Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics | Big Think
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 кві 2018
- Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: white nationalism. "What's interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum, we've figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, 'No, you're outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'" says Peterson. But where's that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole. Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: "The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that's where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That's] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It's like: 'No, you've crossed the line. We're not going there with you.'"Peterson argues that it's the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism's fatal flaw.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN PETERSON
Jordan B. Peterson, raised and toughened in the frigid wastelands of Northern Alberta, has flown a hammer-head roll in a carbon-fiber stunt-plane, explored an Arizona meteorite crater with astronauts, and built a Kwagu'l ceremonial bighouse on the upper floor of his Toronto home after being invited into and named by that Canadian First Nation. He's taught mythology to lawyers, doctors and business people, consulted for the UN Secretary General, helped his clinical clients manage depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, anxiety, and schizophrenia, served as an adviser to senior partners of major Canadian law firms, and lectured extensively in North America and Europe. With his students and colleagues at Harvard and the University of Toronto, Dr. Peterson has published over a hundred scientific papers, transforming the modern understanding of personality, while his book Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief revolutionized the psychology of religion. His latest book is 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
JORDAN PETERSON: I would like to talk briefly about depolarization on the Left and the Right, because I think there's a technical problem that needs to be addressed. So here's what I've been thinking about.
It's been obvious to me for some time that, for some reason, the fundamental claim of post-modernism is something like an infinite number of interpretations and no canonical overarching narrative. Okay, but the problem with that is: okay, now what?
No narrative, no value structure that is canonically overarching, so what the hell are you going to do with yourself? How are you going to orient yourself in the world? Well, the post-modernists have no answer to that. So what happens is they default-without any real attempt to grapple with the cognitive dissonance-they default to this kind of loose, egalitarian Marxism. And if they were concerned with coherence that would be a problem, but since they're not concerned with coherence it doesn't seem to be a problem.
But the force that's driving the activism is mostly the Marxism rather than the post-modernism. It's more like an intellectual gloss to hide the fact that a discredited economic theory is being used to fuel an educational movement and to produce activists. But there's no coherence to it.
It's not like I'm making this up, you know. Derrida himself regarded-and Foucault as well-they were barely repentant Marxists. They were part of the student revolutions in France in the 1960s, and what happened to them, essentially-and what happened to Jean-Paul Sartre for that matter-was that by the end of the 1960s you couldn't be conscious and thinking and pro-Marxist. There's so much evidence that had come pouring in from the former Soviet Union, from the Soviet Union at that point, and from Maoist China, of the absolutely devastating consequences of the doctrine that it was impossible to be apologetic for it by that point in time.
So the French intellectuals in particular just pulled off a sleight of hand and transformed Marxism into post-modern identity politics. And we've seen the consequence of that. It's not good. It's a devolution into a kind of tribalism ...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/top-10-jo...
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
want to get smarter?
Stop listening to this jackass
This video aged like milk.
fixing the right is just easier... lets start (and finish) by getting rid of "citizens united"... the reason why they are not fiscally conservative anymore is because that would drive donations to the side that is willing to spend my money on the issues of the donor.. also the donor is not interested in a small government that can't push the agenda of the donor.. basically real conservatism died because it choked to death on donor dollars... now they push wedge issues (illegal immigration, gays, guns, god) that never make any progress because if they made progress then it would just be something else next and the last thing they want is something to do for you
@@hellstromcarbunkle8857 Please explain why Peterson is variously mistaken?
@@ultraslang What has spoiled this information?
Equal outcome:
“Human beings are born with different capacities.
If they are free, they are not equal.
And if they are equal, they are not free.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
@@forresthilton9289 Because if one person goes out and works their ass off to get rich while another sits around doing nothing and is poor then they were free to do those things. But if you take the labor of the person that worked hard you make them a slave. If people are free to make their own decisions they will make different decisions that will lead to different outcomes. If you want the same outcome for everyone the only way to do that is to take away their free will.
wonderful sentiment - if it is yours, congratulations
@@randymiller3918 I give you a couple of thumbs for that sir!
M. Woller are you fucking serious? Lmao
Said an author who didn't understand that it's possible to be both free and equal. 🙄 What a crappy quote!
I love to think they picked peterson up off the street whilst he was talking, carried him to the set as he was still talking, sat him down and rolled the camera.
“Okay so you’ve picked me up, and we’re going somewhere, well what the bloody hell do you think that’s going to accomplish? Does changing the setting really change what I’m saying? And are you keeping your posture upright when carrying me somewhere? I’ve been reading the material on this and it’s given me a lot to think about...”
Ha!! Best comment ever.
@@wanderlust1282 nice
Laughing my ass off visualizing this!
@@wanderlust1282
“And does it make what I’m saying any less correct and insightful?”
A shame you have no intellectual rebuttal
"You cannot really debate someone who despises you." - Peter Hitchens
Not my favourite Hitchens, but entitled to his Quitter opinion.
Peter Hitchens was definitely the more intelligent of the two brothers.
Well i dont argue with fascists because it never works as history shows us
@Warlock tell that to the poor and blacks in the us and everyone who was enslaved and bombed by them
@Warlock if you think thats how the world should be like you are genuinely mentally ill
Perfectly said. I hate identity politics. It's exhausting and insulting to be withered down to a pie chart. If I fit in such a slice then these are my struggles, this is how life is not fair and these are my beliefs.
No, I'm am.individual and. I have my own thoughts. While yes I have had struggles, that is not solely because of my ethnicity, appearance, income, etc. I educate myself on success and overcome
"educate myself on success and overcome" Educate yourself on surviviorship bias too bro, aim to be a better human instead of just creating a better life for yourself. And when you're using logical fallacies to denounce actual evidence of systemic injustice you're not being understanding nor logical, you're being ruled by your own ideology. I hope you one day see the irony of your statement.
@@Anon1376642 how is this helping you?
@@killerdog5500 If I can convince even one person to step out of the encompassing maze that is capitalist propaganda It's good. At least I think I should challenge logical fallacies where I spot them.
Like Peterson you have misunderstood what post-modern philosophy or even philosophy is and what abstract thinking is. This is so elementary I am stunned how university prof like him doesn't get this. The philosophers mainly analyse, criticize and predict the coming, and at the same time hint at another way of seeing things and looking at the world and maybe suggest where to look and what may be not that important. These things can happen in any order or at the same time, but the point is thinking of these different things makes us more open, free and mature in our thinking. The main point is that they just don't "invent stuff". No Peterson they don't think we should not have a grand narrative they says the post-modern world (product of capitalism and technology btw) we all live in is already like that. They dont think in this narrowly political identity political terms that you seem to do(such irony). They are not taking anything away from u they are giving u the tools to think.
Of course marxist and sometimes post-modernist use identity to identify what groups were and are dominated by others mainly poor and rich, proletariat and bourgeoisie. But this is only to make sense of the world and then to fix the systems making this world so broken. Most of the time and for most of the post-modern philosophers don't really make moralistic claims because to them in the "is" is more useful than the "ought" at least for the most part, maybe they will sprinkle in the new way of looking or show their attitude in the tone for some ought to claims, but even this assumption of oughts in some works is very debatable. Jordan is either very stupid or just willfully ignorant and has never read any post-modern work(has to be lumped under this label) and very little if any marx or marxist philosophy, even his knowledge of modern or any other field of philosophy is likely almost nothing. For me almost all philosophy promotes and encourage free independent thinking (most of all post-modernism) and taking away that actual freedom is people like Peterson by reducing and dumbing things down and reverting to religious nihilism that he himself says he hates but seems to actually love but mask this by giving this mindtumor the label conservatism.
So please educate yourself in these thinkers that Peterson seems to hate, because he hasn't. Dont listen to either side in the beginning but u will realise that the other side is way more right than Peterson. And don't go in the deep-end. Read, watch and listen to simple introduction and explanation, normal people like us cant really read most of the material out there is too much and some of it too difficult. So don't waste your time let some other person tell you and sniff out the untrustworthy but still keep your critics eyes open at all times.
The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.
Thomas Sowell
The reason why there aren't any republicans in sociology departments is because once they actually gain a minimum level of knowledge, they keep shifting to the left.
Evidenced in the debate between Zizek and Peterson where Peterson admitted he never actually read the 70 page communist manifesto, yet makes all these claims about it.
@@Manolara1 the communist manifesto is a hypothical work in the first place... marx himself argued that this vision will neverb ecome true if humans are involved
not to mention, marx was somewhat wrong in the head, because he also argued that reality depends on how close youre living to a factory so go figure
While you're at it, ask how many Nazis they have in their sociology department.
@@Manolara1 "Peterson admitted he never actually read the 70 page communist manifesto" No, Peterson read and re-read and re-read (for decades) The Gulag Archipelago ... which teaches you more about communism than any "manifesto" ever could. A manifesto is a utopian laundry-list want-list... not the actual execution of said doctrine in reality. Peterson knows his stuff, inside and out. A true expert on the subject, by any definition of the word.
@@Manolara1
So your slagging off republicans saying they are unintelligent you supporter of infant murderers.
“You cannot win if you play identity politics”
You have no idea how true i hope that is.
yes you can win. you just have to build 72 different bathrooms.
You cannot win if you play identity politics such as "the radical left" versus reasonable people
@Alicity "You cannot win if you play identity politics"
Tell that to the right who indulges in white identity politics.
Except if you’re a skilled laborer in a trade that is against the right to work.
Holy crap that's a great sentence at the end:
"You can fractionate group identity appropriately, right down to the level of the individual"
Thank you for pointing that out. It really is a logical destruction of identity politics, which I believe to be intrinsically evil.
And that’s why it’s absurd to base laws and government according to any group larger than the individual. Society sure can, families and gender roles are extremely important, but once you try to legislate upon specific groups, you enter those whole mess.
Behold, the common denominator.
The left trying to reinvent the wheel when the individual is the perfect wheel.
The man can toss a word salad that you're happy to eat, until you're a few bites in and that "wait a minute, I asked for ranch and this is blue cheese" disappointment sets in.
You're thinking in the right direction, but aligned with ideals that aren't helpful.
How so?
When people start calling "hate speech" and shutting down the other side, then they've gone over the edge and need to be called out. This is outside the boundries of acceptable behavior.
When you've watched so much JP you start to adopt his mannerisms.
There is no "current political debate". The "Left's" political stance is a "rock",...
And then what Peterson talks about is the lack of fundamental principals in leftist thought. The modern thought, of many on the left, is characterized as 'loose' or open-ended; it has no real substance or ground to stand. Just driven by emotional reaction and inadequate knowledge. Thats why we see people like AOC get into office; leftists only want what they THINK is best without actually researching or examining the topic more thoroughly.
@@seanremlinger2277 ,... The Brainwashing Of A Nation (*** Must Read ***)
www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-05-12/brainwashing-nation
@@seanremlinger2277 The lack of an objective truth is not some kind of new idea proposed by "Post Modern neo-Marxists". It was one of the fundamental assertions by Nietzsche, who JP hero worships, as well as philosophers like Epicurus, Hume, Hicks, Heraclitus, and many others. The funny thing is that the Marxists do believe in an underlying, overarching foundation. The dialectical method is just that. Dialectical materialism is a massive part of the philosophy of Marx. The point is that ever since the start of philosophy people have been doubting objectivity and political systems and ideologies changed. The world didn't come to an end.
Be careful of the groups who burn the book's,
opportunities to speak,
other people's thoughts,
ideas
and ability to speak freely in a democratic form.
👌🙄....🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣 doh!
Maria, yes! 100% accurate 👍
@@libertyjo6238 Thanks Liberty, maybe we could inform people who have no idea that this is happening. To spread the sparkle.💎🙂
@@MariaSpooon I'm all for spreading the sparkle 😜👌👍
M. Woller you’re comment makes no sense
The statement that the right knows how to set the boundaries is a stretch at least. A notable example: ‘there were good people on both sides’. Remember that?
Oh, you fell for that lie too? Here is what you do. Go get the full video and continue watching it after “good people on both sides” for about 10 secs. You’ll see why it’s a lie. If you still believe that lie, you are too far gone into extremism to help.
I hate Trump but that quote was taken out of context. He did condemn neo nazis later in that speech.
There were good people on both sides, and pieces of garbage as well. Violent extremist leftists are OK because they canonize blacks and gays, is that it?
@@aaronpannell6401 you dont say: ‘there were good people on both sides’, while condemning Nazis. You people like to pretend or really have no idea of how problematic that is. It comes up very shady to say the least that strange necessity to say nice things about fascists like "they ran trains on time or they built nice highways"
@enriquehernandez650 being that I've voted against Trump I'm every election. I sure as hell am not those people. Try again. Do you vote, or just comment on YT?
I recently had a discussion with a libertarian in which l tried to explain to him the difference between equality of opportunity ( like educational opportunities) and equality of outcomes. I called the equal-opportunity society "equitable". He seemed to think about it for a bit, then said "l don't think l want to live in an equitable society". I was dumbfounded. Did he completely miss my point? Or does he think that some people deserve better opportunities than others just to make sure that life is never fair? Or maybe he just hates taxes so much that he's unwilling to give 10 cents toward making the country a better place to live. My impression of libertarians now is that they are just utterly selfish.
Doesn't sound like a libertarian. Libertarians are even more opposed to government interference than conservatives.
Equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are the same, but measured at different times. Do you call a newborn an outcome, or an opportunity? At what point do you transition from an opportunity to an outcome? Do you transition back once you have children?
@@alterego3734 I'd say that a newborn is an opportunity. His outcome is a combination of his abilities and the conditions he's born into. Society only has a responsibility for those conditions.
What is the most important resource any country has? Its people. A country that mistreats or discriminates against any of its people is wasting talent and missing opportunities for progress.
African-Americans are a good example of this. A brilliant black kid born into a poor, crime-ridden area is likely to grow up as a brilliant but poor criminal. Put a better school in that neighborhood, the kid is more likely to go to college and be successful. There's plenty of evidence that this is true. I hope this sheds some light on your question.
@@brianniegemann4788 A lot happens before a newborn: gestation (and associated deficiencies and toxins), the parents (genetics, education, wealth, ...), and several billions of years of evolution.
A newborn is just as much an outcome as an opportunity. Just as someone freshly out of school is.
Genes are not the only inherited baggage of a baby. Why would "society" be responsible for the wealth aspect (by providing equal education), but not the genes? Why should it be responsible for anything, for that matter?
It all seems completely arbitrary.
It is true that a single individual becomes more and more "realized" as they grow up. However, as soon as we zoom out a bit, we can see that individuals don't exist in a vacuum, they are formed by structures, and themselves create new ones. When someone creates a startup, a baby, etc, suddenly, we can again clearly see the uncertainty and potential.
In truth, the only non-arbitrary way to say what is outcome and what is opportunity is that outcomes are in the past, while opportunities are in the future.
To be clear: I don't disagree with the fact that the area where someone grows up has a huge impact on their development. Also, of course I'm against mistreatment, as well as active and direct discrimination of irrelevant traits, particularly by the government.
@@alterego3734 well, thank you for your reply. It's very logical, and as you say, everything is connected. The only answer l have is that l believe society and its members have mutual obligations, and it's in our best interest to support our society and expect it to support us. Better outcomes for everyone that way. Nice talking with you.
This hit home. As a liberal, I often find myself around uncomfortable people who expect me to align with them. I've never found that binary litmus test to segregate myself from them. I've just learned to avoid authoritarians, whether they come from the left or the right.
Gay
Exactly. When people become authoritarian you cut them off. They're not allowed any say at that point.
Authoritarians should be rounded up and put in camps.
I mean it’s hard for me to get worked about hair dyed activists when literal white supremecists like Steve Miller and Steve Banon were White House advisors and people like Lauren Boebert and Majorie Tyler Green are actual elected representatives. So I have no idea where Peterson is getting this we don’t tolerate extremists when they are literal congressmen and elected representatives.
@@muthannauchicago it's really the opposite the DNC makes it very hard for leftists to get elected. It seems clear most elected Democrats hate leftists more than Republicans.
As someone who leans to the left, I think one of the markers for liberal extremism is what I call "differentiation addiction". Differentiation addicts are people who can't seem to stop coming up with new ways to make it obvious how unique and special they are -- and by extension, can't seem to stop coming up with reasons why nobody else can possibly comprehend their life experience. Every teenager goes through a phase like this, but most stop doing it when they realize it's impossible to make real friends once you've convinced everyone they have nothing in common with you. Some people never stop doing it, for some reason.
like the donald?
Sepp - maybe that's why people have such a strong negative reaction to Trump - he's a mirror of their own middle school adolescent nastiness.
i think it's very well possible to despise trump without having been a dick as a youngster... and the rest likes him for still being the cool guy, who always says what he thinks, never listens to anyone, who probably knows better and lives his dream.
Without the presence of the dominant personalities that define the modern Left in America - greasy Schumer, incoherent Pelosi, CNN's Jim Acosta, nutty angry Maxine Waters, etc. - Trump would be unacceptable to conservatives as well. And interesting you either misunderstood or sidestepped my point - I was referring to adults who still behave like little 8th grade monsters.
DAMN! You really nailed it! They're easy to spot individually, but how do we keep the Differentiation Extremists group outside of the Left & Right's "Boxes" and away from politics? Hopefully California will leave the Union and we can send them there, and once there, we can live on the hope that California drops off into the ocean...... Just kidding...a little.
Interesting how this has aged. I do not disagree with lots of these points, but I see the right perhaps having a struggle now with where their "gone too far" line is and it has blurred so much with pandemic issues. Lots of work on both sides to be done for sure!
Tell me ... at which point is it when the Left has "gone too far" ??
Or are you of the opinion that nothing which the Left does is extreme?
Yes or no, how so? With actual detailed examples?
I would like to quibble about a number of things in this, but he's basically right about one key thread of his argument... the so-called "Left" loves to talk about things amongst themselves and often just to show off whilst having no need to ground any of it in reality, much less the reality of other people. He's absolutely right about this being the fault of Post-Modernism, and while dragging Karl Marx into this is a popular thing to do, I have never been convinced that any of it ever actually had anything to do with Marx or his writings. An example of this is "Cultural Marxism" which has about as much relation to Marx as "Social Darwinism" has with Darwin -- both of these things are the pseudo-philosophical babblings of later characters who made their livings by dropping names between cocktails while at alumni reunions. Given its history, the time and place in particular, I think it would be on point to regard Post-Modernism not as a philosophic school so much as a dramatic style of performance art, one which has more in common with Dadaism than anything else, and then moved on to a quasi-commercialized and highly patronized theater of the absurd after its original relevance (if it ever had any) had long run out.
I see your point that so-called Cultural Marxism has little to do with Marx. However, Marx did support the idea that Socialism was a necessary step to reach Communism, and within that process there would be a need for authoritarianism ("the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"; likely including unjustifiable violence). This would be, in my estimation, unacceptable in Peterson's view, in that it undermines civil rights/human rights. And this 'forcing'/manipulating to reach an objective of equity would be reprehensible.
@@mrridikilis Either way, "the idea that Socialism was a necessary step to reach Communism" is about economics, and is therefore a largely separate affair... one which philosophers and artists have a long history of knowing very little about.
Check this out!
@@mrridikilis I'd agree. Force is the mark. Once you're forcing others, even to benefit human rights, you're ignoring other rights.
I guess the same could be said for both sides though. Extreme idiologies often cause the opposite to grow more extreme. Eventually, violence is inevitable. Polarization is asymmetrical, but it's still leading to a larger divide.
Maybe that's just history. Eventually, one branch dies so the other becomes more prominent, branching out furthermore.
@@warlockpaladin2261 Calling it a largely separate affair is not a fair way to look at it. The entire basis for a debate about Marxist ideology and western ideologies, if it be economical or social generally lead into one another when discussing either one just like they did here. The same populations that wish to fight for "equality" based on sex/gender/race etc.. are both arguing for economic and social equality. Since the economic equality they are fighting for tend to lean heavily toward Marxist ideology, the same can also be said for the social aspect as well. Needless to say this all creates countless contradictions and ignorance to their own understanding of what they're actually arguing for vs reality.
I don’t get the people that claim Peterson is far right. He’s constantly talking harshly about the right wing extremists and constantly receiving letters from people who left the far right and found meaning in their life through his work. He’s done more to get people out of radicalization than anyone else I can think of. He’s clearly on the side of fixing inequality he’s just worried about the people who think they can fix that complicated problem with simple solutions.
He’s even stated before that he’s open to universal basic income and he’s in favor of Canada’s health care system over America’s. People have this misconception that he’s against post modernism and Marxism but he’s also stated many times that both have produced insightful and true conclusions but the actions as a consequence of those conclusions is his main concern. He’s not against the philosophies, he’s against the people who think they can impose their philosophy on behalf of people for the “greater good”. He’s even criticized Christianity and religion in general for doing this. He’s a Christian as a philosophical position but not from some moral absolutist dogma.
I disagree with him on some of his problems with Post Modernism but overall I think he’s a valuable voice that gets written off too quickly by certain types of people. I like Chomsky, Foucault, Derrida, Zizek, Nietzsche, and Peterson. I think all of their voices are valuable in their own ways.
Fidelio finnally a good comment
More people need to see this
In today's world, anything right of left-leaning is considered far-right.
Kyle Westerwelle easy there. That’s only a small minority of people with a platform, let’s not over exaggerate the lack of nuance due to the loudmouths on twitter and some of the bad apples in academia.
Just because he isn't a Nazi it doesn't mean he can't be far right.
We need him more now than ever
Agreed
One hopes he built up a big enough wave of converting young men to responsible lives that the momentum will carry us through, that an unbreakable backbone of truth acceptors will preserve the core, essential elements of Western Civilization. I think that is true, and we should be forever grateful to Peterson for bringing the critical issues to light at the crucial moment they could make a difference.
Why now more than ever? He’s put his message out and I think he’s stated his case as fully as possible thus far
@@Rkenichi Yiur right his message resonated, but you not interested to hear his take on current events? I would, even an op-ed, but his well-being is more important
@@zenshade2000 if it wasn't for him there would be more millennial men going to join communes today lol Trump has been competing for & even close to a plurality of support among young millennial men, but in 2016 that same group nearly 65% went for Hillary, so he def red pilled a good chunk of people. But the recent chaos has activated people politically on both sides of the aisle, I think the left might have a negligible advantage since they're clustered in states like NY & CA.
This man knows how to put my murky muddy thoughts into crystal clear words
Socialism bad. What is the difference between Marxists and the modern left today?
You’re an idiot
Not really.
He’s the the modern college equivalent deepak chopra
How sad 4 U
Even if there was a universal basic income, there would be people who save it, invest it, or start a businesses with it. There will also be people who squander it and have nothing to show for it later on. Equal outcome won't ever exist because of individual choice.
To all the people who say, “we need him now more than ever”.
Go BE that yourself.
Exactly. He won't be here forever.
They’re saying we need his wisdom and guidance
The point is stop looking for a savior. Educate yourself and stand up against ideological fantasy lands.
its more effective to follow in his footsteps, more impact that way
Not everyone can be him. He is very gifted. You may strive to be like him. But not many people have the raw intelligence he does. That's why he has so many looking up to him. Because not everyone can be as brilliant him and it is Awesome to behold!
Jordan Peterson: From someone on the left, you have given me something to think about.
That's what it's all about! Not blindly repeating other people's mantras, but to seriously think about a problem from all possible angels. JP actually supports that idea, he's the farthest from a cult leader possible, even though people try painting him in that light.
"JP actually supports that idea"
No he fucking doesn't, to him anyone left wing is an SJW.
" he's the farthest from a cult leader possible,"
No he is the defination of a cult leader.
"even though people try painting him in that light."
Walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it's probably a fucking duck.
Random guy so randomly angry. And confused. And angry. For no damn reason. Odd.
solaveritas2 Seriously... sounds like a sad miserable person, RandomGuy7092. Hope you get well.
RandomGuy7092 you trying to redpill this person by showing how the lefty extremist thinking is incapable of reason and logic? You're doing a good job of it.
That part about conservatives being able to box out and exclude the radicals didn't age well
Mainstream republicans do not like the alt-right. Racism and sexism are more characteristic of democrats than republicans and it's been proven by scientific studies. (Don't ask me to show you so you can argue with my sources. If you truly want to know, Google it yourself. I'm not going to be dragged into your narcissistic deflection game). If you're referring to Trump, the only discernible difference between him and say Obama or Clinton is that he doesn't lie about his beliefs. You're going off of what they say, not what they do. That's called being gullible.
The things that undermine our walls, when peace is given too much of a chance.
There is no smaller minority than the individual
Ur right!
That is why our common denominator has to be, all Americans.
That was from Ayn Rand.
And a group majority is the majority is the majority of individuals. Where are you going with this?
☝️
Jordan Peterson has helped me a lot. I'm getting my shit together finally.
That’s good to know ❤️
clean your room.
Ahh, finally ascending the lobster hierarchy. 👍 🦞
Me too.
He is the antidote we need in today's leftist politically correct world.
Amen brothers and sisters 👊 lets all clean our rooms together 😆😆😆
I figured out that if I want to improve my English ability on the intellectual part, I really need to listen to Jordan Peterson. And additionally, to improve my everyday life English and common knowledge, I need to play the game Project Zomboid, and listen to Bill Maher's show, and John Oliver's show. So now I'm going to try to listen to Peterson's talks more.
@Down with Corporate Amerika OK dude, I'll have a try
This feels to me like human nature...you see the short-comings of the other side but not of your own. A much-more-articulate-than-me liberal could make this exact argument about the right.
Question: Do you believe that you understand the difference between what is, in America, called the "Right" and the "Left", and if so would you explain it?
My man youre a liberal you are the right
@@Gigachad-mc5qzliberals are the one group that exist both on the right and on the left
I like that Peterson said that you can see the end of extreme right, but you can't see the boundaries for extreme left, which makes it more dangerous.
A.Krishna
and the right spent decades pushing back against the extreme far right, destroying their credibility, removing them from any debate or position of power etc, but the left did no such thing... and now we're stuck with the consequences of their inaction.
the left is now ruled or led by the noisiest and craziest authoritarians, and the average lefty is not strong enough to counter the awful ideas spewing out of their leaders mouths, so they just go along with it, lest they be identified as a nazi sympathizer!!
the left eat their own so rabidly and quickly, thus dissent does not exist.
@@boojahideenforeignlegion7641 can you give me example of how the right is pushing against far right? Who are the right and who are the far right?
@@a.krishna3924 Right: Dinesh D'Souza, Charlie Kirk, Dan Crenshaw
Far Right: David Duke, Jason Kessler, Richard Spencer
I hope that gives you some clarity
@@godlikejr.3683 Check out Richard Spencer. I think he is a bit confused. I no longer consider him as far right. As he has progressive beliefs to include Socialism. ua-cam.com/video/yPex1AvgwPE/v-deo.html
Sassy Gil well the nazis believed in socialism......
Get well soon Jordan, we need your comforting presence especially now.
Bless your soul kind sir.
Facts
I have been thinking this same thing recently. He was so logical and reassuring when the world started going leftist bonkers in 2016. Gave me some hope that there was a way out, that the chaos wouldn't last forever. In the past month, I've been wishing to hear his reasonable explanations and interviews on current events. I know his family has a lot to deal with, and I hope he is in a position to share his thoughts with us again soon.
Bridget Veralidaine I remember when I met him my ex who was one of his undergrads got into a conversation about whether or not if he ever had a larger platform and gained some notoriety would he conform to the baseline. As we all know he didn’t. There’s a interview on UA-cam between JP and Milo from a year or more ago where Milo speaks on what will happen to Peterson. That the establishment or whoever they are will come for him and will cancel him. Interesting to think about in retrospect considering some of the things we’ve heard about JP in the last year. My opinion is that we are all doomed if we don’t have people like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein freely speaking and offering there two cents.
Bridget Veralidaine check out Brett Weinstein on JRE from this month. Eric speaks on recent events too.
I think one reason why drawing the line appears to not be done by those on the left is because we are quickly canceled. I know I’ve tried in my small insignificant nobody way and the hate and vitriol fallout is severe.
This is not an excuse for others who witness this to not speak out. But the silencing is effective.
Is this creative commons.. with you're permission i'd like to use part of it.. on my channel..as it .may relate to disability discrimination
I hope people remember these videos when big think puts someone like reza aslan on here. Big think is one of the few channels that dips its toes into most ideological pools.
Only Peterson can straw man a straw man! This is JP in a nutshell, a sophistical word salad, scaremongering, straw-manning fraud.
Whether you agree with post-modernism or not, he straw man's the "fundamental claim of post-modernism" in the first 30 seconds and then immediately straw man's that it has no answer to his straw man! Fucking brilliant!
It might just be my bias showing through, but it seems to me like there is more liberal speakers and topics than conservative, it doesn't seem like a 50/50 ratio. But you're right, I don't know of many other channels that actually make the effort, and I really appreciate that.
Matt T. I don't think a 50/50 ratio would fit this channel since a lot of the fields they go over just happen to have more liberals. The arts and academia are mostly liberal for example.
HE is the MODERN PREACHER MAN lollllllll. Join his church, lose your fucking way, feel like you're in good hands, die a deluded human being. Ez life.
Bah, whatever brings in more views brings more income; betcha they have an engineer whose sole job is teaching a bot how to choose speakers so as to max views according to the current statistics of user preferences
Glad this guy is out there making sense.
He has a very good point about the identification of extreme leftist views. This is also a problem because you hear people from the right conflate extreme leftist views with the more general term "leftist". Indeed, Jordan himself does this routinely, describing "the left" and then really citing extreme left ideologies. It would be like conflating white supremacists with "the right", which is obviously disingenuous. His loose categorizations is why you see so many interviewers presuming Jordan is right-wing, when actually, Jordan holds many fundamentally leftist ideals. Indeed, most people from socialist democracies like Canada (and Australia, NZ, and Scandinavian countries) hold many fundamentally leftist views. Notice I say, "many", and not "only". This fact is sadly neglected in modern-day tribal politics, where the presumption is that you must conform to a prescribed set of political views from your chosen tribe.
You also see this conflation all the time in the comments sections in UA-cam, and elsewhere, where people will generalize about "leftists" and "liberals", without understanding what these terms really mean and how fundamental their ideals are in the modern-era West. Such labeling encourages the kind of tribalism that I'm sure Jordan detests.
As for the marker for the right, I'm not sure if racism in itself is an adequate marker for extreme right views, but he is right that it has become a very useful marker. I like his use of equality of outcome as one of the markers for extreme leftist views.
@@gs2tab The problem of course is that the media largely only focuses on the extreme views. It's very hard for the consumer to differentiate.
This Jordan Peterson guy is like a Modern-Day Aristotle.
Up to Tribalism and the Jewish question.
IS HE making sense? Really? In this video, they managed to capture a coherent train of thought from Jordan, which I can appreciate. But most of the time he makes things unnecessarily complex and can't seem to reign himself in from loosely related tangents. “The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple.” - Albert Einstein.
People dont seem to realize that the only way to truly have equality of outcome is to take away all choice. You can give people all they should need for the rest of their lives and some people will still piss it away with poor choices.
I'll bet 150 bucks those dislikes are people who watched the video for 3 seconds, disliked, and then left
BananaPhoPhilly Watch the whole thing. Disliked it because it’s untrue. Disliked it because it’s shortsighted and narrow. Disliked it cuz it tries to discredit something that’s historically been successful when it hasn’t been interfered with by capitalists.
@@Ash_Rein Hitler, Stalin, Mao all hated capitalists and kept capitalism from their countries. They all called themselves socialists and were out to create their socialist utopias no matter how many people they had to kill to do it.
Dan Zervos Hitler was a known nationalist funded by American bankers who were fully aware of his ideology and agenda. During World War II and after World War II, Stalin was known to be uncle Joe in the United States. There are propaganda posters created by the American government in favor of him. The American government called him amajor friend to the United States. A lot of things they say about him are major lies Based On no proof of any kind. The reason that he was vilified the way he was was because at the time the communist party was becoming massively strong and very well liked in the United States. People were starting to become communist. We can see that because of the proliferation and strength of the unions at the time. And then, the red scare gained momentum and suddenly Stalin became a villain. Also, I don’t think you can use individuals as a nation or as an ideology. They are you know, individuals. It’s like saying that Britney Spears is all of pop. Or Mario is all video games
@@Ash_Rein Hitler, Stalin, Mao all started out trying to implement their version of utopian socialism. Like all socialist movements, what they did looked good at first but then devolved into hell. Nationalism is not a form of government - one can be nationalistic in a Democracy or a dictatorship. Socialism is where the government takes control of the means of production. All three, Hitler, Stalin and Mao did that and it was disastrous for their countries.
Dan Zervos according to who? Can you provide scholarly sources? Nationalism is a type of government. Ask Mussolini. How do you explain Catalonia which was socialist and very successful. How do you explain Cuba which has the greatest medical program in history of the world. How do you explain all the socialist programs that we enjoy as Americans. Such as fire departments, libraries, public works, yes, Cuba does have the greatest medical program in the history of the world. They are ranked number one and doing relatively pretty fine despite being 90 miles off the shore of the strongest nation in the history of the world. How much money does the US invest in taking down Cuba? How many sanctions on Cuba? If something like communism and/or socialism does not work and is destined to fail, why invest anything to make sure that it does not survive?
Big Think is showing everyone (left or right, worthy of mention) good on them
Yassine Motaouakkil this man sits right smack dab in the middle
l o b s t e r w a v e
JP is neither Left, nor Right. He is simply wrong. A GOD-HUNGRY old man who's already squandered MOST OF HIS LIFE IN DELUSION. *Now all these people are paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars just to rehash BIBLE QUOTES IN A COOL HIP MILLENNIAL WAY, wow so cool and relatable, much father figure, very guidance. Wow*
O Peter, you silly goose
Peter Alt-right? Nah, try again.
Hey, need some help here: what did Peterson meant, at the end, when he said that ª...you can fractionate group identity appropriately right down to level of individual"?
As a left-leaning person (and also as someone who's not very well versed in a bunch of stuff, and pretty much just has a basic understanding of things), what I would propose as the way to define an “extreme left” is to look at the relationship between what change someone wants to make, how much time they want the process to take, and our current ability to make it a reality.
There’s a main problem with wanting the “extreme left” to always be this specific thing, because there is a fundamental difference between the left and the right. The right will want to maintain how things are (or go a little back in time), and the left wants progress and change, which I think is eternal and always inevitable in some way or another.
So the extreme right would be defined by how far they want to go to defend the current order of things (like fascism, going to extreme meassures to maintain capitalism), and the “extreme left” would depend on how capable we are of making certain changes without everything going wrong, and that factor will always be changing as time passes (today’s resources and technology would make it easier to create a better USSR than the one we got last century).
Extreme left is communism. You can't compete with others so if you can't have the things you want than nobody can. Le the governmen take control and solve the problem. Really bad idea.
Change is not always good. if you already are at the point where, for now, it's not realistic to be able to improve, then change is always going to be bad. Unfortunately the modern left is really terrible at basic logic and reasoning, and looking at evidence to make decisions, in fact it's a heresy to that religion.
The Communist lie sold every generation is that Communism just hasn’t been done right yet. People get played over and over with millions dying as a result.
When i hear socialism, it gives me a sickening feeling, i come from communist country, it sucks there, is that what you want here in america? You are crazy.
Well here's the thing, Capitalism breeds people who want socialism.
Only in a capitalist country will ypu find people who WANT socialism.
This isn't me defending socialism, or attacking capitalism, but think about it. In a free market, what you get is what you work for, so people who don't work, don't get anything, and these people blame capitalism for not getting anything, when in reality, they only have themselves to blame, but you know people don't like blaming themselves.
In socialism, everyone gets a bit of everything, regardless of one's actual output of work, so of course people who don't work, would support socialism.
@@Tommy9834 fuck off you idiot ....really ????
If hard work was the barometer of success ....then all the teachers , construction workers and cleaners would have decent houses and cars! ..."get what you work for " - you are a bona fide IGNORANT fool ....there NEVER has been a true implementation of socialism . Stalin especially, perverted the brand ....and dim wits like you perpetuate the blanket assumption .
@@TheMichaelseymour you fuck off u dont know what u wishing for, ignorant fool, even capitalism has been perverted by the few on the top, socialism will be just the same, a distortion of the real thing, which noone will ever get to see, all cause of the few on the top again.
@@TheMichaelseymour Value is the barometer of success, not hard work.
People who can cut cancer from brainstems are in very short supply, and therefore worth more, and are then therfore more worthy of asking for a higher paygrade than a teacher or a nurse.
You can throw as much money as you want at the people you think "deserve," it but a room of farmers will never send a rocket to Mars
@@TheMichaelseymour Horseshit! Hard work isn't what inculcates success; it's what hard work you do in markets where people assign that value. So you can work hard at being a teacher, and people will pay so much for that. You can work hard at being a football player, and, if you're very good at it, people will pay you handsomely. Please do not interpret that I think football adds more value to your endeavor. Indeed, it probably provides less. But it is what the market will pay. If you object to this capitalistic paradigm, then fight for raising the value of teaching over that of playing football. And then, in the final analysis, who, other than the market, better determines which markets the consumers of such ascribe value. If you argue the government should so decide, please tell me where the government, when it has been assigned to do so, has done so effectively. And then, also explain to me why such assignments always seem to ascribe that value to themselves. Which is why politicians get rich in spite of having the lowest IQs and adding the least value to society.
Equality of outcome is unjust.
Accelerationist
We need to fix that by giving more people a hand up. We can and should help to overcome economic barriers that prevent intelligent, good people from contributing productivity. Furthermore, we should seize the assets of the elitist bottlenecker pricks and make them work the salt mines etc for the economic inefficiencies and injustices they create.
Equality of opportunity is not unfeasible, its just not there and it wont be for some time. An equality of opportunity is even less easy to achieve, even if it had any sense. So in my opinion the issue is how to make people capable of dealing with such a reality. Meaning: throwing SJW snowflakes out of their echo chambers on the streets and enjoying the show.
We can help by ensuring rule of law, and by giving economic need-based grants and scholarships.
We aren't going to get equality of opportunity. It's an aim, not a realistic outcome. Unless you have equity, you have rich people. And what do rich people spend their money on? Their children. They pay for them to go to private schools that have resources state schools could never compete with. So ban all the private schools? But they'll just send their kids abroad. They'll hire private tutors. Ban private tutoring? They'll do it online. Ban Skype? Stop people leaving the country? Suddenly you're getting totalitarian. Any true equality of opportunity would require some dystopian state taking away children and ensuring they all get the same education, nutrition, etc. And even that assumes that those in power in this terrifying vision wouldn't give their children a step up (which they definitely would).
It's ridiculous to treat equity as if it's a real threat to the well off. Equality of opportunity is still a pipe dream, let alone equality of outcome.
mankytoes We don't need to go that far Mr. strawman, we just need to give the poor citizens, that will make good use of them, grants and scholarships. I am not suggesting commie crap. I am suggesting that allowing smart people to productively contribute makes everyone better off.
Putting my two cents in. A lot of this video felt like a word salad to me, and a lot of it refernces to "them" on "the left". If you happen to read this and I could have a moment of your time, I'd like to say what I feel like are some simple, common leftist answers that make up a lot of the mass of people left of democrat and right of marxist. First off: Marxism as a way of structuring society aims for a stateless, classless, and moneyless society. Which is, obviously, hard to picture. How does everyone agree? Who decides things? Etc. We don't really know what an idealistic communist society would look like in the modern world. Yes, authoritarian "communist" russia and china have committed atrocities. But I would ask how we call the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or the authoritarian, government police state China marxist, either of them. Marxism is an ideology, like capitalism. But conflating marxist ideas which essentially advocate for the revolution of society to a place where wealth is more equitably distributed (U.S inequality is higher than France during the french revolution when they had a literal king) with the genocide and political mess of authoritarian states. China does in a way advocate marxism, but clearly in a big brother authoritarian way which is contrary to the ideology itself. So that's my piece on marxism.
Second, to be very clear, the vast majority of the everyday, thinking and compassionate left does not advocate for equality of outcome. That's a straw man from the right from when the left advocates for equality of opportunity. We want equality of opportunity: needs like nutrition, safety, shelter, community, and better things like education, identity, freedom, and the persuit of happiness. In reality, if the left is not being asked a loaded question, I reckon this is the basis of a lot of their personal ideology. That the world is already a somewhat dangerous, hostile and unfair place to all of us. There's no need to make it less safe, or harder. And also that the rich literally buy and pay for the politics that run our country, which are based on doccuments from 1787 that the founding fathers clearly wanted to be updated and changed with the times. I will freely admit that the farther left you get beyond socialism, the way that an ideology would look in the real world can get more abstract. But it's a really long learning curve as well and that may have something to do with it.
Lastly, if I haven't already taken all you time on this hellscape website, Peterson here is setting these semi-arbitrary or at least spontanious answers for the left to give. Answering those questions on the right, unfortunately, tends to have greater and greater elements of church-in-state, rejection of lgbtq and socialist peoples, nationalism (with racial threads), and the like. It is increasingly oppositional, reactionary, and regressive. The future is left, if we have a future at all. I'll end with a quote from Martin Niemöller about Nazi Germany:
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
Your points are absolutely beautiful. I couldn't have said it better! 👍🏻
@@koenigistmeinname thanks comrade
You said: "But I would ask how we call the "Union of Socialist Soviet Republics" or the authoritarian, police state China Marxist".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically just said that that that wasn't "real Marxism". You have to remember that the Soviets and Chinese weren't the only individuals who tried to implement these Communism and Marxism. Communism and Marxism are ideologies that have also been tried in Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Yugoslavia, Nicaragua, Chile, Rhodesia and the list goes on. If Marxism really works, dear friend, why does it fail in ever single country it's ever been implemented?
The answer is that Marxism simply cannot work. Marxism does not work because it does not place any incentives for the improvement of the individual, rewarding mediocrity instead. Over in my parents' country, Cuba, we have a severe problem recruiting doctors because they are paid basically the same amount of money as your average janitor. Don't believe me? Well, the situation is so bad that Cuban doormen (service people who hold doors open for tourists) make MORE than some of our finest surgeons. You can't expect people to live by the philosophy "to each to his ability, to each to his needs" because it ignores the most basic principle of human nature: Self-Interest! Marxism does not work because they place no incentives for the individual. Marxism does not work because it deprives individuals of the right to own land and be free! So that is my peice on Marxism.
You mentioned how "the left" doesn't advocate for equality of outcome. That is simply not true. If you don't advocate for equality of outcome why do you advocate for racial policies such as Affirmative Action and DEI? Why do you intently discriminate against Asians and Whites here in the U.S? It's because you want equality of outcome. You want all ethnic groups to be equally represented.
As for your brief mention of the racial supremacy that you think "the right" perpetuates: it is only a specific group in the right, the "far right" that perpetuates this type of hate towards the minorities. Putting the spotlight on the radical outliers on a group and then paiting that group with a broad brush is unfair and leads to much misunderstanding. Saying that all Republicans or Right-Wingers are racist is just as ignorant as saying that all Left-Wingers are super left wing Communists.
I want to make it clear that yes, I am an American conservative. My Cuban parents have seen what "real communism" (or whatever the hell that means) looks like, and it is not pretty. You Westerners have it so good don't sacrifice the system that lifted you all out of poverty 200 years ago under the excuse of "helping the unfortunate" because there is no system better than helping those in need and lifting the masses of civilization out of povert than Capitalism.
I hope this can change your mind (or that you'll at least respond so we can debate).
With very warm regards,
Eduardo, from Tampa Bay
@@eddybarajas5115 Hello my friend. Thanks for your reply. I disagree, and I'm happy to have the chance to tell you why. It might be in a couple of seperate replies so I can read yours again. Anyway, on the first point: I hear you. We've all heard something like "that wasn't real communism in (x)". When I talk to my conservative parents about issues I have with the economy, they say "that's crony capitalism, not capitalism the way it's meant to be". And I think the takeaway from that is the concept of an economic setup (be it capitalist or marxist) is different from the way that economic setup plays out in the real world. What I meant in my OG comment is that the USSR and China on the whole have a lot to do with marxist history, but don't represent the ideology as a whole. Further, I'm trying to say that there's a lot more to it than "china and the ussr didn't work because they were communist". I'll elaborate and give examples: for starters, Stalin was a bad guy. I can say that unequivocally. But in the history, we see that A) the bolshevik revolution overthrew a czarist government, which is an inherently authoritarian and autocratic government right? Like, how well off were the russian people under a king in the first place? Clearly not well off enough to avoid a revolution, which aimed to model the country after Marxist-Leninist ideals, as Lenin was a leader in the movement. And Lenin specifically let it be known that he thought Stalin should be removed from power (this was at a time when Stalin was in the government but not the defacto leader). After Lenin's death, Stalin took control. So we have a situation where a group of marxists are trying to have a principled revolution to better the state, and they succeed, but shortly thereafter the political power changed hands to Stalin who should not have had it. Stalin had strong fascist "iron fist" personal tendencies, and that's not a good thing. To elaborate on how poor of a leader he was, we can talk about gulags and famines. Stalin as a leader sent people off to work camps: like a fascist. He also sponsored a quack chemist (I forget his name but you can look him up) who was put in charge of agriculture and thought he knew how to make wheat grow in the winter. This is real. So obviously that didn't work, and there were massive food shortages. Many people died because of these mistakes and idiocy. But it's worth noting that Marxism doesn't advocate for sending people to gulags or messing up harvests. That was Stalin, and if you ask a well adjusted leftist they're probably going to say that Stalin was a disaster for the Marxist project worldwide. But still, it's also worth noting that when the marxists took power in Russia, they were immediately swept into two world wars (they fought on our side both times and lost a LOT of men) and then immediately into the cold war. You've heard of the iron curtain: the western powers that be, mainly the US, actively tried to "contain the spread of communism". It was viewed as an existential threat to the western way of life: because communism, socialism and marxism aren't well understood here and also because of course the capitalist powerhouse with the largest economy in the world is going to be opposed to a way of government that isn't centered around capital. The USSR was sanctioned and left out of much of global trade. All of these factors contributed to the fall of the USSR. It wasn't perfect. A lot of it was bad. But there are also first hand reports from people who lived there at the time and enjoyed good lives: they say that Russia was gone downhill since then. Same as America in that way I guess eh? But yeah, the short of this is A): the USSR was one manifestation of an ideology (marxism) that played out the way it did because of a number of connected factors. And B): marxism is an analysis of the world and of the economy. It is a way of understanding the relation between the people who own the means of production and the people who operate those means of production to produce profit. I'll elaborate further hehe, hope you're down for some reading man
@@eddybarajas5115 ok, part 3. Here I want to respond to the individual incentives idea. I'll try to keep this one more brief, and if you happen to reply (which would be very nice!) feel free to ask for clarification. You say the most basic principle of human nature is self interest. Fair enough, we all want to have enough and be well; we look out for ourselves. We are all primarily concerned with our own lives because it's the life we live. But here's the thing: I think the most basic principle of humanity now is community. In general, people have lived together for hundreds of thousands of years. Families, tribes, towns, cities, nations. We have a tendency to live together. Humans are social animals at baseline. You've heard the phrase "no man is an island". We all develop in relation to the people and environment around us, don't we? I'm not saying anything like determinism or that environment 100% makes a person, but isn't the main mark of our lives our relationships? Isn't food meant to be shared and eaten together? Don't we mainly learn about ourselves and the world through other people? Sure, I know that some people prefer isolation, and we all like to have our me time, but in general humans are a social species and that's a more basic tenet than self-interest. Therefore, I think socialism and marxism as a concept allow for a more accurate expression of human nature as being part of a cooperative, rather than competitive, community. On the idea of incentive: what is incentive but a compulsion to contribute right? I often hear from the right that without the incentive to work, people would be prone to laziness and just want to take from others to support themselves, or have the nanny state redistribute those resources for them right? For what it's worth, I think that capitalism creates people like that because the alternative is a life of labor to avoid becoming homeless and hopefully being able to retire at age 65 or whatever (the age of retirement has been raised a couple times in the U.S, extending the finish line for collecting social security). A lot of people see those options and think yeah freeloading is better. But you mentioned "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". It's a common saying now right? And I think the first part is really important: society does require that we all do our part to the extent that we can. We can't just all freeload, nor should we want to. So consider this: in a socialist economy, the workers own the means of production. So picture a factory where the workers own the factory collectively. And then picture one of them deciding "ah I don't want to contribute, I just want to reap the benefits". How would their (socialist) coworkers feel about that person? They would probably tell him that if he wants to earn his share of the profits, he needs to contribute his share of the labor. All this to say that profit incentive and "self-interest" aren't the only things that drive people. Acceptance of our peers and a sense of belonging and contributing are also very human attributes. In fact, as a marxist who understands surplus value, I believe it's a combination of the government and the owning class (the elite, the 1%, the nepotists, the bourgeouis, the CEOs and boards) that actually contributs the least and reap an unfair portion of the rewards. The workers provide labor to the capitalist in exchange for pay. But crucially, the workers are not compensated the full value of their labor. For example, if I work in a business and get paid $10/hr, I must be producing more than $10/hr worth of value or the boss has no reason to employ me right? The worker always produces more value for the company than they are paid, because that is the necessary condition for making a profit. Consider shareholders: by virtue of having the money to buy "shares", they become entitled to a share of the profits that the workers create with their labor. How is that not freeloading? And I'm not saying people who own stocks or whatever are bad people, but that the way the system necessitates everyone fending for themselves and securing their own capital in order to survive is exploitative in nature. I hope that helps clarify and elaborate. Dunno if you can tell but I'm enjoying getting to talk about this. I'm gonna stop for now, hope you read these and respond sometime. Cheers man, stay warm down there in Tampa.
Best regards from Spokane WA
'The left' might not have answers to how to live in a world without an overarching canonical universally accepted view of the world, but Nietzsche definitely does. His entire philosophy is about how to live in a world after the 'death of God' (which is a metaphor he uses to describe the phenomenon of christianity, the philosophy that dominated western thought for centuries, no longer being believable). He actually predicted that the western world would go through a value crisis in a century from when he lived. And his predictions seem to be quite accurate. Nietzsche's intentions were for his books to be read by people living nowadays. I think you might want to check him out, as he is a really cool philosopher 🙂.
3.2K dislikes? I didn’t think Communists listened to the Good Doctor.
No but intelligent people do. A minority to be sure but at least they exist.
yeah stupid leftists
@Комиссар I don't hate you because I know where you are coming from even though I disagree with your politics. You see us all as characters of what you think we believe. I don't blame you because I was you; believing in the strawmen that people like Peterson make up.
Комиссар Stalinists get the bullet. Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky killed the left.
@@ericplumhoff9208 so only people that disagree with him are intelligent ?
The moment he says "really" @8:40 and I fall off my stool. This guy is awesome!
I still have a similar way of thinking. I kept it simple. I see a circle, one goes right one goes left. At the top of the circle they both meet. The outcome is the same.
David, you are not totally wrong but it is more complex than what you have said here.
Fascists (the far right) are necessarily authoritarian and will merge business interests into the state in order to control them.
Authoritarian socialists (like the old USSR) will do something similar in that they use the apparatus of the state to own the means of production, theoretically for the benefit of the proletariat but in practice the concentrated economic power becomes captured by corruption.
But there is at least one other option on the left. Namely egalitarian (ie. non-authoritarian) socialists/communists. So the imagery of a ring that you use has no recognition for systems of collective ownership that are not authoritarian. This leaves private ownership of the means of production as the only recognizable non-authoritarian option ... and that is a trick that is being played in order to maintain the status quo.
i've never actually heard a human being advocate for "Equality of Outcome". Who says that? Equity as a social justice initiative, in my experience, has mostly been characterized by a call to make reparations for specific damages to specific groups. Peterson is right to question the bureaucratic implications of such an initiative -- which is why we haven't seen a successful push for reparations on a government level yet. Most of the rest of his points are irrelevant hypothetical nonsense. The Right Wing have successfully identified racial supremacy as a point of too-extreme, so what? It took them most of the last century to arrive at that revolutionary insight, and many of them still don't agree on that anyway. Maybe the reason the left hasn't arrived at the same level of cautionary self-censorship is because none of the counter-arguments to leftist initiatives are so obviously conclusive as the absolute wrongness of racial supremacy as an ideology. That's not an ethical failing on the left, that's just a measure of how much right wing politics is becoming saturated with racist extremism. That's not our fault, dude.
The right believes in racial supremacy?
Vast majority of slave owners & politicians opposed to abolition? DEMOCRATS
Lincoln? REPUBLICAN
KKK? DEMOCRATS
Jim Crow/Segregation? DEMOCRATS
Overwhelming majority of legislative actions that have decimated the black community? DEMOCRATS
The left wants our vote.. that's ALL they care about (beyond their own power & wealth)
@@tiddiesattic Both parties have experienced huge fundamental shifts in ideology and representation over the past 50 years. Whatever your thought affiliation is now, it has as much in common with Lincoln or Jim Crow as Earth to Mars. Claiming "correctness" or current party thought in the right because of affiliation with parties made up of people mostly deceased while ignoring the passage of time on the parties does not a good argument make.
This is a great video and Mr. Peterson makes some excellent points. However, I AM one of those people on the political “left” who will call out the shortcomings of the “left.” And because I do, I have been called a “nazi-sympathizer,” an “awful human being,” and a “hypocrite.” I have lost friends since 2016, and it is sad, because I ENJOY having a dialogue with those individuals who differ from me politically.
Sometimes I feel like the “left” has lost their collective minds, and there is no reasoning with them, nor is there room for any nuance in the discussion. You either fall in lock-step with the groupthink, or you are an alt-right-nazi-bigot-sexist. (Keep in mind, I AM a non-heterosexual atheist female... but I refuse to label myself a “victim” in any of this. I just want people to respect their fellow human beings and engage in constructive dialogue when they differ in opinion.)
I invite you to understand your fellow liberals as members of a religious sect. By questioning their holy war, you are signalling your heresy. And we all know heretics are treated even worse than heathens.
Ink Ognito - this is a legit point. Even the atheistic among us have succumbed to the doctrine of identity-politics.
I find it rather sad...
The left doesn’t seem to understand that NAZI national socialism is on the left of the ideology scale. The NAZI Party was really no different than the Communists on how to run a government but ONLY ON WHO. The left loves to throw out the term Nazi to anyone THEY disagree with. That’s seems rather authoritative.. you could go down the line on what the National Socialist believe and it would look like the Democratic Party OTHER on WHO they wanted to run the government.
On the Right we should be thought of as semi-Anarchist. We believe in that to have the LEAST amount of government interference as possible without going over the edge to Anarchy. Freedom of personal responsibility, freedom to own ones own land AND the right to do with it as we please. The Right to self-defense against ALL THREATS! Right to LESS INTERFERENCE from government! How is that National Socialism? It’s not the left just wants to throw out words that insult and demean their enemies!
Angl0sax0nknight - true. The authoritarian-left is much different than the libertarian-left. I am still center-left economically (since I do agree with certain social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare, and would support Medicare for All) but a lot of my “clashes” with fellow “liberals” occur because I am anti-authoritarian, a free-speech absolutist, and basically just want to be left alone. I think that if we had stronger communities, we would rely less on a centralized govt. for regulation.
I was going to say, "Wow, thank you for being thoughtful and standing up for truth." Then I read your last comment and I was even more pleasantly surprised to see you grasping the need of strong communities and how they are a better solution than lots of centralized government. Since you're an atheist, this may not mean much to you, but God bless you on your journey of searching out truth and walking in integrity to it. Much love!
Morality without liberty is just as corrupt as liberty without morality. There are just two rules of governance in a free society:
Mind your own business.
Keep your hands to yourself
It is my understanding that liberty is freedom tempered by morality ( Christian in western cultures) . The responsibilities imparted by that morality facilitate liberty in a free society.
YEA!
@@johnbrown4627
If you follow the simplicity of Sarah Izzo's comment, you have morality broken down to its most clarified form. It's no different than the Christian way of breaking down the law. Love God (truth as a living metaphor) and thy neighbour as thyself. Do that and all morality falls into place, no matter what the ideological affiliation.
@@JackHaveman52 All that from a fella who hasn't been to church in decades. I would be a fool, however, to discount the truth. Christian morality is the gold standard for governance. May God bless you my friend.
@ihategoogle
Loving your neighbour does not include approving of what he does. Many parents will love a child even though they don't approve of their lifestyle or choices that they've made. Love or caring isn't about approval. That's where the "as thyself" comes in. You do what's best for you, including self sacrifice and setting standards for your life. Those standards must also apply to your "neighbour".
Peterson: "On the right we've boxed in the radicals and said ok, youre on the wrong side of political opinion"
January 6th: happens
Agree. The mainstream left may need some bright-line markers to identify the "wrong" left, but the right also needs more than just "don't belong to the KKK" (which Peterson seemed to imply is sufficient).
Jan 6th? Wow. Please, in your mind, explain to me what you think happened?
A bunch of old people walked into a public building...
You'll note that conservatives all generally agree that Jan 6th was wrong. Even Trump himself said so.
You'll also note that liberals are awfully silent about the time radical leftists tried to storm the White House and burn it down that same year. Or the months that they spent trying to burn down a federal courthouse. And successfully burned down COUNTLESS small businesses for things that those businesses had absolutely nothing to do with. Biden himself said "Antifa is just an idea".
So yes. The right can call out their radicals for trespassing. The left thinks arson is peaceful.
Oh no! Old people walked into a building and knocked over some chairs! You're a fucking idiot dude
I want all of us to exist in a world where ONE limitation is permanent and never negotiable:
Zero tolerance (globally) of billionaires.
Their behavior: rent seeking, political interference, corrupting influence, war profiteering, medical profiteering, fraud, deliberately negligent homicides, cover ups, propaganda record, and judiciary/regulatory capture.
They've forfeit the privilege of existing as a class. They've delegitimized their own sales pitch, and are NEVER held accountable for habitual criminal activities.
Have you read Anand Gridharadas’s book? Winner Takes All?
Communist fuck.
Canada has given birth for two of the mostly influential figures in the world today.
One is Jordan Peterson, the first human argument, the other is Justin Trudeau, the first human meme.
The first human argument? What does that mean?
@@mattstewart222 , Peterson fans try to imitate him by making inane statements like that to sound smart.
Pest part of trueadou ran down his mother's leg
I thought the second person would be Justin Bieber.
@@thomasofarabia Ohh boy... for 2 days I would have gotten the joke first
Listening to this today amidst the chaos and riots make even more sense.
So true.
@demigodzilla "The masses are weak, feminine and stupid, so hatred and violence must be used to keep them focused on the task at hand."- Adolf Hitler "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are exactly the same thing". -Adolf Hitler. Hitler's Marxist approach at The Failed Beer Hall Putsch, was aimed at the lowest working classes and it did not work out at all, so he went for a nationalist patriotic and racist based approach to appeal to more of the population. This ordinarily would not have worked, but the German National Socialist Party's failed general mining and railroad strikes managed to sink Germany's economy, and bring in Franco-Belgian military occupation, so the political climate created flocks of scared angry sheep ready to be fleeced and brainwashed. Anyone who opposed or even critically analyzed the new Nazi government was immediately "cancelled" (labeled and or imprisoned).
How is this STILL relevant?
@MikeLO no, he used them, as he knew how they are to manipulate. USA has the party leaders for that. Trump was the radical leader for the right brainwashed and Biden the one for the left brainwashed. The left did the riots, the right marched to the capitol. Both sides of extrmists and herd mentality is scary. USA need to create a stron third party.
Considering he has advocated a complete lack of respect for any who will not fight him, physically, where did you get that shit?
Its crazy that some people never question their own politics or challange themselves with thinking things like why doesnt cnn and fox news invite other parties to the debates....
The inconsistencies in "leftist" thought are due to there not being a single leftist thought process. As you clearly acknowledge, it's primary tenet is acceptance of various identities, which necessarily makes it a "big tent" philosophy, with each identity having unique aspects. It can reasonably be described as a philosophy of tolerance of tolerant philosophies. What is considered insufficiently tolerant is of course a matter of individual opinion, and there is much debate about this, with the right seizing upon every too-extreme viewpoint as broadly representative of leftism, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and communism, which are falsely lumped together for purposes of rhetoric. Indeed some use the term "communist" as a collective pejorative for all those politically to their own left. In any case criticisms of leftist intellectual intolerance are absurd when intolerance is such a glaringly central characteristic of right-wing politics, and the two are not juxtaposed even in passing. This is bad faith analysis.
I am extremely biased so take what I say with a grain of salt, but Jordan’s argument against leftists is the same argument conservatives make about everything. They take a criticism aimed at them, like “you are intolerant” and then they say “no you”. There is zero introspection within right wing ideology. The only thought labor ever done is always directed outward. “How do I change to defeat the enemy” and never “ how do I change to be more logically consistent”.
@@josephp.1919 Having drawn conclusions based on a rational consideration of evidence is not bias. "Biased" is a label usually applied by biased people to arguments which they cannot refute rationally, usually without any effort to specify the internal inconsistencies which would evidence bias. So when your conclusions are rational, as yours appear to be, don't assist your potential opponents by labeling yourself. One caveat concerning the potential for others to perceive your discourse as biased is the rather common tendency to group people together who aren't all the same. Some conservatives are more rational than others, and there are very different philosophies calling themselves "conservative," many of which aren't. Thanks for the comment.
"when intolerance is such a glaringly central characteristic of right-wing politics" - this is bad faith. The Left and Right both need to clean their own houses, instead of trying to do it for each other. Jordan's making the point that the Left ought to show some intolereance to the radical Left, instead of taking up every cause in regards to inequality. The same can be said of the Right, and the Right are often targeted and made to look like they are their radical elements, we see it on other videos on Big Think.... all the time. Here is simply a Right-wing perspective on the Left, NOT titled: the problem with American Politics, NOT titled: how i would fix the country. Titled: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics .... its a critique, like many others pitched against the right. Its strange how and why youd interpret that as bad faith.
@@dupeshway you make some very good points. I don't deny that some liberals also make bad faith broad misattributions of radical right positions as being typical of the right as a whole. I disapprove of this generally, not only when applied by conservatives. And of course some liberals are also guilty of hypocrisy. And of course cleaning one's own house should be a high priority. But a conservative commentator is not likely to title their presentation "conservatism needs to clean their own house before critiquing liberals." They could, however, acknowledge that similar issues plague their own parties and voting blocs, to provide context and balance, and reduce perceptions of bias in their arguments.
Uy
I’d like to hear Dr. Peterson update his thoughts on where the Right draws the line towards extremism given recent events
I've heard him discuss this before. Essentially in his view the right goes too far when they push the idea of cultural or ethnic supremacy. It is good to love your own culture, but trying to impose it on others who don't want it is tyranny.
@@Arantonak True. Both the right and left do exactly that
He'll turn even more to the right today, I believe.
He's shifted further to the extreme right
@@michaelvallin55 I don't think he did shift. I think he is more emboldened to be closer to what his views has always been. He tends to ignore the attrocities on the right unless it's more than 50 years ago in another country and he wrongly assumes that the right draws a boundary against Ethno-Nationalism when clearly it doesn't.
I say this as a former fan of his. I took him at his word on some things, but his real motivations have been laid bare recently.
I just watched this video, and I want to say that this precisely the reason why I'm not a communist anymore. I saw the flaws in the equality argument. This flaws would mean giving power to people I don't like to control my life. To make the state smash every person uniqueness from above. Then I left.
You were a bad communist if this shit feast of video changed your mind. Communism is stupid but this video doesn't know why.
Back in the 60’s (I think it was) Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story called “Harrison Bergeron”. It’s an absurd story about what happens when “equality of outcomes” is taken to its extreme conclusion and enforced by a tyrannical government. I am seeing the absurdity coming to pass in my lifetime and can’t understand why anyone with any intelligence whatsoever, would advocate for it.
I’m glad your were able to see (reason) your way out of it. If you haven’t already, I highly recommend the reading the story. Take care.
Well said.
# Me too.
Maybe just don't be a statist then?
The owners are certainly very frightened of the workers, who vastly outnumber the owners.
Equality of outcome is a big technical problem, but only from the aspect of enforcement. The companies themselves could easily and objectively compare the merits of employees and assign compensation without regard to race or gender. Mr Peterson's argument is related to how government can ensure all companies are actually doing this without the bureaucratic overhead that could burden the hiring and advancement of these companies. There are real temporal and monetary costs to this process that could stifle economic movement, as well as human biases that could corrupt the system. But I don't think he is being creative enough when he dismisses the problem as being too complex.
The issue is only a burden when it is considered with regard to the regulatory tools we currently employ. For example, what if enforcement can be managed by AI? Is there not some approach that can be taken using technology that can remove as much human bias from these comparisons as possible? What if there is another novel means of bureaucracy that has not been conceived, one that is more efficient and less prone to human bias? It is an issue that needs to be addressed, because the perception of inequality creates social unrest. It is irresponsible to conclude that it is okay for an entire portion of the population to continue to feel disenfranchised because the process of ensuring security is currently complex. The machine of human consciousness is the same regardless of race or gender, or any of the other superficial factors that we use to divide ourselves.
On another note, Mr. Peterson alludes in his conclusion that empowering the individual is the answer to the issues he discusses with identity politics. I agree that the individual should be empowered, and that influence of government in the lives of the individual should be minimized to become as noninvasive as is practical. The issue is that for all its merits, the free market creates an opportunity for an individual to exert an overly proportional influence over others in a way that has been proven to be detrimental. There must be a happy medium between freedom of economic mobility and regulation, where the weak cannot be prevented from becoming strong by those already in power.
Food for thought from a fascinating intellectual. Jordan Peterson is hated by the far left & far right.
I'm beginning to hate politics.
This is how civilisations fall. We are in desperate need of an alternative.
Many are waking up to the reality that the foundation of western civilization (especially USA) has been fracked... the fissures run so deep as the con has gone on for too long. There is another way and you are naturally on your way to finding it, as you start to see through the system, and are hating politics. The current prez is here to do a job. He’s holding up a mirror to America and showing it what it really looks like. No more clinging to pretences. She’s a harlot. Have nothing to do with her.
Have you heard of Andrew Yang and his policies? (Democrat running for President 2020). The far left seems to have made up their mind that he's not Socialist enough for them, meanwhile he's actually gaining more traction among Independents and Republicans.
F3dax Ax3g Jesus is the way.
Right loves him, needless to say he was quoting here Ben Shapiro. They are both little b*tches sucking Koch brothers off.
(And now they have to share a dick because David Koch is dead 🦀🦀🦀)
I have never heard the right or left ever mention the speaker's name.
Peterson is not my favourite person, but I have to give credit to Big Think for having such diversity inside the channel, it's good to have such a diversity of opinions, everyone deserves a chance to talk, and it's good to hear people you disagree with, it just makes us richer.
Edit: (Took "Intellectually" out before richer) Years after I posted this comment I gotta say... Peterson is such a pseudo-intellectual goof ball haha, his self help stuff can be good I guess, but many of the other stuff he says is just... yikes!
i am really interested in what do you disagree with regarding this video?
Amine Mimou
Crickets
Amine Mimou Peterson is building a strawman, he is building an argument against the most extreme of the left. The majority of the left and far left ignores that extreme, but they are loud and obnoxious within social media.
Everyone deserves a chance to talk? You can't think of one person, in all of history, who had an opinion that should have been shut down?
politechjunky What strawman? He just talked about the need for identifiers for the too extreme left. What's your line for being to far left?
Maybe next time don't book a guy who's so dumb he almost killed himself by refusing to eat anything but meat.
Peterson is strikingly obtuse about a lot of what he has to say here. Buckley didn't oppose David Duke on moral grounds. He understood Duke's white supremacist politics were unworkable in terms of mass appeal and building a successful movement. But why did Buckley's politics resonate with David Duke in the first place? Answer: Because they were united in their views. Buckley was a white supremacist, an advocate of colonialism and a supporter of US imperialism in its militaristic ambitions. But over time he understood the need to make his views more palatable. Nevertheless, the roots of his white supremacy persisted throughout. For example, he was happy with US troops slaughtering untold numbers of Vietnam villagers (including many, many women and children) in the name of fighting communism. Indeed, there was no limit to the number of non-whites that it was acceptable to kill in the face of such an intractable and all pervasive enemy like the Soviet Union. This fearmongering is evident in Peterson's dismissal of Marx. The focus of Marx's work was on class struggle and a comprehensive critique of capitalism through the lens of dialectical materialism. To say Marx's ideas were invalidated by the horrors of the Soviet Union under Stalin is to declare oneself completely ignorant of his writings. Marx believed politics was about confronting power. This is as relevant today as it was in the 1840s. This confrontation required solidarity and organizing based on the shared material concerns of working people. This is the essence of leftist politics. Intersectionality, meanwhile, is a means of identifying the points around which seemingly disparate groups' concerns come into alignment (i.e., intersect), such that these groups come to find common cause with each other and grow their numbers. This is how effective movement building works. It's not nearly as convoluted as he makes it out. Peterson is out to lunch and out of his depth. He should get out of politics and stick with the psychology racket.
You mean, the US troops in Vietnam sent by LBJ? You sound like you really, really believe in Communism - and Communism is directly opposed to Democracy.
I’m a liberal and quite left leaning. This made me think a lot. I thank BT for this video and I hope others with my views can try to comprehend what this man is saying without getting triggered.
The " fatal flaw(s)" in Prof. Peterson's presentation is his misunderstanding of what "Left" and "Right" thinking, behavior, social, political and economic structures are. Citing a perceived lack of clarity in the left, as opposed to the right's virtue of a purposeful doctrine is an attempt to make rational open-mindedness pathological and rationalized closed-mindedness ideal.
The failures of the USSR and Maoist China had more to do with corporatism and corruption than socialism or communism. Claiming that Hitler's fascism is the sole example of extreme right-wing regimes ignores history's long list of monarchies, theocracies, and cleptocracies.
To cut this short, he generalizes by cherry-picking examples of leftist group-think excesses while falsely claiming that rightists are the sole protectors of individualism.
I don't think a guy who doesn't understand the first thing about Marxism, postmodernism or the history of 19th and 20th century philosophy and political movements is the most appropriate to make other people "think" about these subjects.
He consistently gets very basic stuff wrong. Like, wow.
Actually, I've read quite a lot about these and other topics, so I already know how full of shit he is. His critique of the left amounts to the classic conservative paranoid word salad with little to no basis in reality.
If you don't believe me there are a number of videos by lefties and (serious) philosophers on youtube laughing at some of his most egregious stupidity, for instance Contrapoints, Zero Books or Three Arrows. If you don't believe them, you can do a ten minute research on the history of 20th century continental philosophy to realize how he doesn't know a thing about it.
It's impossible to list what he specifically gets wrong when it's almost every single thing in his discourse, be it about politics or pretty much anything else.
But if you still want some examples, how about the fact that postmodernism isn't a single unified theory, but rather the writings of several dozen post-structuralist philosophers with no unifying political ideology? How about the fact that Foucault and many others were not even Marxists? Or the fact that many of them were more interested in language and literary criticism and had very little to say about politics at all?
Have you considered that Peterson may just be another in a long list of right-wing charlatans who don't know what the fuck they are talking about? You know, the classic: BUZZWORD BUZZWORD STALIN BUZZWORD PC CULTURE BUZZWORD ATHEISTS BUZZWORD RED SCARE BUZZWORD 1984... you know, the usual conservative paranoid babble.
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
The problem with making these claims is manyfold, but for starters Dr Peterson is a classic center left leaning individual and has no affiliation with the conservatives other than agreeing to talk to them in a polite and civil discussion (Gasp!). Additionally for SOME REASON the things he says ring true for a staggeringly large population of people ranging from the left to the right. His lectures have millions of views per video, have you tried watching that stuff? It's like people volunteering to take calculus for reading pleasure - in the millions, what the fuck? Something here is ringing really true, and despite some of the alt-right cherry picking points that support their argument people from all areas of the political spectrum from all around the world are listening and going "huh, I feel like you just put what I've been feeling as a spectator to this ideological war into concise wording, I wonder if that means there's merit to at least some of what you have to say".
I'm by no means an expert of 20th century ideological philosophy, and I think that you'd probably need an IQ of like 120 to even fully understand every argument being made properly, (rip my average ass) and I mean really really properly. I'm someone that assumes from the get go that every intellectual has something to offer and because of this I generally try to understand arguments of everyone regardless of my political leanings, I watch Ben Shapiro to JP to Sam Harris (JP is a self declared christian, their debate was really interesting!) Yet no matter how much I try I can't find any argument that can go toe to toe with JP in terms of the left's current extremism in the west (which exists, no one can deny this and remain in the conversation). If you know someone who I should be watching please do say.
JP makes all his arguments from a psychological perspective and context so taking that into account is also a big deal if you want to understand where he's coming from. Much of what he says is taken out of context too. ( ua-cam.com/video/aMcjxSThD54/v-deo.html ) he's obviously not got any prejudice when it comes to race or sex and people using the fact that hes a white guy for arguments sake have become the very instigators of racism that they have set out to destroy. People should be able to come to the table and argue their point regardless of their political/race/gender/sex/class/theological perspectives. The only way to move forward in a more and more tribalistic and polarised society is to have respectful and civil discussions. You can segregate all the way down to the individual after all.
I'd just like to take a break from all the comments about politics and ideology to remark on how well Dr. Peterson is looking these days. And I must say that's perhaps the most excellent and elegant beard I have ever encountered. I love the shirt he's wearing in this too. Lovely colour.
I think it's his lucky shirt, he wears it a lot :)
He's definitely committed to the mustard yellow.
"Committed to the mustard yellow" sounds like some sort of obscure code XD I fully intend to make a habit of saying it in a way that suggests a secret meaning and then refusing to explain myself to anyone who questions it.
Big Think is using a camera filter (or at least editing with a filter) to make colors stand out a bit more. This is probably to correct for the bright white background, where the subject would lack color saturation. Just my best guess -- I'm not a photo/videographer.
comments that aged badly lmao
Well put.
The main reason I find Jordan Peterson so note worthy, is at no point during his speaking do I go "what the hell are you talking about?"
i love this fact: Peterson and Zizek arrived to almost same conclusions, starting from 2 different points of view...
True. Peterson is kind of a classical liberal with a center-right leaning, while Zizek is openly leftist. It's a massive deal that they both agree on the stupidity of identity politics, considering they are two of the most brilliant minds analyzing the current political environment in the present. Quoting Zizek: "Identity politics reduces the other to a particular identity. The only true struggle is the struggle for universality itself".
Not really
Gross over generalization and misinterpretation, delve deeper.
I am a happy lobster with a clean room.
Andrew Westmoreland which gender?
Andrew Westmoreland if you cut yourself, don't light a match :D
I approve of your comment
I am Cornholio.
So what you are saying is, you think crabs should be paid less for the same work.
Equality of outcome is the worst idea ever since it basically says no matter how hard you work it will account for nothing and therefore incentivizes everyone to not try. Those who don't try get the reward and those who do try are cheated out of it. When you say everybody gets a trophy, it means nothing nobody gets a trophy. A trophy is supposed to represent something - it represents how much work you put in, but if everybody gets a trophy it's just something that collects dust it represents nothing
What Mr. Peterson conveniently omitted is that literally no one desires Equality of Outcome. That idea died long before Kurt Vonnegut wrote _Harrison Bergeron_ in 1961 (if you haven't read that short story, it's worth a read).
What liberals the world over want is Equality of Opportunity. It's very different. Instead of everyone ending up with the same outcome regardless of merit, Equality of Opportunity allows all to enjoy comparable opportunities upon birth. If those doors are closed, it is by choice alone. This man seems intentional in his omission of this and should not be trusted.
As a leftist, this is funny.
Why is it funny?
"It is ethically incumbent on those who are liberal [...] to identify the markers of pathological extremism on the left." I am a Democrat and I completely agree. Perhaps, we need a separate party for sane people.
An actual "Liberal" Party?
Well the party was already attempted to be separated many times, mainly in 1861 and 1948, when the Conservatives try to split off and failed.
I don't think another political party is what's needed. I believe what's needed is less focus on parties and more focus on the ideas. Many people are quick to identify as Democrat/Republican, Progressive/Conservative, Left Wing/Right Wing, "Woke"/"Red Pilled". I think things are more complex and that there are both good ideas and bad ideas no matter what "side" you find yourself on. From where I stand, it seems that the more "extremes" on either side are saying the exact same thing, they're just saying it in different ways.
This is as equally profound and true: "it is ethically incumbent on those who are [conservative] [...] to identify the markers of pathological extremism on the [right]."
@@dukerbower2228 Put down the sippy cup 🥴
I hope Jordan Petersen (and his wife) is feeling healthy now. Poor guy has had a very tough road...
True and while I'm sympathetic towards him I do hope he takes a step back from being a public figure and focus on his health
Poor dude gets paid millions to spout total bullshit to people with nothing to back his claims. Wish I had it that easy
@@justice_was_taken What an aggressive rhetoric to carry around with you all day.
@Tashana Luda if he is a clinical psychologist then I am a brain surgeon
@@justice_was_taken what "bullshit" are you referring to?
The gem at the end !
Awesome, concise video
I remember reading something a long time ago, written by Winston Churchill about fascism, and how the only way to deal with it is the same way you deal with stubborn weeds in a garden. The topsoil needs to be removed and the ground must be turned into mud, the weeds must be ripped out and burned. It’s a horrible thing to see what decent people have to become to deal with something as dangerous as fascism. The death toll is always catastrophic, and it leaves behind survivors who are dead inside.
Do not identify with any group. Protect your individuality at all costs. Direct your energies towards personal growth. Make a positive contribution to what is around you. Avoid confrontation.
I wish more of the Jordan Peterson crowd had this attitude
Avoid confrontation would be good, but we can't do it forever without becoming a slave 😃
the problem with America is that people become so hyper-individual that they circle around and become hyper-group focused. A social species chasing an unattainable "individuality" will be the downfall of Capitalism
Yeah but i can see myself punching an aggressor though. The past year and you know why, total non entities have been given a licence to police your daily actions, grass you up even. Not mind their own business.
@@Kelly14UK Wake up, America has been run by corporations since the 1950's.
I agree with everything he said, that's why the best thing to do is just let people work as much as they want to and succeed as much as they want to.
we can argue all day about the merit of those sentiments . I believe them to be , at heart , selfish .
@@TheMichaelseymour So what? The reality is that we cannot regulate an immoral society to morality. We can only mitigate with more freedom by allowing people to choose whether or not to associate with them.
@@TheRisky9 so what ? ...just what i would expect back .
@@TheMichaelseymour So, you cherry pick the one line, exclude the context, and pretend that's the whole of my comment. Just what I would expect back.
@@TheRisky9 well , that one lines says a lot ....the rest of your statement gets worse anyway ..
It is easy to attack the extreme outcomes of left(or right for that matter) positions. Mentioning three concepts and then spending a 3rd of the video talking about the worst one makes the position seem worse than what it is
I have to agree with him on a couple of points, primarily, "Equity of Opportunity" not "Equity of Outcome".
Some 2000 yeRs ago it was Plato I believe who said : “ true equality consists of treating unequal things unequally “ it’s true today, and will be true into infinity of the future.
I would agree we all need to be aware of extremism, however I do not think Republicans have this more figured out compared to Liberals as Mr. Peterson seems to suggest. Everyone needs to do better and it starts with everyone communicating instead of yelling at each other.
yeah he literally used a logical fallacy to justify him saying gender equality in the workspace is extremist.
Jordan Peterson is an expert in talking without saying anything.
you don’t think he’s saying anything because you’re actively choosing not to listen. he made several concrete points here and where he stands on them. what exactly are you talking about?
@@colevitiritto8976 dodomod is one of those people who wants you to March in lockstep with their ideology. You're wasting your time bud
Who decides what constitutes "equality of opportunity?" If not public institutions, then private equity firms and hierarchical entities? How will they define what is and isn't equality, and what is and isn't opportunity?
IMHO, having lived many years under Socialism and regurgitated Marxism/Leninism, the Leftists' doctrine has never relied on logical or scientific fairness but emotional and pseudo-scientific deceit. If carried to the extreme, and as we know it was carried there, the motto could be "We do not debate, we exterminate". The error many make is to expect Leftists to engage in fair play - it is simply against their core beliefs which embrace (bloody) revolutions, dictatorship and totalitarianism.
Everyone who has lived in Socialist country knows very well what that "thing" is and tied to escape. But many people in the West do not know much if at all, especially the younger ones. "Free" college, healthcare etc. "fee stuff" seem like a good things as they are uneducated ignorant and brainwashed.So they fall pray to people like Bernie Sanders who has never hold a normal job in his life, but know how to run a country or Justin Trudeau who, in fact is "running" a country. More like ruining a country.
Of course nothing is that simple but it is not that complicated either. Those socialist advocates take some examples to "prove" their points. Say wealth vastly unequal distribution. Here both Conservatives and Leftists mislead by omission. Leftists blame Capitalism and Conservatives instead of pointing out clearly and simply not Capitalism but Corporatocratism is the culprit and not Capitalism, they go ahead and defend Capitalism. The irony is that both aid that same Corporatism/Cronyism. Leftists by agitating for bigger government, higher taxes and more welfare (half of the Americans receive some form of government support, many do not pay any taxes, so many people support Democrats So the Big Brothers (Big Government and Big Money) win - import of cheap labor, increasing welfare, higher profits, bigger government. Conservatives defend Capitalism and Big Money is thankful for the support and they can continue to operate freely (understand unobstructed by the Big Government who receives their share) and the main victim is the middle class which continue to shrink. So in fact nobody defend the real victim. Both Dems and Rinos are part of the Big Government and consciously support it. Trump is trying to support his voters but is facing formidable foe - those Big Brothers.
Good post.
By God, can you please shout this from every pulpit and high place? Such beautiful, succinct common sense!
You are very right. These socialist ideas were gradually forced upon the Western society by the current Globalists (former Communists) in order to control the indoctrinated and brainwashed masses. I don't even live in the USA but for you living there and apparently using "food stamps" - in the richest and most powerful country in the world - you should ask yourself whether you've been controlled, brainwashed and enslaved... If I have the option to not send my kids to public school (to be brainwashed) I'll do it, Not living in the States naturally I don't use medicare etc. Parks?!!!! That is new in the "socialist goodies!". ??!! Sorry mate, judging from your leftist language and logic I have to admit that you are right and I'm wrong....arguing with you would be a waste of time. Take care.
Palla d' Aubrey , well written and i agree with every word , i also lived under communism -socialism . Young people today are being indoctrinated with this evil ideology and they can't see that it leads only to their demise and that comes in different forms !
Thank you Inga, for your nice words! First, as Leo Tolstoy (Лев Толстой) wrote "History is wonderful thing only if it were true" hence the history is highly twisted , but they barely teach it, and parents (us) too busy teach our kids, so here is the result. Planning on startirg a channel and start some education, no matter how humble and modest perhaps better than nothing. If one has some relevant knowledge and not sharing it is not right. As George Orwell said in his book 1984 that "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act".
Inequality grows with Marxism. 🦠
The only true equalizer of fairness is if this planet drifted into the sun and we all died at once the only true equality of outcome
It sure does. I'm from South America andI'm still waiting for the day I'll have access to the daily premium wines my governants get, all with my tax money of course.
@Mountain Man If there's something I learned from living my entire life on left wing countries is that inequality sure is a lot bigger on here than on capitalistic countries. Just compare general population to our leaders. Look what nicolas maduro has and what we had back in venezuela. That is why we came to Brazil and it is kinda the same here too. On capitalistic countries you have inequalities between the classes. On left wing countries, be it social democracy or socialism, you have a GIANT inequality between the entire population and the political class.
@Mountain Man I've heard this "for one to win, one must lose" before, but I cannot see it being applicable to capitalism.
Think about it.
You engage in voluntary exchange of capital for services or goods. You are satisfied because you obtained goods or services you desired and the seller is satisfied because he made money.
Meanwhile under marxism the person with more must be forcefully deprived of the "excess" gaining nothing or in other words, losing.
Hahaha
In Q4 2022 this is prophetic, JP is a national treasure who must be protected at all costs.
I keep on hearing from the political Right that the contemporary Left is MARXIST. I've been a Leftist since the 1990s. I like to joke about how far Left I am. I've had discussions with others on the Left, for thirty years, in person, on discussion groups, on social media, in email. I can count on both hands the number of times I've heard Marx, Lennon, Trotsky or Che quoted. If I throw out one person, I can count on one hand the number of times. I keep hearing about these academic papers that so influence our education system. I'd like to read them and see for myself, unfortunately every one of them are behind paywalls, and the few that are quoted as purportedly Marxist, aren't anything related, but are those the writer incorrectly deemed Marxist.
In other words, and I'm still waiting for a single fact I can check about it, but like Hilary Clinton's guilt, I suspect it's nothing but propaganda.
The American Left had its "Marxist" phase, which was overdone to the point of self-parody, in the Sixties and early Seventies. This happened because they had been protesting the Vietnam War for years without any response from the government. So they turned to shock tactics and theatrics. When the war finally ended, so did their Marxist Phase. Their whole irresponsible act would've been purely comical, except they did play it to the hilt, and actually killed people. Their plans for a revolution were a joke. The true believers founded communes or followed the Grateful Dead. That's what I think in the dearth of any evidence.
I would agree that the Left appears to have has a nebulous theme, but not really. It has the Enlightenment, and the writings of he Founders. What does the Right have instead? Without racism, many-times discredited religion, a plan to disable government and get paid, and a yearning abusive capitalism, what's really there? And let's not forget the hypocrisy of the Founders, which the Right has taken in with one swallow.
I think it was Harry Browne who said, "The smallest minority in the world is the individual".
It's the ultimate irony that the idea of intersectionality taken to its greatest extreme leads straight back to liberalism. Intersectionalists will keep dividing protected groups down until each group can only be filled by one person. Because the individual is the ultimate minority, support for the protection of individual rights and liberties is the natural result.
Was it not Ayn Rand?
@@ArtificialLifef0rm It may have been. I heard Harry Browne say it but he very well could have gotten it for her.
This man is amazing. I feel smarter everytime I listen to him.
Hah that’s funny
It's all the benzos... idk why ppl still listen to this man.
@@maufo1471 It's not "this man". It's every rational person. He hasn't even expressed an opinion up to this point.
That's what a conman does.
@red racer what does that mean?
The line is clear. It's big, bold and red. Anyone who wishes to treat people as the sum of their collective identity groups rather than an individual has gone too far. Such is prejudice and discrimination, plain and simple.
In all honesty how can anybody take this guy seriously? He’s a rightwing hack who said that there would be no art if there were no belief in God. What a great philosopher.
Yes, and the idea that the right section off people with extreme views while the left does not seems completely untrue. I mean, left leaning people like JK Rowling, Joe Biden, Tony Blair and really all neoliberals can hardly be called supporters of communism and have explicitly attacked other left wing views (Blair and Rowling attacked Jeremy Corbyn (who is much less extreme than a communist) and Blair said he fundamentally went against western values). The left is not some homogenous Marxist view as Peterson paints it. In fact the far left is constantly hitting out at neoliberals. While some people on the left may not make such a distinction, neither do all people on the right (but of course most do). A lot of politicians for example have tried to play down the January 6th riot, and online presences such as 'Conservapedia' defend the Proud Boys, and form a bridge between mainstream American Conservatism and the more extreme views of say Jair Bolsonaro. And I don't think Donald Trump's condemnation of the 2017 Charlottesville rally was prompt or decisive.
@@longknoll8065: Exactly. This applies to Bernie Sanders to who they called a socialist and even a communist, but he really falls into the category of being a social Democrat or democratic socialist which is a mixture of capitalism and socialism with many social programs, unions and regulations for banking/finance in order to prevent another global economic catastrophe like we had in 2008 and 1929. During those two periods exactly the same policies were implemented by conservatives Politicians and economists which was massive tax cuts for the very rich, anti-social programs and deregulation. Today the republican president Dwight the Eisenhower would be labeled to Commie.
@@vincesam8620 You can have a great progressive demand-side economist on UA-cam or you can have a conservative supply-side/Trickle down economist on UA-cam spewing economic nonsense. You can take the medium of UA-cam seriously, but I can’t take this right wing so-called philosopher Jordan Peterson seriously. It’s comedic.
As someone who is centre-left, I couldn't agree more. The reason I'd be grouped in with socialists and communists is that that distinction hasn't been named. I agree with Peterson that this distinction needs to be drawn at equality of outcome.
The distinction has ALWAYS been there. It's just that the U.S. political mean has been shifted so far in the direction of conservative libertarianism that the entire history of American politics is now skewed through that lens. For all their shortcomings, previous generations were wiser than we were when it came to political science. They recognized not only the difference between liberals and socialists, but between conservatives and fascists. Both conservatives and fascists are obsessed with "cultural purity," but only one of those groups is willing to achieve that purity through democratic means.
shutup
@@SeasideDetective2 indeed
Most liberals in the USA are not communists.
WOW! Jordon Peterson on Big Think?!
Yup, is for big thinkers, so...
He's been on once before.
Its a good sign.
Hgfd hgfds54wert care to explain or just trot out one liners.
I'm shocked too.
Important note - Jordan is talking about Leftist extremism. So unless you define yourself as an extremist, I can’t see any reason why anyone would disagree with this message. Extremism isn’t good; left or right. Let’s actually just throw out political identity all together and just share ideas respectfully.
It seems with politics these days on the right there is nothing left and on the left there is nothing right.
Wow, I'm really starting to realize how important this guy is. I heard he's going through some rough stuff recently, I hope he feels better and bounces back soon. I genuinely appreciate him very much now.
Same here man. Found him about a week or two ago and that was all it took for me to become absolutely enthralled with all the countless hours of Jordan just talking. It didn't take me long to find a comment about his unwellness which greatly concerned me. I don't know if you've seen it by now but on his own channel he has an hour-long discussion with his daughter where they tell us all what's been going on with him, it was uploaded two weeks ago. What had happened was he began suffering from anxiety around the same time his wife was diagnosed with cancer and his body became reliant on the type of medication he was prescribed. He ended up in quite unbearable pain and his wife scraped with death several times but as of right now (or as of the video I guess) he and his wife are well on their way to recovery. Both are quite miraculous survival stories. Jordan's mentally just about back to normal but he's still recovering physically. I encourage you to watch the video on his channel with his daughter to hear the whole story, it's way too complicated for me to explain in detail in a short UA-cam comment
E Jakobs Over the past year I have listened to a couple hundred podcats, and lectures by Jordan Peterson. He has completely changed my life. One night I at work I cried. I cried because I knew if I was able to listen to him 20 years ago, my life would have been totally different. And not the fucked up mess i am currently trying to fix. This 10 minute video barely scratches the surface. Wait until you listen to his 2 hour lecture about the necessity of virtue. Or his one hour talk about, “what is being?”. I appreciate the way that he goes so so deep that he doesn’t allow your brain to escape. He knows all the traps the mind sets. And he diffuses every single one of them. And strips questions down to their bare essence. And human motivations down to their meta core.
demigodzilla how unbelievably arrogant do you have to be to think a clinical psychologist is a pseudo expert? What is your credibility?
@demigodzilla psychological analysis can be applied to the individual, groups or societies as a whole throughout history and in the present. I would describe this video as spot on. Debunk some statements by him or stop being a hater just because you can.
Did It ever cross your mind that even someone "educated" can spit BS every now and then...
It’s hard finding friends when you’re a moderate
-Jim Jefferies
Jefferies is nowhere near "moderate".
The problem is jordan that the right has found markers for to far right but has not seperated itself from them, in fact the right has more and more went with them to the point that if you are not showing those extrem signs of to far right you are being kicked out of the right all together.