had invented his own form of “Cultural Marxism,” and then the cognitive dissonance suddenly hit him
As if that's so abnormal, as if none you would never make mistakes in your thinking. The guy is being chased around by people who want to lock him up in a cage because he disagrees with their opinions, by people who deny all kinds of well-established scientific and historical facts. He made a mistake in his thinking and many people have seen this, and perhaps he had a tough time admitting it because people have been so hard on him. You inhuman people you who can't even have a little understanding of him. Just disgusting.
@@gremlinking5640 Perhaps not for some, perhaps for the wrong reasons. But he is someone who is willing to have a real discussion, and to strive for truth. And a lot of the people that have been opposing him are not particularly that, some not even a slight bit, yet they have been viciously attacking him on all sides. Yes, the man has success, and so I'm not saying we should all feel sorry, but give him a fucking break too, you know. You don't think he can, and is willing to, admit that he's wrong, when (and if) he has realized it. Many of his opposers won't even truly think about that possibility (that they may be wrong, and that he can admit if _he_ is); they don't even have the integrity to acknowledge long established biological facts. No wonder he, and many others, are so skeptical. Yet these people continue to criticize and attempt to ostracize him? I just think that's wrong, and that all this shaming (honest) people (by dishonest people) try to do to him is wrong, and that they may often be the shameful ones. At least some are, and these guys here reek of that same foul odor to me (at least). They cherrypick a mistake he made and blow it up beyond justification (SJW's huh?). The strawmanning is strong in this one. Who knows, _maybe I'm wrong_ . It's just that I'm really open to that possibility. Contrary to other echo-chamber dwellers (sounds almost unbearably like that over in this studio/place).
@@kjekelle96 I appreciate your response and I agree that we should all be a lot less certain about what we are certain about. Sometimes though, Peterson does strike me as being too aggressively assured of certain viewpoints. I think all of us just need to chill and accept that we are fallible creatures and fellow humans struggling for understanding. I do hate the tribalism, us vs. them attitude displayed in this and many other videos on youtube. But I see that coming from the right just as much as from the left. I even hate that dichotomy because my politics are definitely left leaning, but I can't stand the college kids who identify that way and then elevate their dogmas above common sense. Again thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.
He’s saying that expecting that expecting that everyone should have equal access to healthcare, and equal care should be accorded to them regardless of social standing, is the same as being a Klan member.
@@jacklaffey3529 or do you think he hasn't actually thought this through? Because if he did he would've realized that his views are a walking contradiction.
Shit it seems like it was just the basic question he was trying to answer in the first place, how do I help incels? All Joe did was take his answer to the question and go, how does that help incels? Then he used the rope Joe gave him to hang himself.
DubStylee dude it’s something he’s talked about twice and it’s only theorizing on what might be best for children, and he admits he could very well be wrong relax
@@ricardocorreia2542 but that would effectively be the outcome of his enforced monogamy policy proposal. Also, jbp spent half his time arguing against a strawman position supposedly held by the left: "equality of outcomes", something marx actively critiques, all just to end up being in favor of the true left position,* equality of opportunity * on a topic he is widely known for: (advice for incels, policy prescription: enforced monogamy). Dude failed here
even in capitalism there is place for socialism. Think firefighters and police. What you are describing is his entire philosophy, middle of the road, using what works to create a better society.
@@mdaddy775 Can you please pay attention, or if im wrong correct me. He espouses views of the left and the right and only ever condemns extremists, whether they are right leaning or left. It just so happens that in the last decade, the extremist left have been creating their own communities on platforms like twitter making false claims and not only misinforming people, but whipping them into frenzies like the wayfair conspiracy. If you do your research he condemns right leaning extremism too, hence him being middle of the road.
@@tomscully9589 Don't you see how sad it is that you write essays defending some person against a bit of criticism? There's better ways to spend one's life.
The birth rate of children to single mother homes has risen since 1940 to 1950 to 1960 and on. How can I listen to the rest of this man discrediting Jordan Peterson when he just said the rate has went down not up? If he is lying there...his whole video is done. Bye
"Everybody deserves a basic mimimum" is not the same thing as "equality of outcome"
Exactly, it’s equality vs. equity.
@@salzshakes4895 Basic minimum is not equity either.
Was literally just about to write a 500 word paragraph on this. I love how these guys have to sink to extremes to argue. Fucking idiots.
There are very very few people who argue for equality of outcome though. Even most hard lefties argue for building a stronger worker cooperative sector and well funded local public services like housing, education, healthcare, and utilities. You pay for it by taxing the gains on the people who have the most advantages in our system (and having an efficient budget obviously). Changing the justice and immigration system to ruin less people's lives is another one. All of these things effect outcomes. Again, total and complete equality of outcome is rarely mentioned in my experience with the Majority Report, Jacobin, Chapo Trap House, the DSA, and the Dig.
@@evanferreira8606 also those are libshits who think that progress is more female drone pilots
Jordan "Capitalism in the Streets, Marxism in the Sheets" Peterson
i'm stealing that
Nice lol.
I support JP but that’s gold my friend.
Touche
🤣🤣🤣
How come the only time I've heard "equality of outcome" it comes from a right winger saying the left wants it.
Because right wingers like to use it to mean "equality of opportunity"and like to pretend everyone to the left is a a communism.
Same reason Obama never said he wanted to kowtow to his donors... not smart to say but obviously seen.
As big a strawman as “Open Borders”
Because you don't know that you are advocating for equality of outcome.
Michael brooks literally had a video on this channel saying he wanted to cap yearly income at 20 million. that is the beginning of equality of outcome.
Watching this in Jan 2023 and man how Joe Rogan has changed--doesn't challenge JP on anything anymore.
noticed this too rip
thats why i clicked on this vid, after about 2 dozen 3 hour jordan peterson and ben shapiro oil fracking billionaire funded propaganda sessions joe has fully become a reactionary idiot who has lost touch with anything involving reasoning
@deedeetops the ignorance is strong in this one.
They just blow each other now
Also notice how he doesn’t appear to be on steroids whereas it’s very obvious he is today
Judging by these comments, It’s amazing how many times JBP is “taken out of context”...
lol nail on the head.
It really is though.
"Speak clearly" is one of his rules for life. LOL
He IS taken out of context. Lots. Got it? Good! Now go put on that dunce cap on and sit in the corner
could it be because he actually is being taken out of context?
Universal
Basic
Intercourse
Only for a bunch of pathetic repugnant incels.
🤣...IDW, Peterson promotes the ‘Intelligent Distribution of Women’.
This video does have a legitimate criticism of Peterson. @ 15:10 This is where Peterson realizes what he is about to say *directly* contradicts himself. And Kudos to Joe for pointing this out.
What's so funny about this example is that they show him receiving a criticism, *acknowledging that it's a valid criticism*, *and taking time to think it through*. What a sad state we're in, when acknowledging a criticism without an immediate response ready is a sign of being wrong. Because if you ask me, the people who are willing to do that are far more likely to be right than those who seem "immune" to criticism.
@@joealias2594 Yes, you can tell peterson is having these discussions in the genuine pursuit of truth and therefore recognizes when there's a valid point being made
@@joealias2594 Yes, he acknowledges the criticism and takes time to think it through, but he just waves it off and doesn't actually address it. And, it is a sign of being wrong, sorry. Just because I can acknowledge a criticism when someone points it out to me and I think about it doesn't mean I wasn't wrong.
Peterson didn't produce a counter-argument to what Rogan was saying and just claimed that his point and Rogan's weren't contradictory. Then he moved on to another topic.
@@joealias2594 he is wrong but he didn't ultimately concede his point so he is being intellectually dishonest - no reason to glorify that
And it's not a small point, either. It's a fundamental aspect of his ideology and he consistently complains about "cultural Marxism" yet advocates for it when it's convenient to him and his fanbase. Peterson played himself
Man, it’s so bad for the kids if their mom sleeps around, but it’s not a problem if the kids’ parents don’t have access to healthcare, or housing, or food according to Jordan Peterson.
BS
@@blackfrancis55 Oh? Please show me where Jordan Peterson talks about how these things are huge problems for kids growing up then? If what I'm saying is BS, you should have no trouble producing the evidence.
@@Pierre-gk5ky Your "evidence" is that he doesn't talk about it, so therefore that is what he believes?!? 😆 That's a joke dude. That's why it's BS. You would have us believe that Jordan P. doesn't believe people should have food, housing or healthcare? 😂 Whatever...
@@blackfrancis55 What you (or in this case JP) decide to talk about is pretty solid evidence for what you believe, and what you believe is important.
If you decide to bring up a parent's promiscuity as a problem and talk about it on political talk shows, but don't talk about the issues I mention above, then you clearly believe the one you brought up is more important than the other.
And if you actually think that promiscuity is more important than healthcare, housing or food, then you're a moron. Like Jordan Peterson.
@@Pierre-gk5ky That makes no sense at all. It's BS, and I think you know it. You're attributing false beliefs to him. It's a devious trick, but a highly transparent one 😂!
They need to get Sam a pause button, so he doesn't have to tell them to pause every 2 seconds.
From what I've seen the problem is they use so many different ways to play videos there's no way to give him a pause button. Not even like a giant button that presses "spacebar" would work all the time.
SuperWolfkin just give him all the buttons packed into one really big button. Like, cmon. You know this.
At this point, they should've done this year's ago 😂
I guess they didn't want to have to fired anyone
@@chilli1472 this ain't Staples
so the others would be almost useless, I mean other than licking his balls.
Oh My God, Joe Rogan embarrassed the entire intellectually dim web
"intellectually dim web" made me laugh. I'm gonna start using that
This channel also has a video saying that Rogan is enabling right wing extremists apparently, and yet has a lot of videos of him ‘destroying’ people who come onto his podcast. So they’re praising the guy they think does that?
Caleb McFarland the two aren’t mutually exclusive. He argues well with some of these reactionary dolts at the same time as enabling them by having them on so often (thereby giving then disproportionate airtime). He should have on Sam or Michael
@@KristianKumpula me too!
When? And in what way? I’m curious.
I noticed that contradiction in Peterson's two positions as soon as he started talking about enforced monogamy. I wasn't aware that Rogan had called him out on the contradiction. Kudos for Rogan.
@Warren Higgins the difference between enforcement from government, and enforcement from individuals is superficial. It doesn't change the consequences.
Warren Higgins the mental gymnastics Peterson fans have to do in order to defend such a nonsensical point. Any person with common sense will see through it.
@Warren Higgins Ummm.....Neo- Nazis, Antifa, and radical Islamists have sex.Quite a few of them are married or in some kind of sexual relationship. Neo-Nazis especially have a very sexualized culture as do ISIS and Boko Haram. That's one of their recruiting tools. The peeps in Antifa get laid all of the time. They go to protests and settle down with a partner for the duration of the protests or they are already in a relationship. Obviously, not all of them have sex. Not all of them want to. Ijs, it's incorrect to use those groups as an example. Even if sexuality if somewhat repressed like it is in Right Wing Christianity people still have sex. Why do you think so many of these people marry so young?
@Warren Higgins if Peterson or you knew anything about the Holocaust, about the Genocide, you'd know your point makes no sense.
@Warren Higgins also, since you live under a rock. There are many societies that have monogamy. In Pakistan, the Middle East even though re marrying is allowed in Islam there is a culture of monogamy. Also there is no relationship between women being strong and "fucking guys". This comes from yours and Peterson's extremely poor understanding of feminism.
Extremism is caused by many factors but you have absolutely 0 data to support the claim that it comes from sexual frustration.
The reason Peterson picks this is because otherwise he will have to address hierarchies, concede that hierarchies being corrupt actually stabilize society i.e mysogny, slavery, racism and so on, and then have to retract his point when he characterizes identifying oppressive hierarchies as complaining or playing indentity politics.
Jordan is sober. His mind was forced to put its energy into something. Some choose fitness. Others choose faith. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for him, he became one of the most influential antisocial psychiatrists with narcissistic tendencies to entertain society.
well said 100%
That makes no sense because he wasn’t sober when this took place. He was popping valium. He’s allegedly sober now.
He's not a psychiatrist.
That's what happens when you're a benzo addict and too pussy to detox, so you go to Russia to get put into a coma for 8 days so you don't have to be awake for withdrawals. He literally fried his own brain. He is, in the most BASIC sense of the word, NOT a smart man.. for a guy who claims to be super intelligent and alpha, he sure doesn't drink his own Kool-ade
@@googlegoogle9712so j.p was high , what a life j.p has .
Looks like all the Peterson disciples caught wind of this and are really upset.
Yeah I’m quite upset that he can say such stupid shit, don’t get me wrong he’s great at his job and everything, but well, the environment has nothing to do with psychology.
Or just people with common sense judging it accordingly
@@lampseven4894 Please feel free to elaborate. All of us dullards with no common sense are mindlessly waiting for you to usher us onto the path of wisdom.
@@TheNaqoyqatZ yeah that’s about the level of discourse I would expect around here lol
@@lampseven4894 So you have nothing. Got it. That's totally what I would expect from someone with a "nail in coffin" argument! Cheers.
This man sure can talk for a long time without saying anything
Holy fuck I know right
People who don't understand the message love to say that
@@jovaransguplar3019 I understood the message. it just could have been condensed better, it was repetitive and seemed emotionally charged. So who knows
@@haizi7179 thats the issue though. Think about how frequently he gets misrepresented despite his efforts to clarify things. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if he didn't make things that clear. Essentially he is just answering questions that would inevitably be asked anyway. He's being preemptive about it to avoid the headache, and so there's zero excuses for people who do misrepresent his position. I get it.
@Umberto Eco ok bud
This is like when Michael Scott said to Jim "It's not a pyramid scheme" and then Jim draws the pyramid on his diagram.
Rational Reality ACCURATE LOLOLOL HOLY SHIT
Lmao
I actually laughed out loud, thank you!
Unless you think about it it’s not like that at all, nice joke
Lmao!
I love the way Joe doesn't let him interrupt
🙄
Yeah. It's long in the past now
@@annnee6818Still fun to watch.
@@imjstmichael86 Sad because your lobster boy was shit on?
now he just lets anyone spew miss-information and just sits there looking amazed no matter who or what is said. Its a bummer.
He is trying to solve a problem he just created in his mind, and refusing to acknowledge the existing ones.
Which existing problems does he refuse to aknowledge?
Did he create the Black Pill and partly MGTOW ideology in his mind just there?
@Ray Seijas Remember when Harvard discriminated against asians? I honestly don't know a lot in this area so eh. Dont take this seriously I'm just that dumb guy in the back guessing an answer because theres noone else answering
Oh you nailed the whole intellectual dark web MO. Well done.
Like all right-wingers, Peterson makes straw-man arguments to push his agenda, which in this case is to attempt to malign the left and validate his incel preconceptions. JP attacks the left in this instance by insinuating that there is some radical yet sizable (enough for consideration) segment of the left who push for general economic equity (which there isn't), while simultaneously (and hypocritically) pushing for sexual equity (which is an absurdly barbaric idea on its own). Joe did well to point out this hypocrisy.
Ironically, Sam does some straw-manning of his own by misconstruing equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. Since Joe didn't ask JP to clarify what he meant by equality of outcome, it was dishonest for Sam to assume that JP meant it as equality of opportunity. JP is a sophist and deceptively willowy with his words, but you can't fairly attack him on those grounds unless you can first establish what he actually meant.
*in a high pitched JP voice* "I would argue that Bitches be Trifling"
Thanks Michael, you'll always be in our hearts
RIP. Too bright. Too young.
Amen
Wait dude died
@@Str1ek0 unfortunately yes, something quick like an aneurysm, he will be missed.
@@federicomorra2323 May he Rest In Peace
I'm a lefty. Like in, I'm a leftwing member of a european social democrat party. I have NEVER seen anyone seriously asking or arguing for equality of outcome. Not in my party, not in people interested in social democracy or even in the political left in general.
+LowStuff I guess "equality of outcome" is one of those strawmen that the right love to use, because it's difficult to persuade people that universal healthcare is evil.
Of course no one advocates for it by name, just for policies that call for it, like diversity quotas. A diversity quota requires an organization to select applicants based on inherent characteristics rather than competency. This sounds like equality of opportunity since competency is not an excluder for entry under this system, but once the quotas take effect the competency comes back into play, because now the overall performance of the applicants is diminished compared to applicants chosen only for competency. If the organisation is a corporation, ineffectual people often get promoted rather than fired because there's a lot of them and so they don't do any damage to the operational systems of the business or cost unemployment money, if the organisation is a school academic standards will decrease so the majority of students don't fail and ruin the orgs reputation. In both cases, no one is allowed to fail and everyone above average is being incentivized to mediocrity because their competence has no diversity value. This is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. The left argues for diversity all the time, just because they don't call it by name doesn't change what it is
A Stranger In Paradise ....that's to counteract racism sexism and bigotry
skyblaze eterno and it does so by encouraging racism sexism and bigotry! Just ask the group of Asian students suing Harvard, or Denise Young Smith, former Apple diversity chief who pointed out that 12 white guys can be diverse and got fired for it. Positive racism is still racism.
You've never seen feminists calling for 50% representation of women in government?
I’d recommend finding the original version. The amount of interruptions by this guy is infuriating, while adding nothing except time to the clip.
interview him yourself. that'd be interesting
Please
Sam Seder is too stupid to actually understand what Peterson talks about. He takes everything he says literally, even though most of what Peterson talks about is either hypothetical or grounded in evidence. Even though Peterson may claim that various forms of equal outcome may be beneficial in some ways, he still stands by his opinion that equal outcome is dangerous, which it is.
yeah I find it interesting for people to have these sides but never speak to the person themselves.
Liam Hansen
Very very true.
@@PogDuncher fucking facts! lol its so easy to interpret. blows my mind how they take his word and make it seem so bad. Sam seder takes it way too literally and his bias really stands out when he does.
Jordan Peterson-Karl Marx of Punani and Ayn Rand of life.
Lol
lol
oh. my god ☠️☠️☠️
Awesome
Dead on
Sam "Pause it for a second" Seder
Seriously, that’s the one line that always comes to mind when I think of Sam lol
@@patrickgallagher3934 I totally respect that. Thank You.
@@patrickgallagher3934 people ruined it, you can like now
second that...
Hate that so much
If even Joe Rogan can destroy JP anyone can
what a lazy uneducated response
It’s easy to do when you understand what Peterson is doing. He cannot condense his ideas. He MUST be vague, convoluted, and complicated so that his opposition feels intimidated. I’ve seen several videos of him being asked very simple questions like “Do you believe god exists”, and Peterson said “Well, that’s a very complicated question. What do you mean by “you”, what do you mean by “god”, what do you mean by “believe”?
He skirts around the point so that he doesn’t have to actually explain anything. He sounds very profound to people who don’t realize what he’s doing.
Do you think you'd beat him in a debate?
We can hear him talk there's no need for your false interpretation
mack whitz Why would you watch the MR commentary video instead of the JRE podcast itself if you aren’t interested in commentary?
@@swagulationstation5278 to listen to his perspective is why, I just happened to find it to be shit
@@mackwhitz5312 I also wanted to see how perverted Sams perspective on this would be. These guys are quacks. People should watch the actual podcast not this garbage. Chopped so much it means nothing, this guy pretends to understand the words JP is saying but its clear hes just puttin his own narrative. Gotta watch the original podcast.
@@AdrianDWolfe I have watched the podcast and that's why I know this moron is just twisting short clips so he can shine his armor and be the swj white knight nobody asked for
“Dr Peterson, what’s your favourite colour?”
“Well that depends on what you mean by favourite. And it also depends on what you mean by colour. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”
proud to be first like 👍
We know his daughter likes Red!
Peterson makes more sense than this, C'mon! Haha.
@@karmveer36 Well that depends on what you mean by sense and the word more.
Well that depends on what you mean by Dr. Peterson..
30 years on the left and the only time I’ve heard “equality of outcome” is from right wing carnival barkers.
First time I've heard the term too!
THANKYOU that's cos it's not a thing.
'to each according to his need' means the same thing, no?
@@sidarthur8706 no, it much more approximately means equality of opportunity, a base line of decency we all adhere to. But Marx had a critique for equality of outcomes and recocgnized you could never reach true "equality" bc there will always be situational exemptions or disparities. JBP's analysis of marxist postmodernists (a term ive only ever heard used by him and his followers given the two terms individually are largely incompatible) is flat out wrong on just about every level.
Petah Runs the jewels what, marx meant that the way i'd means equality of opportunity? so he had no socialist welfare state in mind?
Women getting a choice to do what they want with their bodies and sexuality is the same thing as racism, according to Peterson
This dude doesnt at all understand what jordan was saying
Your connecting to points that have now connection.
I've been watching TMR's old videos for so long and didn't realise that Michael Brooks had passed away. That's so surprising, I'm shocked. Rest in peace, rest easy, man.
RIP
i didn't know, how sad
@@kssgpv i didnt know till recently either. And i still dont know how.
He died during the pandemic (shut down), from a circulatory problem. Very shocking.
:(
I've never seen someone so obsessed with their own intelligence than JP. He tends to make these weird connections, like he's so full of himself that he simply cant be wrong.
Did you listen to his words?
He specifically qualifies his statements with “think” or “I believe.” He’s actually super aware of how little he understands which is one of the reasons why he has struck with so many people.
Then, Sam and his crew only speak in statements of truth with their ideology being the most right and most righteous. Nowhere can you find qualifiers of “I think” for they are not aware of their own fallibility.
You can not like JP, but don’t mischaracterize who he is to avoid engaging with the concepts.
@@FuddlyDud That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right. But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice.
With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point.
Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias. But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?
@@jakublizon6375
"That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right."
Thank you Jakub for being open to my argument! :)
"But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. "
I would say that is on you, unfortunately. :P
Honestly, I am a bit of a JP fan and even read his 12 Rules for Life. There are many times he talks with authority, although it is always for a linguistic effect, something he actually specifies in his book. And, when he is talking in absolute terms, it is always on topics JP really does understand.
"Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice."
If you have any specifics, I am more than happy to go through them! :)
Also, as a bit of background, JP inspired me to be more open and honest with myself. So, when I see someone like Sam says JP never has thought about these things, it couldn't be further from the truth and dismisses JP's whole mission. :/
"With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. "
I rewatched it and JP made it a point about tilting society to serve those less fortunate, ultimately children, but he reconsidered his statement due to his phraseology and needing to think. He didn't have a prepared response because it was an open dialogue and he tries to be precise, something Sam could learn from JP. :P
For, as Sam claims JP was thinking in terms of "outcome" and people having less, JP is clearly trying to give children, the primary reason JP brings up the conversation of enforced monogamy, an equal opportunity by having two parents, one of the most important determinants of success. Sam ignores this though and gleeful claims JP doesn't want to help the less fortunate...like what? 0_0
"Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias."
We all have biases of all sorts. Some are more of conscious than others. JP is super conscious, and Sam is totally oblivious. You and I are likely in-between. :P
"But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?"
I totally do. However, bias does not mean I can't make a competent analysis. JP is one of the few people willing to have open conversations and, ironically, even talks about how outcomes have to be discussed in the last clip, for he knows all of this requires deep and carful dialogue.
Sam, however, claims it is a "shtick" and insinuates JP is a dishonest actor.
So, while I do have biases, I can support the more good faith individuals over the bad faith ones. I think I am doing an ok job of that for now, but I have plenty of work to do! :P
THanks for the chat, see you in the next reply! :)
@@FuddlyDud he talks a certain way to cover his ass , he’s a total narcissist IMO.
@@357-swagnumultramagax9
Have you ever heard him talk about why he talks the way he does?
It actually is far deeper than what you just described and I'd be more than happy to explain it if you are open to listening! :)
After watching both sides of this argument, it seems obvious to me, that the host of this show is the one that hasn't spent 10 mins to think about what JP is talking about. He just jumps on his soapbox and makes what JP talks about into some clown show, and has nothing to do with what he actually is espousing. Equality of outcome is a big difference from equality of opportunity.
smart
@@sophiasanders8321 yes, I can't stand Peterson, but the host is absolutely attacking a straw man, completely misstating the point. It's very annoying because it is possible to critique what Peterson is actually saying.
Exactly. Well said. This guy kn the glasses can barely string a sentence together. I think this guy is about 80 IQ points below JP and thats his problem perhaps
@@PZBrooklyn great explanation by you and that other guy on why what jordan peterson said was super smart, ACTUALLY
it was a very convincing argument and i for one am sorry i doubted the lobster lord's gigantic brain for even a second
Is Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin's life coach?
JP is Rubin's daddy.
Insofar as they both are looking to ca$h in on the stupidity of right wing audiences even if it means saying shit they don't believe or care about...yes. Yes, he is.
Life coach, or rather lie coach.
Miranda N Hey O!
I believe that would be the Koch Bros
Sam. I enjoy watching your videos... however, taking on Jordan Peterson is completely out of your depth. Equality of outcome is not the same as equality of opportunity.
Maybe you should explain that to Jordan Peterson.
Both are impossible.
What lol
Peterson is low hanging fruit. A soft target.
That’s why conservatives like him keep debating collage students.
JordN Peterson in fake intellectual
Have him on your show, then question him specifically what he means. You’re taking bits of information from another conversation you’re not apart of. You’re grown adults acting like 12 year olds. Instead of insulting a defenseless person, at least invite him on your show and talk with him one on one.
They will NEVER do that. Jordan would "calmly obliterate" them.
@@erikjohnson8031any left wing commentator would happily have JP on. Hes been invited to have discussions many times and he's declined because he's scared.
@@endtimessupportgroup5685 No, he really isn't. 😂
Another thing that is simple but underestimated with guys like Jordan is their style over substance. Whether he’s higher percentage right or wrong on a point, similar to Ben Shapiro, he just keeps talking. He starts vague but with high dollar words and phrasing causing people to wait for the next thing he says, then he takes you meandering through pseudo-truths until you’re nodding and thinking he really said something. It’s not fast and trying to intimidate like the insect Shapiro, but it does leave little room or time for many to say “well wait a minute”.
Yep
Cool it with the antisemitism
I'm confused. It seems like the commentator is getting equality of outcome confused with equality and then built up his whole point on a misunderstanding. Btw I am no fan of JP
@ 3:25 He makes the equivocation between the two concepts... and you can see him searching his brain for a way to manipulate Peterson's argument. I'm dumbfounded at how quick that happened.
Happy Comics has Perterson ever defined what he means by "equality of outcome"?
Morenito Moreno it means whatever he want it too in the moment
How are you going to get sexual equality for Peterson's incels though? Force women to find them attractive?
@@WiVeK13 Not true. At 2:57 Peterman literally says "equality of outcome."
Equality of outcome shown in the dislike to like ratio on this video.
@right right That's a bold claim there, buddy. Peterson is one of the least hate worthy people in academia. I'd love to hear your totally unbiased, super duper objective reasoning for why you hate the guy.
@@danstalter he's a junkie hypocrite blaming his wife's cancer for his dependence. He should take his own advice & "clean up his room" before criticizing the world.
@@danstalter he’s actually a moron who doesn’t understand history. Slavoj Zizek owned him into oblivion
@@evanclealand9231 Do you even know the situation he was in leading up to his health crisis? He wasn't a junkie. His health actually declined because he tried to quit benzos cold turkey after he discovered how adversely they were affecting him, and how much they exacerbated his depression and autoimmune issues. He didn't blame his wife's cancer for his dependence (not abuse) even once. He was dependent on them because if he didn't take them, his symptoms worsened, so the drugs that were slowly killing him were also keeping him alive in the short-term. Smugness born of ideological differences is super cringy, man. Especially when you're inferring such awful, untrue things about the crisis he and his family had been facing just because you disagree with and want to try and invalidate him as a "junkie". That's pretty pathetic. Ad hominem does not an argument make.
@@icorrectly there were better solutions than being a junkie hypocrite misogynist.
Rogan has this odd quality of being disarming, surprising, with a dash of rustic wisdom.
WestOfEarth well, he can have that quality. Sometimes he’s just a fucking idiot though.
It's the mary Jane
@@edienandy aren't we all sometimes fucking idiots
@submalevolent grace yeah sure
My god this did not age well. You knew a whole lot before huh? I’ve known Rogan was a mark since I first heard his Ellen-like bullsh*t back in 2016. You got a long way to go!
As many people of said JP is "taken out context" the way he get people to believe that is that he constantly makes extremely vague statements so that whatever he says can conform to retaliate to criticism, he is never really taken out of context he just knows how to say he is
He also puts words in people's mouths and conforms his argument based on it
@@nexya26 yes, I swear it's like 90% of his political or philosophical discussions are purely based on straw man arguments
@@nexya26 so the exact thing whoever made this video is doing, putting words into his mouth and saying “so this is his argument” y’all are so ignorant and lack so much self awareness it’s almost unbelievable
@@zwoptf I didn't make the video, I didn't even mention it so saying I lack self awareness is quite ironic isn't it
When JP talks about equality of outcome he is talking about having a % of employees be of X race or X gender , equality of outcome in that case will lead to a worse work force because the employer needs to fill in a quota instead of actually getting the people for the jobs . So yes in this case from the first 4 mins he is arguing against something JP doesn't even stand for or mention. I used to like JP but i have my reasons to hate him now , however i do not respect someone pinning ideas on the guy when he never mentioned them just to "hate" on him coz its cool.
8:07 I nearly lost in when Michael did his Jordon Peterson impression. "I'm not talking about myself I get CRAZY tail" lmfao!!!
I love it!
Or when Jordan Peterson's actual comments are so absurd you think its Michael doing an impression .
@@Michael_Paul585 Translation, you can't debate Peterson so you resort to absurd generalizations. The bigotry on the left ...
@@johnnastrom9400 Is it bigotry to make a joke? I thought jp fanboys were free speech die hard, absolutists.
@@johnnastrom9400 Everytime Peterson debates someone knowledgeable he gets destroyed, what are you talking about? His arguments crumble.
Sam, if you weren't so long winded, you too could be a more significant blogger. I love your message but get to the point FFS.
I swear Kulinski, Pakman and Sam all talk like they're filling time sometimes; they've got really good points but kind of take the scenic route of getting to them.
@Ben Ghazi i agree with those descriptions. Pakman (whom I actually like) unnecessarily acts as though he needs to hold the hand of his viewer in wading through all the news. Kyle (i like him too) just seems to come what he wants to say before hand and then repeats it several different ways. The ones who actually seem to have the most different points to make are (agree or disagree with them) tyt and also Michael Brooks (rest in peace.)
This guy has no idea what equality of outcome is.
Lol, not even remotely.
He literally said it means no one should starve. Talk about confused.
Who, Joe? Ikr?
@@arkadihughes4893 nah, the person hosting/ commenting on the Jordan Peterson video. I guess his name is Sam
@@mattshalash awwww you tried.
Because Sam isn't attacking the silly strawman that Peterson throws out. Nobody actually believes in equality of outcome as an ideology except a couple of 19 year old college dumbfucks.
“I would argue bitches be triflin.” Best line of the video.
Cause it's true
Yo biotch ok
Michael Brooks lol he has great one liners like that whenever JP is discussed.
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what equality of outcome is
Communism
Equality of opportunity is democratic socialism.
Equality of outcome is communistic socialism.
Kimmminem West
🤦🏽♂️
@Kimmminem West
Ummm... At no point does he suggest or insinuate such a thing. He is commenting on how imbalances in heirarchies ("become too steep") can destabilize society over time. He uses the sexual domain as an example for where imbalances occur. I would agree that he stumbled a bit, but the context was with regards to putting guardrails on extreme views (in either direction, left/right) to offset the risk of a destabilizing society, as a whole, across the span of generations. Hence "bad for children." JP is speaking from a meta-view (generational) and JR is speaking from a more "personal" viewpoint (that person over there.)
There are a multitude of reasons that would cause any group to become so discontent that a revolt would take place. JP doesn't talk about that here. Nor would he lay such a thing at the feet of a single issue, sex or elsewise. Again, it was an oversimplified example. Generally, he speaks against extreme individualism (tyranny) as well as against extreme collectivism (communism).
Kimmminem West equality of opportunity is you and your friend have equal chance of being hired at a factory, and equal chance of getting a raise. Equality of outcome is you faster at making a product in the factory than your friend, so the factory owner forces you to slow down, or pays you less per work done to equalise it. The first one is good, the second one is damn evil.
Sam seeing the stockmarket drop a thousand points in a day
*pause it*
Lol, if only haha
Jordan Peterson doesn't seem to do well with comedians. Go figure.
Robert Browne cause they don’t understand what they are talking about
@@itzzAssassiN So Carlin didn't understand things? Comedians are modern day jesters and jesters throughout time have criticised stupidity of kings, queens and governments. Because usually one who cannot speak succinctly and using common terms so all can understand is a man/woman trying to BS you or trying to sound more intelligent than they actually are, it is the story of the emperor has no clothes only the child has the balls to state the obvious.
callum aston A good comedian is intelligent and good at observing people.
He does great with Steven Crowder, and great with Rogan.
@@bokoharambe1019 Calling Crowder a comedian is like calling canned tamales Mexican food.
I'm 70, and chose not to have children because I've always enjoyed a wide range of intimate relationships, and eschew "stable" activities in preference for travelling, mountaineering and spur of the moment stuff. A lone wolf travels further and faster. I'm that archetypal 6'4" handsome fella that Joe described but generally too shy to milk it or abuse it.
So he says that Jordan Peterson is wrong for saying “equality of outcome” is treacherous, then goes on to describe things that he considers “equality of outcome”, then says they aren’t really outcomes they should start at birth. This is not “equality of outcome” then...he is describing something completely different.
I think they’re trying to make the point that it’s no way an equal comparison.
I see my 18 year old self in Jordan Peterson. Not to say that these guys know what they’re talking about. However, Jordan Peterson definitely just hears about an idea and then thinks he knows everything. Exactly the way I used to think when I was younger. This man is educated and has had a lot more life experience to be acting this way.
I see where you are coming from but like you said he is well-educated. He does hear about ideas and then studies them thoroughly (he does have slight implicit bias but no one doesn’t) and lectures on the topics. What specific topics do you think he is under-educated on and why?
Curtis Beardsley lmao exactly that man read the communist manifesto which is like 32 pages long and thinks he knows everything.
ItzARevltn I agree with you he is an educated man. However, that’s all he is. He has an education but that doesn’t necessarily make you smart or intelligent. Peterson is a perfect example of that. He refuses to read anything and only forms his opinions on Marxism, post modernism or anything else only based on his feelings and what other people say instead of doing the research for himself. Like an educated man should. He only reads books that support his opinion and those are the only books he cites. Which are usually very misrepresentative. You can be educated and a clown at the same time which is exactly what Peterson is. Since he is a clinical psychologist this behavior is unacceptable.
I can’t name any significant movement or activist that’s for equality of outcome. He built a straw man and drove over it
Even the strawman kicked his drunk old crying ass tbf.
Exactly, it seems that only right wingers talk about this...
*Insert Bernie Sanders* Watch some of his earlier interviews, Same ideas just less transparent about them
Seems like I’ve posted this argument to many times on too many comments, but people don’t seem to understand this concept. I can tell you right now that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Cortez very blatantly supports equality of outcome. She may not use those three words, I’m unsure if she has simply because I don’t watch everything she says cause she’s a nut job, but she very readily supports policy that pushes mainstream socialism (newsflash, socialist policies are inherently tailored to equality of outcome). Have we really gotten to a point where someone has to quite literally say they believe in something for us to put the pieces together? It’s incredibly sad. She supports exorbitant taxes for the wealthy, businesses, and huge single payer social programs. It’s very obvious to me. She wants to take everything away from the top, and give to the people at the bottom who either don’t want to work or want to live off the government. Tax the rich until they are poor and give to the poor which won’t make them any richer. That’s equality of outcome.
The Women's rights movement and their nonsense pay gap.
He’s just spouting the talking points and myths believed by the MRA and incel crowd. He’s talking about “Chads” but with a thesaurus to make it sound intellectual.
The guy knows where his bread is buttered. Those are literally the fools writing his paycheck now thru Patreon.
Doesn’t matter to him that it doesn’t actually make sense so long as he waves the incel flag and gets paid.
"Chads" are always surfers. It's the 1st Law of Chad.
LOLOLOL at "the MRA and incel crowd". Uh, no these are beliefs held by the majority of people. Get out of your SJW echo chamber and come join the rest of the world.
Karen Carpenter They'll never step outside the chamber, that would be far too difficult. He reduced Peterson's argument down to "Chads" because that's the furthest his understanding will go.
Karen Carpenter Maybe those beliefs are held by a lot of people because they don't question what he's saying. It's not hard to quickly rip into what Peterson says, it's not hard to get different perspectives on what he says and realize how flawed he is. And then *you're* the one to suggest people should get out of an echo chamber. FYI you're the one suggesting they're the majority. That awfully sounds like a statement from somebody inside an echo chamber.
Nah, there not. Only lonely people on the spectrum buy into this incoherent garbage. No one except Peterson and his moronic virginal disciples believe limiting "Chad's" ability to get "Stacy" would actually help ugly hateful losers get laid. Stacy still aint gonna fuck you, sweetheart. Get over it.
"I'm not trying to redistribute the weather..." --hysterical!
Sneaky ...Equality of outcome is not the same thing has equality of oportunity. Equality of outcome is the conservative way to spin social democracy into something that it his not .
*Social Democracy
Red Walker thank you
So you've never heard feminists calling for 50% representation of women in a particular field? Really?
Karen Carpenter Yeah but they represent themselves not the entire feminine population. Your comment is stupid or dishonest.
Hilarious. You admit that people on the left (feminists) push for equality of outcome and then call my comment dishonest.
It's not conservative spin. There are literally people on the left calling for equality of outcome and you just admitted as much!
Majority Report algorithm for generating clicks:
1. Title video mentioning TH-cam personality who is WAY more successful than Seder.
2. Talk smack for 10 minutes on said personality.
3. Profit off of revenue generated from mentioning said TH-camr in title.
4. Repeat steps 1-3.
I'm from Ireland. Never knew of the majority report. I just have a strong dislike of trump and by default the current republican machine. Trump brought me here. Now I'm watching this. 😕 Turns out it works.
@@FintBandit why would you hate Trump? He is an undisciplined ninnie who fires from the hip and frequently sticks his foot bbn in his mouth and has some dated social principles but... he's proven to be mostly harmless. To me it seems those who hate Trump are more evasive and authoritarian. If you are invested in any form at all its hard to disapprove of his economic policies. Seems to me the best thing the government can do for poor people is make it easier for them to be hired. 6 million people got off food stamps in his first 2 years. He has pardoned thousands of black people who were wrongfully prosecuted and reformed the penal system so it can happen less frequently in the future. Its hard to deny the success occurring in the US right now which is positively effecting other global markets.
@@korydyson8723 if you think he's mostly harmless with the language that he so flippantly uses then you're sadly mistaken. His tactics have emboldened hard liners around the world. Boris Johnson has seen how his divisive language has worked in America and is using it in their general election. Preying on ppls fear to get elected and further developing their prejudices. Harmless he is not. As for the economy, he inherited a massively improving American from Obama and global economy that was recovering from the worst downturn since the depression as a result of Bush cutting regulation. So the advances made in the first two years had nothing to do with trump. The trade wars that he has engaged in and the cuts he has made to top earners have resulted in another recession around the corner. If he gets elected again then it'll be interesting to see what he'll blame it on. I suspect he'll have hit full dementia by then and will go into full meltdown. Possibly get impeached again and the republicans will finally turn on him. Hopefully the American ppl see sense, vote Bernie and it doesn't come to that though
@@FintBandit what i wonder is who you will blame the success on if the economy continues to grow. Middle class income has increased over $5,000/year in the first 3 years of trump. Obama saw an increase of $1,400/year over his 8 years in office which is respectable while george bush saw only an increase of about $600 over his tenure. Obama was a good president and I voted for him twice. That said my 401k and mutual funds yave never been this profitable. Money is cheap right now so its easy to grow business and hire people. Under the trump economy ive been able to grow as fast as i can hire and my money is growing so fast i am having to diversify more to protect myself which is proving ti be quite lucrative. My long term investments performed okay under Obama but nothing on the short term as corporations were weary of growing and attracting regulatory intervention from Obama's government. Im not worried about the words of either president as i am a grown man with my own thoughts. I worry about their actions and while Obama was more than adequate in most regards his economic policies hardly impacted my wealth as much as Trump's and this is verified through the markets themselves not words.
@@korydyson8723 Economy growing?? You mean the DEBT of the economy is growing. 2 years in power and two years in a row Trump borrows from the Fed $1 Trillion each year.
Second, the Fed has had to bailout banks on a daily basis to the tune of hundreds of billions, see the Operation Repo.
Feds keep lowering the interest rates, something you do when the economy is in bad shape in order to stimulate growth, well, they keep going lower and lower and lower.
Interests rates are going into negative territory now in many areas.
Corporate debt is at the highest it has ever been.
Student debt, credit card debt, overall national private sector debt is at beyond alarming levels already
Half of US people CANNOT afford a simple emergency of $400 or $500 if it happened right now.
AN extreme volume of people are just one pay check away from economic disaster.
Health care bills are strangulating the economy of the ordinary people
The homeless rates are out of control
The USA is at the highest debt it has been in a long time.
The housing market finance sector looks like it's getting ready to crash ... AGAIN !!
Deflation is still ever present and seriously present... spending has been restricted in the private sector of the ordinary economy.
Trump has had to bailout the farming/food industry , yep, similar to the bank bailout and auto industry, because they were crashing and eating shit because they were getting their asses kicked by competition from abroad. Socialism for the rich there.
Point to me the growth here... after you remove the smoke and the illusion of progress.
Hearing of Michael Brooks, I had to watch this again to hear his laugh and his impression of JP. What a loss. Sorry for his friends at TMR and TYT.
He did a great impression of Sebastian Gorka as well. I'm going to really miss that guy.
whaaaaat? Omg I didn't realize he died this year! At 36 holy shit.
TYT is trash
This one is a classic
@@icorrectly SHUT the fuck up, bitch.
I really miss the part where JR obliterated him and the part where you represented JP arguments correctly. Really feels like you are grasping at straws and are trying to misrepresent and misunderstand his arguments just to have any point of discussion. Pointless video.
A shot in the dark here, but I think you've confused what he was trying to say. When referring to "equality of outcome" he's referring to the idea that not everyone is going to get the same results or the same outcome, thus the outcome is not equal. I don't think he was trying to disagree with the idea of equality of basic opportunities and needs. Everyone should have access to the things you've listed, but that wasn't the point being made.
Note: Joe Rogan didn't destroy him he pointed out the flaw in his argument as it held a contradiction.
Creatotron : xactly
@Creatotron dont be a fucking moron. Of you think nobody is advocating for that, you havent been paying attention. Of course that's completely irrational, but that's exactly his point.
“It’s also possible that bitches be trifling!” We miss Michael Brooks
Can we just get to the point where we can all agree that Peterson (like Dave Rubin) discovered he can make a lot of money criticizing the left and that to maximize his income, he avoids making any statements that would lose any other market segment? Safe statements about about Nazis and alt-right ("I generally don't invite them to my parties") or giving long mealy-mouth answers to questions like, "Do you believe in God?" or "Are you a Christian?"
yes.
Remember when Joe Rogan was like this instead of saying "Hey Jordan, I think you're a genius."
This video: has 21k likes
Also this video: has 21k dislikes
Check it again.
@Action Jackson People generally don't like when people misrepresents people they disagree with while they are being worshipped by their followers for destroying those people with misrepresentations.
@@darkwolf4434 finest observation.. misrepresentation uff rubbish & low level determination of something you can't grasp ..DESTROYING haha beyond belief you sounds dump.Use words properly to convey your low level thoughts to misrepresent someone who you can't matched at any level of intellectual.
@Proper Kvlt Oh, a Seder fan I assume? The argument does seem similar to those made by Seder.
Lots of lobsters out there.
What do you mean by.''Jordan'' and ''Peterson''?.
Have you read everything he wrote and 50 additional books of obscure and famous authors on the topics?
That depends on what you mean by "mean" and "what" and "by" and "and," surely...
I feel sorry for people who are too slow to question things we take for granted on a deep level. All you do is mock him because you're too dense to follow it any deeper than what your media sources tell you to believe.
Except he's reheated Jungian tropes. I feel sorry for you not knowing that.
@@Oenolicious I read Jung so I'm aware. There's far more to what he says than just Jungian ideas
@@jovaransguplar3019 Who? Jordan Peterson? Nah man I researched him myself and I wanted to like him but he morphs conversations, tries to manipulate and I really believe he thinks he can control some people with his mind.
Everyone deserves a basic minimum is not equality of outcome.
Thats literarry communism but go off.
@@artisanmage5378
No, it's really not...
@@artisanmage5378 if you mean the philosophy of marxism, you are right. Literal communism has always been a dictatorship and not pure marxism.
true. A basic minimum for everyone is great. Some people will still get rich and famous and that`s fine. As long as they pay tax because they too want streets and a functioning goverment and people who can pay for the stuff they sell
what is it to deserve? go...
So Sam declares that Peterson is a charlatan and hasn't spent 10 minutes thinking through his positions, then admits he knows NOTHING WHATEVER about what Peterson does. Is there a contradiction there?
I think Joe Rogan is his own person, and I think he is not stupid either. I don't see eye to eye with him on a few things, but I think he is decent.
Okay I didn't say he was a genius. He doesn't seem like a total sellout. I guess it must be embarrassing for you, as far as you go I could not possibly care less. Peace.
I think Rogan might be coming around. Hes challenged a few of these IDW guys on some pretty fundamental stuff to their ideology. There is hope yet.
I think that these IDW guy speak so matter of fact about their bullshit, and so condescendingly, that you cannot help but challenge their ideas. The first Jordan Peterson clip I saw was really positive, and I thought this guy is alright. Then I saw another one, and it is amazing how quick I felt compelled to change my opinion of him.
Peterson is a fraud.. He is like Trump. These guys saw an opening in the market. They noticed that uneducated Right Wing white men were frustrated, so they took advantage of that.. They have all gotten to where they wanted to be. Gotta give them credit for seeing an opening and taking full advantage.. Both Trump and Peterson are Richer, famous and more worshipped by their now by that base...lol
It is a little depressing though, that everyone that gets ahead in this society, is a fraud, and generally espouses destructive ideology.
Sam has no self control.
just play the full clip and then talk about it.
FFS.
It's called doing a breakdown.
@@Rotinaj37 Also by pausing the clip and giving commentary, might help avoid copyright strikes.
nowew owkelw I agree with most of this channels talking points but jfc is this Sam guy a complete narcissistic tool. He is so annoying.
@@messywes dude completely agree. This is first time my watching one of his videos and he right away comes off as an "I know everything dumass guy" maybe he's does know a lot, but the way he presents it, like a stupid annoying teenager and his buddies sound like a bunch of dum fucks at the back of a bus or uber or something like that and you just want turn around and yell shut da fuck up! Lol
@@edwardperez5040 "dumb"
I am sorry, i's just does knows a lot...
People dismiss Joe because he's a meathead. He has some toxic opinions, but he has got his head screwed on.
AnonOfAnarchy name one of his toxic opinions
Toxic... so toxic... so bloody toxic. Everything about him is toxic. Incredibly toxic.
@@AIRSOFTRAIDERS1 maybe he's changed recently but he used to have some weird/toxic views of transgender people
@@tylerweitzel7768 well to be fair the transgender community itself is pretty toxic. Well i mean the ones who are always trying to stay in the media and making a big deal about it anyway.
@@AIRSOFTRAIDERS1 that's not an argument that Joe's stances weren't toxic though. That's unrelated whataboutism
Whenever the right doesnt have a real answer when asked to point out where a behavior is bad they revert to "its bad for kids" even tho its completely unrelated
He just made up his own definition of equality of outcome
He did. As a fan (of Sam's), this one was hard to watch.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski it's almost like I'm able to disagree with or condemn an action of someone I'm a fan of. It's called being principled and judging everyone by a consistent standard, regardless who they are and how I feel about them as a person. Is it not possible this is one of those cases where I agree more with Peterson than Sam? You should try being principled sometime. If you agree 100% with everything someone says, it's likely you're not always thinking for yourself.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you realize I am a fan of Sam's, which is what I said. Just that, in this case here, Sam is misrepresenting Peterson's position on equality of outcome. I don't need to accept Peterson's past hypocrisies to side with Peterson on this particular sliver of an issue.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski He didn't "just deflect and come back with word salad," he admitted that Joe had a good point, thought about, even let Joe speak again, and then defended his point. I'm not a fan or viewer of Peterson's or his conservative views but I respect how he can speak like this. Its not every day that an intellectual / scholar gets legitimately stumped by an MMA announcer in front of the biggest podcast audience in the world.
Yep. Just a grifter
Used to be a big fan of Peterson but woke not a pleasant or genuine guy. His needs to check his ego, ps how can you take him seriously after this and other interviews
He wants equality of outcomes for incels. That sounds like sexual communism. 🤣🤣🤣
@@the0ne809 seize the means of reproduction comrade
Has a Canadian I am woefully ashamed Jordan Peterson shares citizenship with me... He just barely stopped himself from saying 'in the interests of white men.'
Peridot X As an American, I’m glad you’re a Canadian.
@@PaulOutsidetheWalls you have no idea how much you and I agree on that.
Don't be, nobody took him seriously in Canada, that's why he's in the US..were stupidity is king 😉
Moi aussi. As a Canadian, all I can say is that Peterson is an idiot.
Lone Demon you could at least spell where correctly bro
even 6 years later we have joe rogan comparing tim walz to kim jong un for idea of equality of outcome for basic necessities
Isn’t Jordan Peterson the guy who’s afraid to debate dr Wolff?
Yea that's the guy
Jordan Peterson is not the kind of man that gets afraid...I’m not saying that he’s brave just why would he be afraid to teach or to learn
@@eyobw6737 Oh he gets afraid, just not in the way we expect it.
To teach would mean he gets schooled when he explains his flawed principles; to learn would mean he would have to reinvent himself, which would mean he wouldn't profit on those he's suckered in already.
Tiffian Ruler wouldn’t reinventing himself be a victory...you see I don’t see these debates as competition rather than just two people making each other adequate so that they can achieve common ground it’s not one vs one it’s they vs the problem
That being said I personally think Jordan Peterson wouldn’t be afraid to gain a new thread of thought
Many times Joe is a lazy arguer. Joe stepped up his game today.
the information that jordan observes this information, which is not new news and statistically viable. Anything else?
@@jewishgenes Yeah, yeah, yeah, you said that before. The repeat is done. Now go to the fade.
Conservatism, hypocrisy is thy middle name. I've come to realize that the fundamental requirement to be a conservative is to be a hypocrite!
Spartanladkenny78 and psychologically project
Spartanladkenny78 yes it's a job requirement
I don't care for Jordan Peterson, but you are completely misrepresenting JPs arguments.
"I'm not redistributing the weather."
"Pause it. "
S. Seder
Jordans is about to explain his point.... "pause it" and let me insert my idea
-sam seder
This guy is almost as bad as Cathy Newman at understanding Peterson’s points... even when he repeats Peterson’s argument RIGHT AFTER he plays the clip, he can’t get a characterization that’s even close to accurate.
Can you?
Theodore J. Oaker ...
Are you trying to make a point
@@sungod9797 Nope I'm curious.
In this video: Sam does not understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
Sam is a communist.
Completely agree, he is clueless
@@alfonzomma Explain?
He really doesn't, and his whole argument is built on his complete misconception of equality of outcome. Sam is seeing this debate through a very different lens to mine.
@@outofworkactor3033 How so? And why does JP equivocate?
Someone was turned down by too many girls in school and still salty.... I'm dead 😂😂
Man has a wife and kid
@@blackfangofargentina by some hilarious accident. Can you imagine a woman that loves the unstable directionless fruitloop of a husband that is this guy?
@@armstrem poor lady. I bet they're glad he's touring all over the US instead if back home in Canada
@@125loopy Peterson tours with his family. They are highschool sweethearts.
Laura Franks that’s sweet. Nothing wrong with that.
It's bad for children in the long run if we have a few men hogging sex... But, it's totally cool to have them grow up in poor neighborhoods without access to healthcare and quality education for reasons beyond their control. Builds character.
1 in 10 chinese people are related to ghengis khan (supposedly). It's fine if few men are making all the babies, what matters is a support network for childhood growth and health.
8:16 Jordan Peterson the thing you are trying to prevent here is sexual Capitalism. When it comes to wealth, economy and living standard Jordan hates socialism but when it comes to sex he loves socialism.
I really wish he could show this kind of concern in other aspects of live and promote socialist ideas where it matters.
In japan 80% girls choose only the top 20% of men and population is declining. this is the steep hierarchy JP talked about.
@@vahelvoib4203 the population rate of declining in Japan for many reasons.
Their strict immigration policies while young people leave to go abroad.
Many people feeling financially insecure about starting a family.
Women choosing to remain single because a the business culture is such that even a woman with a serous boyfriend will lose almost all chance of promotion because the older businessmen view their risk of getting pregnant too high.
It has almost nothing to do with the ramblings of this lunatic.
@@Centhar
Women are also choosing to remain single because, statistically, married women with kids are one of the most depressed sub-groups on the planet.
@@vahelvoib4203
What's the solution, then? Have the government force women to marry unattractive men? Women (and men) have always preferred more attractive partners, and the idea that there needs to be some government-enforced *sexual* equality of outcome is ridiculous.
And as Centhar said above, the reasons for population decline are not due to pickiness.
@@kevinturner7509 it is part of the reason not the whole, if you're not able to understand this i cant help you. and nobody was saying there should be government enforced sezual equality of outcome wtf are you talking about. He is just saying that of it gets too steep it's bad. Its not an opinion or a solutuon or whatever you want.
Look, if there is no impact to systemic racism, and the real problem is “culture” and the “lack of fathers” in black society in America, then how does Peterson explain the lack of social mobility for all of the very traditional households with a mother and father, both employed, and still struggling, as their parents did, and their parents before them (and usually, if you 3-4 generations back, we were slaves)? Do Conservatives think that there is a way to hinder the development of success in a minority community? How would they go about it? Does anybody remember “Irish need not apply” signs in the early 1900’s? Yeah. Somebody show this to Ben Shapiro and that tw-at Charlie Kirk.
Basic minimums and equality of outcome are not the same thing. You're straw manning his argument
thanks. Just like
He talks about communists that execute mothers who pick up a corn of rice so she can try to feed her family, if we wanna frame it in a loaded way.
He was referring to enforced monogamy as a societal phenomenon where when his son would come up to him and told Peterson that he cheated on his wife 4 times the last year 'isnt that awesome?' he would probably react in a way to "enforce monogamy" by maybe telling him off or whatever. And that enforcement of monogamy happens on a societal level. That's what he meant. Its not that he wants some draconian policy that forces women to marry men against their will. But thats how the journalist caricatured his idea. If people watched the full podcast they'd know it. Infact I'm gonna search for the link with a time stamp. Brb thisll be edited in a few hours.
That’s because JP is strawmanning in the first place. Literally no one believes in equality of outcome, except in the narrowest and most pedantic definitions. It’s just a talking point of right wingers who have no idea what they’re talking about.
Equality of outcome is literally impossible.
@@AMSOfficial79 thats why its undesirable right? do we agree?
@@interycreeper1152 I think we agree that it is impossible. I have my own reasoning why it is undesirable, and part of that is wasting resources/attention on that which is unattainable. Better to focus on things we can actually change.
BTW liberal, joe likes Jordan if you’ve watched any of the FOUR interviews he’s always in his side. Why do you feel like you have to break down exactly what he is already saying but trying to put your own restarted twist on it?
what sam is actually talking about is equality of opportunity
No he is clearly talking about equality of outcome which is what leftists love to push.
Bullshit, 12b and you know it.
+12brichards are u a fan of peterson because if so u would know that sam has merley mixed up equality of outcome with oppertunity. peterson has talked with rogan about this subject before and he says somthing similar to what sam is saying
Define "equality of outcome" 12brichards. Be specific.
Peterson is actually stating that he wants "equality of outcome" when it comes to sex when he espouses his "enforced monogamy" bullshit
Im not even a crazy fan of Peterson… but this show is deplorable….
The intellectual hurdle required to see through your own fallacies, the very same fallacies that you make your career from, makes it impossible for you to question those fallacies. It is fundamentally impossible for Peterson to grow beyond where he is now, lest he sabotage his entire career.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to honestly believe he hasn't thought this all out WAY more than you have? What fallacies? All you people say is vague bullshit like that and then have no argument (just strawmen) to back up your claims.
Cool try using an argument instead of making bullshit claims in an echo chamber of a comments section. This is all people do when they talk about Peterson. No arguments whatsoever just "He's wrong" that's all it ever is. Try doing it without a strawman too cuz I can already see you building it
@@jovaransguplar3019
I love Peterson's speeches on self development. He should stay on that topic only. Here's a simple contradiction in his logic. He's a wealthy person who feels prosecuted for his beliefs, telling others that because we have it better than our grandparents we shouldn't feel prosecuted in any way.
@@wreck-creation I like it how you misrepresented what he's saying here. He never says not to feel prosecuted, he believes it's counterproductive. Which is true, if you feel you're oppressed you can use it as an excuse to achieve less.
@@wreck-creation -- Your comment makes zero sense. If one feels that they are being prosecuted, they should hire a defense attorney. Or do you mean PERSECUTED? If we substitute "persecute" for "prosecute" in your comment, it still makes no sense. You gave no example in your comment, just more of the same old generalizations left-wingers are known for. And if you don't know the difference between "prosecute" and "persecute", you should not be commenting on the intellect of others.
That’s hilarious, Jamie is totally right. It’s as though Peterson inexplicably realized he had invented his own form of “Cultural Marxism,” and then the cognitive dissonance suddenly hit him
As if that's so abnormal, as if none you would never make mistakes in your thinking. The guy is being chased around by people who want to lock him up in a cage because he disagrees with their opinions, by people who deny all kinds of well-established scientific and historical facts. He made a mistake in his thinking and many people have seen this, and perhaps he had a tough time admitting it because people have been so hard on him. You inhuman people you who can't even have a little understanding of him. Just disgusting.
Congrats 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Emit RelevArt unfortunately Peterson hasn’t shown a lot of empathy for others so it becomes difficult to extend it to him.
@@gremlinking5640 Perhaps not for some, perhaps for the wrong reasons. But he is someone who is willing to have a real discussion, and to strive for truth. And a lot of the people that have been opposing him are not particularly that, some not even a slight bit, yet they have been viciously attacking him on all sides. Yes, the man has success, and so I'm not saying we should all feel sorry, but give him a fucking break too, you know.
You don't think he can, and is willing to, admit that he's wrong, when (and if) he has realized it. Many of his opposers won't even truly think about that possibility (that they may be wrong, and that he can admit if _he_ is); they don't even have the integrity to acknowledge long established biological facts. No wonder he, and many others, are so skeptical. Yet these people continue to criticize and attempt to ostracize him? I just think that's wrong, and that all this shaming (honest) people (by dishonest people) try to do to him is wrong, and that they may often be the shameful ones. At least some are, and these guys here reek of that same foul odor to me (at least). They cherrypick a mistake he made and blow it up beyond justification (SJW's huh?). The strawmanning is strong in this one.
Who knows, _maybe I'm wrong_ . It's just that I'm really open to that possibility. Contrary to other echo-chamber dwellers (sounds almost unbearably like that over in this studio/place).
@@kjekelle96 I appreciate your response and I agree that we should all be a lot less certain about what we are certain about. Sometimes though, Peterson does strike me as being too aggressively assured of certain viewpoints. I think all of us just need to chill and accept that we are fallible creatures and fellow humans struggling for understanding. I do hate the tribalism, us vs. them attitude displayed in this and many other videos on youtube. But I see that coming from the right just as much as from the left. I even hate that dichotomy because my politics are definitely left leaning, but I can't stand the college kids who identify that way and then elevate their dogmas above common sense. Again thanks for taking the time to write a thoughtful reply.
At first I misread “Jordan Peterson obliterated Jordan Peterson” lmao
He kind of did.
Which would technically be correct. XD
He really shot himself in the dick with that complaint about hierarchies.
It's sorta true😂
me too😂
Basically when your own beliefs and comments come back to kick you right in the dick.
He’s saying that expecting that expecting that everyone should have equal access to healthcare, and equal care should be accorded to them regardless of social standing, is the same as being a Klan member.
lol that moment when he realizes he's about to contradict himself and just says "well that's a good question."
Do you think maybe he just wants to think about his view point and answer carefully?
@@jacklaffey3529 or do you think he hasn't actually thought this through? Because if he did he would've realized that his views are a walking contradiction.
Shit it seems like it was just the basic question he was trying to answer in the first place, how do I help incels?
All Joe did was take his answer to the question and go, how does that help incels?
Then he used the rope Joe gave him to hang himself.
At 6 minutes he’s arguing almost a completely different point
More like from the beginning
DubStylee dude it’s something he’s talked about twice and it’s only theorizing on what might be best for children, and he admits he could very well be wrong relax
Vlad the guru whatever you say buddy 👍
@DubStylee that was his personal conviction on what is the best for the child. He never talked of making such things illegal
@@ricardocorreia2542 but that would effectively be the outcome of his enforced monogamy policy proposal. Also, jbp spent half his time arguing against a strawman position supposedly held by the left: "equality of outcomes", something marx actively critiques, all just to end up being in favor of the true left position,* equality of opportunity * on a topic he is widely known for: (advice for incels, policy prescription: enforced monogamy). Dude failed here
Peterson = alot of big terms that Express right wing talking points that are based on nothing.
Everyone deserves an opportunity to be successful, not everyone deserves to be successful.
Marxism-leninism-petersonism lmao GOLD
Former Peterson fan here. He advocates for socialism in his book while railing against it without. If that tells you anything
even in capitalism there is place for socialism. Think firefighters and police. What you are describing is his entire philosophy, middle of the road, using what works to create a better society.
It's called nuance, a lot of things are nuanced
@@tomscully9589 He "fundamentally despises" the Left, that doesn't sound middle of the road
@@mdaddy775 Can you please pay attention, or if im wrong correct me. He espouses views of the left and the right and only ever condemns extremists, whether they are right leaning or left. It just so happens that in the last decade, the extremist left have been creating their own communities on platforms like twitter making false claims and not only misinforming people, but whipping them into frenzies like the wayfair conspiracy. If you do your research he condemns right leaning extremism too, hence him being middle of the road.
@@tomscully9589 Don't you see how sad it is that you write essays defending some person against a bit of criticism? There's better ways to spend one's life.
so what you’re saying is
The birth rate of children to single mother homes has risen since 1940 to 1950 to 1960 and on. How can I listen to the rest of this man discrediting Jordan Peterson when he just said the rate has went down not up? If he is lying there...his whole video is done. Bye