Jordan Peterson | ContraPoints
My. Lords, ladies and there's. That life betwixt, tis, evident, no sensation, nor the passions, possessed Dominion never the mind of man which, is ruled instead, by a reason, sovereign. Of all faculties. It. Must needs be remarked, that the power of the Commonwealth derive. It not from the despotic, 'el acquisitions. Of conquerors, but from that covenant, amongst, men whereby, they most resembling. The, lobster. Farmington, are, we doing this again lady. Tottington. I'm. So happy to finally meet the real year. Malti, I'm not gonna kiss your hand you freak, I'm more of a woman than you are it's, not what they was saying at the Parisian, Selim clock Me Amadeus, don't, break the fourth wall I'm trying, to make a video about post-modernism. Get out of my drawing-room, 18th, century sexual, deviance so much for the tolerant jacobins. Reason. Power. Truth. These, are the kinds of topics that I simply, don't care about unfortunately. We have to talk about them because of a guy named Jordan, Peterson, - who's Jordan Peterson. Wow. He's a psychology, professor at the University, of Toronto who, got famous for sounding the alarm about how protecting, transgender, people under Canadian human, rights law shall, surely lead to Stalinism. Since then he's been touring North America, as a celebrity lecturer, David Brooks called him the most influential, public, intellectual, in the Western world at, his self-help, book 12 rules for life as a national, and international bestseller, I'm starting to think we, may need to take this guy seriously he's, got a lot of fans on YouTube and I hope you guys are here because I want, to talk a lot of leftists, who have responded to Peterson haven't, really engaged with his ideas very much he's, often caricatured. Avoided, or talked past as in the infamous BBC, interview where, Kathy Newman keeps repeating back very uncharitable, interpretations. Of everything, he says so, you were saying that by and large women, are too agreeable to get the pay I see so I'm saying that that's one component you're saying that women aren't intelligent. Enough to run these taka no you, just say murderers so to provoke, on you I mean you are provocate, I never say lightly they aren't right that you hate to be compared to you're saying that we should organize our, societies. Along. The lines of the lobsters I think that people watching this it comes off as if leftists, are like afraid, of his actual ideas, but I'm not afraid of his ideas I'm not afraid of anything I just smoked a bunch of, PCP. Daddy. So I spent the last couple weeks listening, to hours of Peterson's, lectures, and podcasts. And reading his books and honestly. I think I, get why people like, him, clearly he has real talent as a public speaker and has a kind of life coach his, book 12 rules for life echoes past bestsellers, like Stephen Covey's the seven Habits of Highly Effective People, or Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life the, difference is that Peterson, takes basic, self-help, insights, like take, responsibility.
For Yourself don't envy other people, and he renews them with the intellectual trappings, of psychology, philosophy, yogi, and psychoanalysis and, Bible, readings he's telling us a pretty classic story, life is suffering happiness, is not enough to sustain you through suffering, so you need a higher purpose in your life but I knew that already I learned it at the AAA meetings, I refused to go - these are like basic, insights, of world philosophy, and religion, but their insights, that today's youth apparently. Haven't heard before I guess because, not enough of them are alcoholics or at any rate they haven't heard them in a vocabulary, they connected, with so, do a lot of people Peterson's, ideas seem new and urgent and I don't really, object to any of the self-help stuff loose of Peterson's fans are young men and I mean someone, has to live the neckbeards, into shape and if, Pearson can do that more. Power to them I mean sometimes boys just, need a daddy and sometimes, girls do too. But. There's. A big problem here and the problem is, that all this life coaching, is basically, just a Trojan horse for a reactionary, political, agenda, Peterson advocates, and ethics of self-help, not merely as a guide to private, life but as a replacement, for progressive, politics, which he characterizes, as totalitarian. And evil there's no comparison. There now and a trans activist, is there why. Not the, philosophy. That's guiding, their utterances is the, same philosophy, now Peterson doesn't use the word progressive. Politics because that doesn't sound scary enough, his, new scarier. Word is post. Now. We have to be careful, not to confuse postmodern. Neo Marxism, with cultural, Marxism, the Nazi, conspiracy, theory about Marxist, intellectuals, plotting to destroy the West surely, this is not the same thing as that right right. So look I genuinely, do, not think Jordan Peterson is a fascist, and you may quote me on that but I am wondering if it's not a fascist, conspiracy, theory about Marxist, intellectuals, plotting to destroy the West then. What is postmodern. Neo Marxism, well JP that's. What I'd like to talk about so, Jordan sorry, dr. Peterson professor. Daddy. Let's. Talk and for once I'd like to actually treat this discussion, with the seriousness and respect I think it deserves. Okay. Good. Temperature, tell me the oil would you daddy. Thanks. Daddy. It's. Really an honor to bathe with a public intellectual, of your stature. You. Know, I never like to argue in the bath so I want to start by telling you the things I like about you the first thing is that I think some of your criticisms, of the left the, stifling, of even slightly different opinions, the gratuitous. Loathing, of Western cultural, monuments, the politics. And resentment, are within. A certain media, or corner of academia, valid. Complaints, I even made a video about that a long time ago when I was a different person oh, god the dysphoria please don't watch it but my worry is that you're leaving an international, political backlash against what is a very localized, problem and, I worry that some of our society's, most vulnerable people. Could be hurt by that backlash, like, fine you hate postmodern, intellectuals, an overly sensitive student, activists, but if your backlash, also, targets, gender equality, LGBT. Acceptance and, civil rights that, would be bad right I. Also. Like that you tell people how to live their lives I mean I personally hate, taking orders outside, of the bedroom, but. Clearly. The. Sheep need a shepherd and you've really stepped up with these 12 rules you know on the Left we don't really tell people what to do we, tell them what not to do don't exploit the workers do not do blackface I, guess we tell people what pronouns to use for trans people but that's. A pretty small rule compared to some of your rules like how. To raise your children or, what. Okay to criticize, things. The. Last thing I like is you talk about deep, I was watching a video where, you and a couple of zany goons we're, talking about Plato and Aristotle the, meaning of life and I thought huh, on the, Left we don't, really talk about that kind of thing all we talk about is how society oppresses.
People And that might not be enough because, people need to have a positive purpose in life I mean personally, I don't give a I'm, pretty, happy to say here are watching the same three seasons of strangers, with candy until, I die but other people like Dostoevsky. Come you other white guys who talk about lobsters. They. Have this need to have purpose, in the face of suffering and, like not. Just complain about patriarchy. I guess is easier to not complain about patriarchy. When patriarchy, isn't, the thing that's making you suffer but I do think that an education, that only teaches people about oppression is inadequate we spend four years teaching undergraduates, why capitalism, is bad and then we say well, you're educated, now good, luck getting a job under capitalism. By and. That really, kind of sucks but, you know I think, that's a point that could probably be made without, comparing, transgender, activism, to Stalin. If. You like this came across a little more sarcastic than, I intended, see this is what you've got to use a firmer hand with me Peterson, if you don't establish dominance I'm just, gonna melt off they. Use all this to passion, language, and I'm on the side of the oppressed all of that posturing. It does, nothing but mask the underlying, drive to power and I've, just been starting, to review their, curriculum, for children from kindergarten, to grade eight it's pure, social. Justice, post-modernism. The people who hold this doctrine. Just radical. Postmodern, communitarian. Option the, mixed racial identity, or sexual identity or gender identity, or some kind of group identity terminal. Control. Where, the most long. To mid-level bureaucratic. Structures. And. Many governments, as well but, even in the United States. So, you gotta give it to JP when he says stand up straight with your shoulders back he, means that so Jordan Peterson, has succeeded, largely by drawing in audiences, with fairly, popular opinions, political. Correctness often, feels stifling, student. Activists, are sometimes in articulate, and over-reactive, angry, transsexuals, are telling me what words to use and I don't like it but once he draws you in with these inviting, preludes, he leads you to a pretty weird place his, central political message, is that leftist, professors, student, activists, campus. Diversity initiatives. And corporate. HR, departments, are collectively, following, the philosophy of, postmodern. Neo Marxism. To destroy Western civilization. And sink us all into a totalitarian. Nightmare, now there's just no avoiding, that this idea is actually pretty, similar to the cultural Marxism, or cultural Bolshevism, theory but, I'm just gonna ignore that because if I do well on it will sound like I'm saying Peterson, is a fascist, and then, everyone, will think I'm crazy, look I'm not afraid, of psychologists. I don't. Like to hide so let's just try not to think about that and instead. Straightforwardly. Ask is, it true that postmodern. Neo Marxism, is out to destroy us all well why don't we analyze, the concept of postmodern, and Marxism we all know what Marxism, is the idea that society should be understood as a class struggle between workers and capitalists, and that the workers will eventually, revolt some college professors definitely, do believe that but zero, percent of corporate HR departments, do so, that.
Okay. So, what is post-modernism. Well, it's, the vaguest word in the English language some, people try to explain it by listing all the things that are called postmodern, and then trying, to guess what they have in common that's basically, what the YouTuber armored skeptic did in his video about it so many daddies, in this video we did invite the model of barbecue complain about post-modernism. Listen. To some Zeppelin, I've had worse evenings, I don't think there really is a common, thread linking all the things called postmodern, basically, post-modernism, is everything that happened after 1945. That seemed you knew at the time but, when Jordan Peterson says post-modernism, he's not talking, about Andy Warhol or Quentin, Tarantino, he's talking about postmodern, philosophy so, what's that well, basically. It's, a, scepticism, not YouTube, skepticism. But actual, skepticism. You know like having, doubts about whether humans, can really know things about the world how skepticism. Is obviously, not a new idea that. Goes way back to ancient times but. More specifically, post-modernism. Is skepticism about, modernism. So what's modernism, what's what what are words what's, anything, I'm gonna divide modernism, into two periods because I feel like it first there's early modernism, early modernism, is the philosophy developed by a bunch of boring eighteenth-century Queens, which says that we can form Universal theories about the world through observation, and reasoning aka the scientific, method now that turns out to work pretty well for whatever questions, you have about plants. And crystals, and how, to medically, reconfigure. Human genitals, but, it has some limits which was pointed out by David Hume one, of the least boring, 18th century Queens and one of the only philosophers, I can actually put up with in small doses even, though he was a, racist and also, Scottish this, is a call out Hume, argued that from Asher to the empirical, perspective you. Can't really know much about important. Things like morality, causation. And the self because, those, aren't the kinds of things you can observe anyway, then the late modernists, came along and they said, him we're, gonna do science about those things anyway so the late modernists, were a bunch of boring nineteenth-century neckbeards. Who one way or another try. To discover universal, scientific, truths about humans, so for example you have psychoanalysis, which. Said human nature can be understood, in terms of unconscious, tribes which, is of course ridiculous, I'm conscious, of all my drives and you, got Marxism, with its analysis, of boot huazi and proletariat, you got early sociology. And anthropology which, started out with recent social evolutionism. And progresses, to a kind of we're all the same universalism. Jordan, Peterson is right at home with the lay modernists. His first book maps of meaning is, an attempt to describe how humans make sense of the world and create order out of chaos through, universal, myths and archetypes which he claims are a product of our species evolutionary, past. Boy this is a lot of explaining, it's so much explaining, it's triggering gender dysphoria I better put on some longer nails. Nails. It's an old woman who'd means to you. Haha. Post-modernism. Is skepticism about modernism. So whereas modernists, try to create eternal and universal theories. About a reality history, and humanity, post, modernists, say actually. No that's, not possible, for, example the French post modernist, Michele fuku Sargon. Little. Guth's Michele. Fuku, wrote intellectual, histories, of subjects, like psychiatry, medicine, and criminal justice in which he argued that we should not understand, these histories and straightforward, progressions, toward liberty and scientific, truth but, rather as, mere shifts, in the way that power orders. Our institutions. And populations. The, other post modernist, I've actually read a lot of his Richard Rorty yeah, you Derrida, if you wanted me to read you you should have been easier to read Rorty, advocates, an attitude toward knowledge he calls ayran ism irony, being the sceptical, caution, with which we should regard our own beliefs in our awareness that, our vocabulary. For describing and, understanding, the world is not the final or best vocabulary. All right that's enough explaining, and my nails are done check it out do you enjoy having long glamorous.
Nails With, the lesbians, and queer girls keep flaring up them with barely concealed, visceral, rage well, I have, a solution for you the bisexual. Manicure, one end for the V one, end for the D both. For, degeneracy, it's absolutely, filthy so. We've got all the pieces on the table now, you've just got up with a puzzle together on, the one hand we have Marxism. A fundamentally. Modernist, worldview, that theorizes, the human condition, in economic, terms on the other hand we have post-modernism. The sceptical worldview that denies our capacity, to know any universal, truths about anything on the face of it it was seeing these two ideas are not compatible, and there is an extensive history of dispute between them with for instance the Marxist Sartre calling, Foucault the last barricade, the Fugazi, can erect against Marx and of course as we all know when Foucault died, capitalism. Did and forever. So, where does Peterson get off talking about postmodern, neo Marxism. Well it's true that a lot of post modernists, were in some way influenced, by Marxism. So the phrase could just refer to that continuity, but that's not what Peterson means it's, clear for the way he uses the term the concept, is even more jumbled, and nonsensical, than it initially, appears Peterson, uses the term postmodern. Neo Marxism, to include not only postmodern. Intellectuals, and Marxist intellectuals, but also liberal, politicians. Academic. Administrators. In corporate HR departments, that care about diversity and so-called, identity politics, activists, including feminists. LGBTQ, and civil rights activists. Basically, is the entirety of the modern left now I've already mentioned how Marxism, and post-modernism, more fundamentally. At odds since, Marxism. Is a big story about a struggle, between two clear and distinct groups and post-modernism. Is skepticism. About big, stories, like this and about the stability, of binaries, like booj Rossi and proletarian, but that's not the only tension, and Peterson's, clusterfuck. Idea of postmodern, neo Marxism, anyone with any experience, and leftist circles, knows that, Marxists, and identity, politics activists, are constantly, at each other's throats because the Marxists, accused the activists, of being blue jaw dogs who want more female, CEOs, of color and more disabled, transgendered. Drunk pilots, while the activists, accuse the Marxists, of being a boys club of brochure lists no more work on gender and race issues, than the average Jordan Peterson, found most often these accusations are, correct because everyone, is problematic. And I disown, them all and then there's also the conflict between the identity, politics activists, and the post modernists. Why does everyone think that identity, politics, is postmodern, there's nothing postmodern, about it identity, politics, advocates, for rights equality, and justice for, particular, groups such, as women people, of color and gay, and trans people this. Kind of activism, presupposes. That these group categories, exists, and are a useful basis, for political organizing, post, modernists, do kind of the opposite, they, want to show that these categories, race gender, sexual, orientation or, contingent. Social constructs, and/or themselves, potentially, oppressive, this, is why conventional, feminist activists, often, hate postmodern. Feminism, because the postmodern, feminist Swan. The whole concept, of womanhood for instance is contingent. And potentially, oppressive, and they think we should be working to destabilize. And under - and then the conventional feminist, activists, say the. We, need the concept of womanhood to organize around women's political interests, how are we supposed to do that if we undermine, and destabilize the, concept, of womanhood and in turn the postmodern, feminists, say well here's, a quotation, from Judith Butler the most famous postmodern. Feminist ever, is it not a sign of despair, over public politics, when identity, becomes its own policy, bringing, with it those who would police it from various sides and this, is not a call to return to silence or invisibility, but, rather to, make use of a category, that can be called into question made, to account for what it excludes, if, you take the first part of that quote out of context.
It Almost sounds like something Jordan Peterson, could have said the difference is that JP actually, does think we should return to silence and invisibility, or, does, he it's hard to tell what he thinks more on that in a moment I bring all this up to show that one the idea of postmodern. Neo-marxist, identity, politics, as a unifying, concept of, the left is nonsensical, and to. Identity. Politics, is not this dogma, that must go unquestioned. There were sophisticated debates. About this going on within leftist, academia, but, Jordan Peterson, either doesn't know that or doesn't care he uses the term postmodern. Neo Marxism, to characterize, the left of the unified, philosophical. Force bent on destroying, Western, civilization. When, in fact it's a bunch of bumbling buffoons, who can't stop squabbling, with each other over every goddamn, little issue the, only reason I can think of that the left would appear to be a unified, philosophical. Force is if you're so far to the right that literally, everyone, who supports, the economic, and social advancement. Of disadvantaged, groups looks, like one homogeneous, enemy but is that what Doron Peterson, is saying that, he opposes all social, progress, for women racial, and sexual minorities well, it's difficult to say because, while he spends much of his time comparing. Activists. For these movements to 20th century, mass murderers, he, resists, being pinned down to any more specific, position, I was maybe too harsh on Cathy knew earlier she came out of the interview, looking bad but she had a tough job to do Peterson's rhetorical, strategy, involves, saying something, that's more or less uncontroversially. True while, at the same time implying. Something. Controversial, for, instance Jordan Peterson will make a claim like there, are biological differences. Between men and women, which is obviously, true but he'll say it in the context, of a conversation, about the under-representation, of, women and garment which implies, what. Exactly. So how do you respond to this well either you fall into the trap of arguing, against, the obviously, true statement, or you have to guess at what he's implying in response, to which he can accuse you of misrepresenting. Him which is exactly what happened with the Kathy Newman interview, the most famous moment were Peters and dozens is the notorious lobster. Argument, so he starts by saying here's this idea that. Hierarchical. Structures, are a sociological. Construct. Of the, Western patriarchy. And then he goes on to say that lobsters, exist in hierarchies, and lobsters, predate, Western, patriarchy. By millions of years so checkmate. Postmodern. Neo-marxists, you're saying that we should organize our, societies. Along. The lines of the lobsters I'm saying that it's inevitable, that there will be continuity, in the way that animals and human beings organizing. Organize, their structures the problem with that is that no, one has ever said that every. Hierarchy, is the product of Western, patriarchy. This is such a massive straw man that it overshadows, any uncharitable, interpretation. Of Peterson suggested, by Kathy Newman in this interview no one on the Left denies, that there are some natural hierarchies. Even the anarchists. Whose whole thing is abolishing hierarchies. Limit, themselves to, the abolition, of unjust. Hierarchies. No one wants to abolish lobster, hierarchies, the hierarchies, were interested, in are those of gender race, and economics. Within our own society. To, which the lobster case as a complete, non sequitur, I mean you could use Peterson's, lobster, argument, the same way he uses it to justify literally, any hierarchy, or Authority no matter how unjust, it could be an 18th century Republican. Arguing, against the monarchy and the monarch, could turn around and say well hierarchies.
Are Inevitable, god save the lobster, Queen. Oh dear. God, my, Lords, ladies, those. Lines. Between, present. Rumors and Republican, rumbling, was amongst the rabble have compared, us to summoning. Together, let, us remind, you, that nature. Has sue made lobster, but, some individuals, be stronger. Than the others therefore. Let, not the power of our. Crustacean. Sovereignty. Be, any wise and, pure and, does for. Parliamentarians. Well. Let. Them vote for, kick. Very. Good thank, you. I, need. New roommates. So I've argued that Peterson, is voting the incoherent, concept, of postmodern. In Marxism that the supervillain, in a childishly, simple worldview. He's promoting, where these evil leftists, are out to destroy the West now, it's time to expect the other side of this coin what, exactly. Is the West well, there's an academic usage. Of the term the West that, describes the intellectual, tradition, that runs from ancient Athens, to modern-day Europe and its colonies, now a true post modernist would want to deconstruct the whole concept, of the West and show, how the very idea, is racist, and exclusionary, and supremacist. And justify his imperialism. And all that kind of thing but we don't have time for that right now so I'm just gonna grab that the West is a thing and look at how Jordan Peters and thinks about it for Peterson, the West seems to be equivalent to capitalism, individualism. The idea that each human has a spark, of divinity and, he therefore equates, it with judeo-christian. Values a, term more popular, with conservative, pundits, than intellectual historians. Speeders and contrasts. Judeo-christian. Values with, postmodern, neo Marxism, which he describes as anti Western collectivist. Relativist. And totalitarian. This framing of a conflict of ideas in terms of geographical. Chauvinism, and external, threat is inaccurate, and scaremongering. Marxism. Is Western, philosophy, post-modernism. Is Western, philosophy, if you're really concerned about preserving the geographical. Boundaries, of the intellectual, tradition, you should be ranting against the influence, of Buddhism, likewise, there is no feature of SJW.
Ideology, That is meaningfully, non-western, the very idea of people requesting, different pronouns to suit their individual, needs is exactly. The kind of thing a person who values individual. Liberty, over collective, dogma should be on board with could even argue that Marxism, is an extension of enlightenment, philosophy, with its concern for human progress science. And liberty I think a lot of people like listening to Jordan Pederson talk about the Western tradition but, they don't seem to like reading any of it themselves if you did read it you'd find a surprising, diversity, of thought that, doesn't reduce to, judeo-christian. Values much. Of Plato's. Are, concerned with arguing against, cultural relativism, suggesting. That far, from being an invention of the post modernity it, was actually, a pretty popular worldview. Among ancient Athenian, pederasts. Her favorite Enlightenment, philosopher David. Hume famously. Said that reason, is and not only to be the slave of the passions literally. Feels, over, reals and meanwhile, his contemporary. The Marquita solid, was advocating, the abolition, of morality filling. The churches with scat porn and ushering in a reign of untethered. Sexual, perversion. So decadent and depraved, I'm not even allowed to talk about it on YouTube this is the Enlightenment, not post-modernism. And it's just as much a part of the West as Petersons soggy Bible. Padding conservatism, but again and I really can't stress this enough I don't, care, either way I make youtube videos because. I enjoy mood lighting and set, design so, what, do you people want from me the lobster queen is dead long live the Queen. There is a day there's and I think you would agree that there's just a foundational, erosion, that I think. People of all sides and I think there's totally intellectually, smart people on the far left that can help, that. Where, are those people there's a there's a there's a, youtuber. That I'm actually quite interested. In that I watch her type and I don't mean the misgender, Hercules I think she has. Contra, points I don't know if you're part of this of this youtuber, who's on the phone I've seen the name come up every now and again I totally.
Disagree With everything this person says but I look at it I'm like this seems very reasonable educated. Academic, and I. Saw I'm seeing reasons. To hope that everyone. Hello. Dave.
2018-05-04 17:18
fantastic video that breaks the issues down nicely.
21:48 Marx called for the abolition of ALL hierarchies in the Manifesto.
22:20 NO! I WANT TO ABOLISH LOBSTER HIERARCHY!! I HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED BY OTHER LOBSTERS FOR WAY TOO LONG!!!!
life coaching is inherently reactionary tho. i need about 4 more cups of coffee to expand on this.
mandatory celebration of filth politics at 26:07
Ok but there's so much more to Marxism than the bourgeois-proletarian binary. It's a comprehensive analysis of class struggle (including peasantry, aristocracy etc etc) and has been advanced primarily outside of 'the West' (see the USSR, China, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, Burkina Faso etc), even if it had its origin there. It's a call to action and that action will be the downfall, not of the actual workers living in 'the west', but of its domination of the rest of the world. There's no need to be shy about that.
That clip in the end!!
14:30 oooooh my god I almost threw up! Not because of the hideous face that suddenly appeared (well, maybe a little) but mostly because I'm a native French speaker and I have never heard someone pronouncing Michel Foucault's name so wrong!! OMG so he can't read and he can't even google-translate-check his pronunciation. lol
Natalie, I so so appreciate you tackling Peterson. I've seen video after video featuring Cathy Newman and commentary about how illogical feminism is. I immediately thought of you because your approach is always easy to follow, rational & compassionate as well..
Good video Contra. I did call bullshit a bit on a couple of things but the only real criticism is that you still managed to at least slightly misrepresent the issue with the trans pronoun situation/legislation in Canada. Otherwise I appreciate the thoughtful and challenging analysis/criticism.
Absolutely brilliant!!! I am going to watch this again and again.
WE WANT KNOWLEDGE! Oh please, teach us senpai!
Like about philosphers and how to become smart and analystic like you... idk, or how you get jordan peterson in your bed.
just because some ideas are "incompatible" on paper, doesnt mean they are in the minds of people( like the concept of postmodern neo-marxism). People live and think in paradoxes. So Peterson many times said that he knows, that pm and marxism are theories, which are not compatible with each other, but in the minds of many leftist they form an "unholly alliance", and you can see the products of it beeing acted out. The problem with pm and marxism is that they lack ethics. There is no marxist "ethics" or postmodern ethics. There are no pattern of behaviour, no "ethical-mythical-symbolical" stories for the everyday, for the day "after the revolution" in marxist thinking. People are mostly creatures who play and act out stories. Marxism doesnt have the power or even content to give people stories or deep symbolical-individual meaning.
A liberal that can communicate coherently? The fuck is this? subbed.
I was a business major not too long ago (graduated in 2011), and never once was I told that "capitalism is bad", nor did I come across any business, marketing, finance, or economics lecture or textbook that was even minimally critical of capitalism. Did things change that drastically in 7 years, or is not completely felating capitalism as an economic theory every chance we get the same as being "critical" of it?
Contra, you just made into my list of people who I would like to sleep with. And you are among the top 3. Way to go with your looks.
You're not oppressed unjustly that's the point. you even invented your own identity to be oppressed..
What you mean does Jordan Peterson want to give you Gibbs?
Girl your face is perfectly painted. I'm so into it
Don't say anything against him or the alpha male sheeple will come and rape you (no homo) once they are done chocking on Peterson's cock of course.
Stop using race as a weapon.. there are hardly any black people watching your faggety ass ..
Excellent video. But you made two strawmen in the game. Peterson does not necessarily mean marxism, when he talks about post-modern neomarxism, he really seems to mean the identity policital streak that comes mainly from Foucaults hierarchical power dynamic theory. The only real marxism there of course is the idea of systematic oppression of groups, which isn't really marxist at all. And yes, I know that I'm kind of vague here, so bare with me. The second one is how you describe "the West". Many people might think of "the West" as the intellectual traditions of Europe and European-descended peoples and countries such as the US, Canada, Australia. But in academia "the West" isn't that clear-cut, i have heard definitions that do not go as far back as ancient Greece, but to the age of enlightenment, because only then did the defining features of what the West now represents take shape. And I personally share the latter definition, because Christian Europe during the middle ages was pretty much the antithesis of what "the West" as a group of countries that share similar values, defines today.
I'm glad you can read Peterson's mind to find out what he *REALLY MEANS*. If he didn't mean Marxism why use that word at all? It's hard to say what Peterson means by the west because he calls back to Ancient Greece while also talking about Christian values and Biblical meanings. I don't think he's aware that he can't have both.
c l o c k m e a m a d e u s
You: hey everybody Me, an intellectual: mY lOrDs,, My LaDiEs;: AnD tHoSe WhO LiEtH bEtWeEnSt
I'm a JP fan but I think you gave a charitable, reasonable critique even if I still disagree with some of your conclusions. For example, I think you kind of built a straw man where you mentioned the Cathy Newman interview and talked about JP's claim about biological differences between the sexes. That is a huge oversimplification of what he was saying in that interview. You also didn't really address his direct criticisms of Derrida, which are specifically about interpretations of a text. However, I do think JP goes too far at times and becomes hyperbolic. I wish he would have discussions with people like you on the left. A conversation between you and him would be really interesting. I still have hope that dialogue can occur and that we can get away from viewing these sorts of critiques as one party DESTROYING another. Ps - just watched the final part, omg if you could get on The Rubin Report that would be epic (if you'd go on)
Glorious video, glorious content and glorious presentation. Liked and subscribed!
This is very informative, thank you!
Telling people what not to do is the same as telling them what to do.
ContraLabels 2018
Every time you go into that bath I know this is going to be a good video.
I once kept hammering a peterson fan on how muh post modern neo-marxism is just a different word for "kulturbolschewismus" and the argument ended in the guy saying Hitler was right about the jews... That was "fun"
the interview was on channel 4
so Peterson is basically... AA for the alt right?
ContraPoints you're a genius tranny.
Exactly nails his rhetorical strategy, which is at best disingenuous. It has always seemed to me that Peterson is fine (ish) when he's talking about his own field (although his work is shot through with the naturalistic fallacy), but he's just absolutely winging it when it comes to political philosophy and political science - as Natalie shows, he doesn't understand it, and is simply peddling a hotchpotch of conservative cheering points for mass appeal.
"fuck you derrida, if you wanted me to read you, you should have been easier to read"- a sentence I can confirm is uttered late at night by every social sciences student
this was great!
contra: "please don't watch it [Why I Quit Academia]" my youtube account's cheeky ass: "Up next- Why I Quit Academia"
He got known for his C-16 stuff as opposed to his self-help stuff. His view was so prominent, the Canadian Bar Association had to point out that, no, the law explicitly doesn't lead to people being thrown in jail just for accidentally using the wrong pronouns.
This is the first video I've watched and I already love you
"Other white guys who talk about lobsters" queue photo of David Foster Wallace and Deleuze and Guattari. lol I love you, Natalie.
I was honestly so annoyed with people on the left not discussing him recently, although I have also been guilty of writing his arguments off due to his sometimes clumsy conservative theological arguments and characterization of the left
I really try to watch your videos, but I don't like your... skits, I suppose? They're gross and make it hard to get through anything substantial. If someone could post a summary of her points, then please do because I'm sure she can be insightful.
♥Sydän♥ just skip 10 minutes in
OMG I LOVE YOU SO MUCH THANK YOU
So much foot tease in this video. I keep noticing you're barefoot on the couch. But never see your toes.
Wow. Another home run. I love when someone rationally organizes and presents the ideas I've been violently sputtering at my friends for months. You're a fucking treasure ☺♥
That interview was Channel 4, not BBC
Thank you so much for this Nat. Now when I get into an argument online and someone mentions post-modern neo-Marxism, I can point them in this video's direction instead of spending a whole bunch of time trying to explain why they're different and that Marxism is a modernist philosophy.
Weird, I actually know people who call themselves Marxists, work in academia, and espouse postmodern feminism and identity politics. Just because there are disagreements with in a school of thought does not mean that the school does not exist. If it did you could use the same argument to say the far right does not exist because they disagree on questions like Israel, the free market vs state welfare, etc.
I liked the video thought, entertaining and actually attempts to engage with arguments rather than merely hurling insults.
Peterson fan here. I enjoyed this video, it's refreshing to see a good characterization of his views, etc. I think I can clear up what I think is your best point (on Postmodern Neo Marxism). The 'Postmodern' here refers to what you might call the Postmodern condition, NOT necessarily just the tenets of the philosophy. Specifically, this is the state in which absolutely nothing can be held onto for any meaning or significance whatsoever. I have my suspicions that it has increased with the sheer abundance of conflicting information, but I digress. This might also be called depression (btw, I think it is telling that it is the case that student mental health is in decline), and this cannot be sustained for very long without going insane, killing yourself, or finding some higher purpose. Now it seems to me, that in this base, 'zero' state, the most obvious and clear path forward is going to be making use of and paying attention to, animal, basic, motivations. At least they have some meaning: 'it would be good to eat, and not die'. So after feeding, and sleeping etc. taken care of, the next motivational layer up is going to be something like the feeling of tribal motivations, and hierarchy position, that are facilitated by the primordial parts of the brain (e.g. the 'lobster' parts). And this is where the 'Neo Marxists' get stuck, I think. Marxism rather nicely legitimatizes tribalism, and this is basically as far as higher purpose seems to go with many Neo Marxists. This may be all the similarity there is between Neo Marxists and Marxists. Then why use this term at all? Well, I think it is because many of the underlying motivations are the same, as well as the expansion of the 'class struggle' into race and gender domains. As for the 'cultural Marxism' conspiracy, well my friend Yuri Bezmenov can tell you how that was true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4&t=
Peterson wasn't complaining about 'a law protecting transgender people' there is no 'protection' in a law forcing people to use fallacious descriptions of reality. your pronouns are YOUR pronouns.. meaning you can call yourself whatever you like, but you don't have jurisdiction over other peoples use of words. That pretty much is Stalinism. but yea Peterson is a bit of a dick and totally doesn't understand socialism and has waaay too much of a boner for capitalism. but he was right about the pronouns thing.
I am going to see Jordan Peterson & Dave Rubin Live next month. I am giving you this opportunity to ask him a question simply because I don't have one of my own. If you have a question for him now is your chance. (Serious)
I feel like this video just gets cought up in semantics
WRONG FINGERS! .... :P ...oh, there was also something about philosophy. I was paying attention, I swear!
Idk where I am, I came here from Anthony Fantano but this guy makes some good, respectful and respectable points if a little weird at times. The production quality is very very high and even got a few laughs out of me, quality content!
whats with the creepy pedophelia stuff? someone explain this. is it a joke? are you trying to make him creepy??? what??
I need the lobster queen as my ring tone now.
conTRAAAAA!!!
Also, I don't really understand why people can't disassociate Peterson's Psychological ideas, from his Political views. I have found help in some of Peterson thought (a few years ago, through youtube videos. I haven't read the 12 steps book, cus WHO HAS THE TIME??). But that in no way influences my political or moral ideologies?
Just gotta say it. Your voice is beautiful.
this video lacks spooks, sad!
I had seen several responses to Jordan Peterson's shit, so, to be honest, when I saw the thumbnail of this video, I thought to myself "oh, another one? Really?" I wasn't sure about watching it, but boy, you did an outstanding job, this is not only another leftist response to Jordan Peterson. This is THE fucking leftist response to Jordan Peterson. I think I hadn't seen anyone calling Peterson for his very well disguised non-sequiturs, and you also managed to decrypt his real message. Not only did you explain how nonsensical his claims about "postmodern neomarxist" are, but you also used them to prove how Peterson must surely think (a quite far right mindset). This was amazing.
Not fuck. Smash!
the thing I hate the most about Jordan Peterson is how post modern he is. He's preaching gnosticism to christians and begging for money all the time. He doesn't really produce anything also.
haha that pcp comment cracked me the hell up !
I don't want this man to be my Prime Minister. Ultimately, I would rather just not have a political leader. And have Canada be sorta like Mad Max, but ice not sand. But If I have to pick between another right wing christian conservative, and a boring inoffensive centrist like Trudeau. Guess what? ... IT'G GONNA BE THE GUY FROM THE PARTY WITH LOBSTER COLOUR SCHEME.
I like your voice. It's relaxing.
Bisexual manicure, LMAO!
The only thing I'd point out is Peterson's problem is more with Gender Fluidity ideas, specifically in relation "invented" pronouns. To I think to say he has a problem with Trans people is unfair, unless you don't disassociate the two... not saying he's or wrong, but that's my take on it.
How is this scam actually a professor in Canada? I thought the Canadian education system is "good"? Or is he good at his field but prominent for a field in which he has no expertise?
Lol Marx and Engels are "Our boys" at 13:23.
Gee it's as if postmodern neo-marxism is a bullshit buzzword combining scary words that's used to scare young conservatives and liberals into avoiding ideas that might challenge or expand their worldview. Just like all the other buzzwords they rally around. "But how do you resolve the deadlock between JayPee being wrong about something and him being an authority figure that does the thinking for me?" The answer is that it doesn't matter. They come for the self help tips and stay for the ramblings about how mixing white boys with people of different genders and races is bad for western civilization somehow. Or the other way around depending on the individual.
You look amazing in this video. Obviously you made great nuanced points that really got to the root of Peterson's ideology. But also holy shit you're gorgeous.
GO ON CHAPO TRAP HOUSE!
I think "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" sounds like a mishmash precisely because it is. I was a leftist for a long time, and in retrospect, very few of my fellow leftists were students of the relevant philosophers; most had simply latched on to a popular movement and were happy to parrot its talking points, without the grounding in philosophy. Eventually the left became deeply intolerant of dissent, and thereby further cemented its spiral into chimerical lunacy. So it's become in actual fact an amorphous blob of inconsistent rhetoric, and "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" is about as good a label as any, under the circumstances. You seem well-read, Contra, but most of your comrades aren't.
what the fuck is this?
Have y'all seen Matt Dillahunty 'Atheist Debates' talk with Peterson? I've only seen Dillahunty talk about it post-fact, but it sounds real interesting. Seems like Peterson relies on the 'grand narrative' and is a Modernist kick-back to the PoMos (but also wants you to know that he's totally not a commie). His description of truth however, sounds somewhat post-modern and perspectival. Also, sounds like he doesn't understand art (but that's fine, it's real tricky). Finally, "no morals without god" *sigh*
You don't understand Peterson. He's actually the smartest intemallectual of modern times. The last defence against SJWs and Marxist, post-modernist pronoun-overload... feminism... uh... safe spaces and... other soy boy things. U just don't get it.
TBH my mum can't find a job so I don't know why all you smart people aren't talking about that.
Like the video, but you could have tried to do a part about Deleuze, even though he's quite obscure...
All the actual content aside (which is excellent as usual), it's good to have you, aesthetic-wise, in a time of David Lynch being just about to succumb to old age and lovecraftian madness.
This is the least bad criticism of him Ive see so far.
thanks for helping me to engage with the world again. Also, u pretty.
oh i love it so much when you deconstruct concepts, please never stop
There is a postmodern twist to a lot of leftist identity politics. The whole notion that, because you say something “as a lesbian trans chick of color”, no cis white male can argue against you, because they don’t share your experience. It’s the belief that there is no ultimate truth to be communicated, so we just have to take the claims of anyone who belongs to a group that is considered marginalized at face value.
See, if I did this, it would have been thirty minutes of me shouting "PSYCHOLOGY IS POSTMODERN, YOU CLOD"
But. Lobsters are not even vertibrates. There minds are so different from ours that that sort of comparison is ridiculous.
Jordan Peterson is nothing new, you're right to point out. This is Neoconservativism for the Angry Birds generation. https://medium.com/@lukeob/seriously-part-one-of-critiquing-jordan-petersons-politics-b59c60579dcc (You're way too fucking attractive.)
omggg pls be my mommy professor
Another collage drop out youtuber thinks that he/she is smarter than actually professor and thinks he has a point
please. Please. PLEASE someone make him react to this!
there's this common knowledge story that male lobsters try to climb each other to escape a pan while female lobsters hold each other down. is that why
I thought of an ironic way to view how Jordan Peterson got famous. So he claims the government enforcing transgender pronouns impinges on free speech. This may be true, but here is a fun thought experiment I just thought of: I am sure there are situations where people are supposed to refer to Dr. Peterson as a doctor because he has a PhD. Some of these may even be legally binding situations. So imagine we lived in an alternative world that didn't value academic achievement at all. In this world, a social movement calling for the representation of 'educated' people rises up. The movement gains such momentum that the government forces people to refer to these educated people as 'doctors'. Does that destroy free speech?
“I make youtube videos because i enjoy mood lighting and set design” made me cackle
This was a humbling video. Thank you.
Subscribed. Absolutely love this video but there’s a few subtle but important errors in it. For instance, Peterson doesn’t argue in favour of hierarchy as you suggest. He even says explicitly that hierarchies are often cruel and unjust. He also warns that simplistic attempts to dismantle hierarchy can be disastrous - past attempts at communism as obvious examples. He’s arguing essentially for gradualism. Agree with you about his somewhat simplistic view of Judeo-Christian and Western values, but that’s a side issue IMO.
JP might teach you how to slay the dragon, but learn from Contra how to slay the makeup...
I think this whole lobster thing is a myth
ContraPoints on Rubin Report in the potential future? Intriguing
Jordan Memerson
Well, your mood lighting and set design sure as fuck is on point, can't argue with that. Mission accomplished?
Jordan Peterson is a piece of shit.
Yeah, I used to like Peterson until I started to notice how he would basically shill neoconservative views among his Jungian/Neumann ideas. I'm from the Terence McKenna crowd. We like Jung and Peterson is well versed in Jungian topics. However, Peterson is uninteresting apart from his Jungian beliefs. All of his other shit is plain neo-conservatism. So, as an early supporter of his (over 1 year ago) I formally disavow Dr. Peterson. This was a decision I've been mulling over for a few months now.
Really glad there's a sensible discussion. I like Petersons arguments (excluding the transgender Stalin comparisons), which are most of the time based on research and are presented in a really entertaining way, though I'd definitely call myself left. But I absolutely see your point, that these arguments will be used by the wrong people. Thanks for the video from Germany!
Brilliant. It’s great to see a leftist on YouTube not taking part in the bullshit thought policing, anti white/European culture and other egregious rubbish usually seen on YouTube, and concentrating on the gigantic shower of shit coming from the right/alt-right/‘sceptic’ community that is actually dangerous. We know this from experience. Although some professed leftists in the past killed millions, nobody ever ended up in a gulag or gas chamber for demanding to be called Xe as a personal pronoun. On the other hand, the nativist, tribal, anti-foreigner bent of twats like Benjamin has directly lead to millions being exterminated or killed in wars. You go girl. I may not agree with much of your politics (I assume) but I certainly agree with your use of intelligence, research, knowledge and humour to call windbag shits like Peterson out.
Pordan Jeterson
very good
Channel 4, not BBC. I for sure ain't for the right ot the left and I like Peterson but I don't agree with everything he says to be true. But just as stupid as it is to dismiss everything he says, it is equally stupid to dismiss all he says, which the far left tend to do.
I must have been REALLY stoned when I subbed because I don't remember subbing and I avoid commentary vids because reactionaries are irritating. But I am stunned by how concise, Interesting and entertaining this video was. I'm tapping that notification bell so hard I gotta ask for consent before I proceed
Contra you are my favorite left winger......ok well its you and Angry Aussie actually. But what you fail to get i think is that hes describing what he see's as happening. How society in general is applying these things. Your describing (rightly so) what these things are. Your talking past each other. Or tubing past each other, responding past each other...or......something like that. Great video keep doing your thing. :D. FYI politically im a Imperialist for the other commentators.
"The problem is that all this life-coaching is just a Trojan horse, for a reactionary political agenda. Peterson advocates ethics of self help, not only as a guide to private life, but as a replacement of progressive politics - which he characterisez as totalitarian and evil" This is why I can't help but feel that Jordan Peterson is dishonest. He mixes his good self-help intentions with political activism, that actually might have the consequence of making life worse for others.
Sorry can't stop staring at the 100k. It's so beautiful.
So I just watched a rape _in absentia_
Contra should write a book
Wicked
Progressive politics is totalitarian and evil, maybe not on the paper but many people behind it certainly are Same as intersectional feminism is about gender equality only on paper, but when it comes to actions they are far left political movement that has almost nothing to do with genders (or reality) at all.
I am new to your channel. This was amazing. You are hilarious, smart and really well-spoken. Haven't laughed this much in a while.
you made this video just a day after jordan peterson had an exchange where he said that people cant be artistic without god, no, really, he said that, secular talk's channel has the clip
Great video as usual Contra. I'm a fan of Peterson in general, and while I'm not totally on board with all your criticisms, you made some excellent points, particularly concerning the lobster/biological heirarchy argument.
Do more on Peterson! :) !
I don't 'get' Peterson. It wasn't even hard. I read what he writes, but without assuming Western Imperial Europe is the apotheosis of humanity (including all societies they hadn't met yet). Or his over-arching assertion 'male' and 'female' are fundamental. Bacteria don't have boys-only treehouses. Fish don't even have sex, so you know they can't be trusted... I'll stick to sass and glitter. Plus, I can't take an elitist seriously with a Canadian accent. It feels biologically wrong.
" and lobsters predate 'western patriarchy' by millions of years, so, checkmate post modern neo marxists " #GodSaveTheLobsterQueen x_D
Congrats on 100k subscribers
Rise for our new anthem at 26:39.
i literally have been checking everyday for a new contra video and its on JP mah lord.
I agree women are generally not great at asserting themselves at work because of our upbringing, women need to shove ourselves forward an tell our bosses what we’re worth.
You done did outdone did yourself there daddy.
I think that to Peterson post-modernism means "something confusing" and Marxism means "scary bad things". So "post-modern neo-Marxists" are people we should fear because they are trying to confuse us so they can take over and do the scary bad things. I see it as just another iteration of "Fear the other. Maintain and defend the status quo", dressed up as a motivational speaker reading Joseph Campbell.
We'll congratulations Contra ya drug addled gender bending fukkin notjob....yr officially the only leftist on youtube who is worth listening to.
Inb4 all the triggered Peterson fanboys saying you are taking him out of context while they provide 0 arguments to support their claim.
Wait... If Marx was a modernist and postmodernism is just being critical of modernism then wouldn't that make Jordan Peterson a postmodernist?
This is a great video... Mommy
this makes me wanna :3333333333333
Stalin-bashing? Really? C'mon, who loves ya -baby- comrade?
I don't think "out to destroy us" is a fair characterization. It's more that the path of Marxism is inevitable & we have the millions of unmarked graves to prove it. I'm old enough to have been to East Germany.
_"So much for the tolerant Jacobins. Hmph."_
enchantee should have two e's
I disagree with a bunch of your interpretations of but overall this video had me cracking up. For the sake of charity perhaps take his term postmodern neo-Marxist and look up critical theory. If you already know about critical theory then I'd say you are being a little disingenuous with your interpretation. Otherwise, I still think your content is pretty great.
Stalinism isn't bad tho
Marry Me.
Congratulations on the 100,000 subscribers!
Being a fascist, you'd think I'd find everything about this video appalling. But the only thing that bugs me is that you know leftist dialectic is fallacious. But you don't care.
About using the lobster argument to justify Monarchy or any 'unjust' hierarchy... This is a misunderstanding of what Peterson has said. He didn't say anything positive or negative regarding the mere existence of hierarchy, and says under any system of government, Communism, Monarchy, etc, you see the same phenomena (a small group rising to the top). SO WHAT HE'S SAYING IS... 'merit based' hierarchy is preferable to an engineered hierarchy. An argument against Monarchy, and Peterson uses it as an argument against social engineering.
Well.. Cultural Bolshevism/Marxism is a real phenomenon, and is the most significant force devised by the human mind in recent centuries. I consider myself opposed to it, but appreciate it and must regard it with awe for its significance, and don't deny it for a moment
“Devine what are your positions?”
so much for the tolerant jacobins!
*SO MUCH FOR THE 'TOLERANT' JACOBINS*
Wow This was hella gr8 subbed
Speaking of Buddhism CW Huntington Jnr wrote a book comparing the writings of Chandrakirti an 8th century scholar at Nalanda University with post modernists and philosophers called the "Emptiness of Emptiness" - the teaching was for the cerebral types who when they heard Emptiness got thinking about the void and everything being relative and got them to re-engage with what was actually being taught which is basically that the conceptual mind has some serious limitations so reifying concepts is a lil stoopid - feelz over realz people. ala Jordan though - One thing he is getting at, though not explaining well, is that post modernism is combining with ideological fervour to produce a new breed of narrative helmet wearing students that decide to wear them permanently - rather than a series of costumes to play roles and perspectives, the creative use of critical lenses that you take on and off, 'they' just keep them on. If you are going to do that you have to acknowledge at some level your life is an experiment - a George and Gilbert. Anyway Jordan is saying these relativist helmet wearers are destroying traditional archetypal structures which reflect lobster realities and its not healthy, its going against the grain of social and biological evolution. Zizek says he is mystified by how violent and psycho Stalinism was - I'd argue that its because there was no structure and violence both physical and psychological can act as a proxy for structure - so if you tear down archetypal structure that has evolved over the last .....thousands of years the vacuum left behind is not fun for the plebs. So rather than pass out helmets that say gender can be highly fluid (which if you think about it could be seen as reflecting latent patriarchal features in social structures) Universities could say instead - here is some wonderful hats, have a walk in these shoes - go slowly at first in those heels - Peterson's cause appears ultimately clinical which in a way exposes relativity - its about health rather than ultimate 'reality' which brings us full circle to the fact that Post modernism ultimately owes more to Freud than to Marx, the creative engagement by people like Foucault is about psychological journeys - cultural therapy - He didn't articulate it so directly as Derrida and Lacan but in "Foucault the Legacy" he talks about how his work was about unearthing truth rather than presenting it. Most post modern thinkers like Foucault have fudged this bit but it pops up occasionally.
So... The meaning of life issue is like... a white male thing? I am Venezuelan and my favorite author is precisely David Foster Wallace, I'm also very fond of Albert Camus. Not criticizing, but being curious, is that how these people are perceived? or at least as far as to joke about?
I think it's just thinkers she's familiar with off the top of her head. Pretty much every philosophical tradition gets around to these questions sooner or later
Congratulations on 100K subs. Don't forget to Gas yourself.
14:30
When it comes to the point that Marxism and postmoderism is conflicting theorys, JP have commented on this before: https://youtu.be/V32WHDuy-Do?t=7524
is that a tranny?
ALL HAIL THE LOBSTER QUEEN!
omg, at first glance I wanted/believed the jp doll to be an actual human, perhaps the pizza guy from your drunk stream. I'm sorry.
Brilliant video. Well articulated and fucking hilarious.
what is it with lobsters? And do I want to know?
You skipped Hegel!!!!! The most important of the so-called 'modernists', who I contend is responsible for anything interesting that can be derived from Marx himself.
What do you mean leftists don't talk about deep shit?! HEGELIAN DIALECTICS!!!
holy SHIT I liked this video. I tend to disagree with some of your politics but you are probably a SUPER interesting and hilarious person to have a conversation/drinks with. This was a ridiculously well-put-together video.
20:45 actually I've never heard Peterson say 'there are biological differences between the sexes' in a context that implies women shouldn't do certain jobs. I've only ever heard him say that while talking about 'gender fluidity' and the subject of pronouns and such.
Hey ContraPoints! Recently discovered your channel, and just wanna say I think I'm in love. But, something feels.... wrong. I wonder, what counter argument do you have against Peter Singer's Animal Liberation? Pretty much everyone I know as rational and philosophical as you is boycotting the Animal Agriculture industry, yet I've spotted dead flesh in your videos as recent as this year. What gives? Why not live a more ethical life?
lol
From Hume to Hegel. I love it.
Contrapoints on Dave Rubin's show when?
The patron named "we wuz numenor". I'm dead
I'll have what Points is smoking, please! ... Maybe like... 1/10th the amount though.
Sees title... oh boy
I’m squealing with delight over this video. Just thought you should know. Okay I’m gonna hit replay now. Update: As I replayed this, you attained 100K subs. Congrats, it’s well deserved.
First TheGoldenOne, now this guy. Natalie, I'm starting to think you have a fetish for people who disagree with you. Not kink shaming, just noting.
Degenerates!!!!
You're video is getting some positive feedback on r/jordanpeterson. Nice work.
This is the best counter to Jordan Peterson I have seen.
I didnt know i needed a bisexual manicure until now
Your illustration concerning the difference between SJWs and postmodernist is very helpful. I now understand that while I am an SJW, my family is mostly composed of postmodern Marxists.
In other words, you can’t find your ass with both hands...
Contrapoints is a true intelectual, like Vsauce.
Drawing from my memories of being a smug "classical liberal" who probably would have been drawn to Peterson had I not smartened up long before he became popular, I think I can reconcile post-modernism and Marxism, at least from his point of view. Both are skeptical of the modern capitalist system and the class hierarchies it creates. I think that's really all there is to it. Incidentally, I'm not a Marxist, and that's because I have an anthropology background which makes me kind of skeptical of a lot of these universalist theories about human society (whether they come from the left or the right). But I do agree that capitalism sucks, so at least when it comes to practical political matters, we're more or less on the same page.
Also I just feel like Peterson is behind. I don't think the new terms have quite solidified, but we are kinda moving out of postmodernism...Especially because irony is trying to be replaced with sincerity...and there has been criticism of postmodernism from people on the left since the freaking 90s. (probably before then too !) My background is more art, but we kind of stopped having art movements..and there is a famous paper written about it called "The End of ARt' by Arthur Danto ....It's all really confusing though , because even art made during the postmodern period didn't really follow the tenants of that always .... Anyway ,at least in art, it seems to me like postmodernism is marked by a lack of belief in originality and individuality. It is rooted in experiences within capitalism because the tying of us as people to products just made it blatantly apparent that a lot of our identity is manufactured, . This skepticism is mostly demonstrated in simulacrum and appropriation art,...but there are echoes of that throughout art, even today. Especially art of the 80s when postmodern really came into vogue. There was a lot of more people constructing art out of pre-constructed images to create a new meaning .. I guess like 'remixing' in a way. I guess I would say the change that has happened is that there has been a shift back and a reclaiming of the individual, but it's not really a return to modernism per say . I'm not really sure what the opinion on originality is...Probably that it doesn't matter. This is just random mumbo jumbo thoughts. I have not had a chance to talk art much with people I know in real life V-V.
Rule 6: you can't criticize me until you prove you are perfect or else I'll call you a hypocrite, and run away laughing, jubilant from my victory.
Rule 5 makes me want to slit his throat
Hey, you’re about to reach 100k! Congrats! And good vid!
For some reason this video reminds me of a scene in Babylon 5 where a jack-booted fascist comments " I don't watch TV. It's a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite."
you are a genius
Bra-vo!
You don't have to agree with JBP but the mob can't make me not love him. We are both lobster energy.
I just cringed so hard my toes cracked
Loved the video. Unfortunate that argument didn't get past wordgames though. I think its wise to assume, going into a conversation that each person is likely to have vastly different definitions of words going in. Saying "this is what the words you're saying actually means" is never very convincing to someone thats using them since its actually communicating that we're trying to do with words inevitably failing for that. At the same time you cant exactly ask Jordan to define terms either so since you brand yourself as an academic thinker it would seem quite off brand to go on the, feels train of what Jordan tends to be travelling on. You seem to tend to dismiss this by caricaturing it as petty with the offhanded comment about him reacting to protests. Hes, like, trying to communicate a feel. The things he likes about society are being degraded. "The west" obviously just becomes a shorthand for "The things he likes about society". When he talks about these postmodern neo-marxists, thats just the label hes inventing for the people that are actively attempting to degrade "The west". Thing is, there are obviously many people that this resonates with, which either implies that its so vague it encompasses anyone who doesn't like those hes labelled or those seeing their own idea of "The west" being degraded. It would be a mistake to immediately jump to something like racism/sexism to explain this thing that they all see the west as, but those hes labelling also do seem to be trained to think that is actually the reason that people oppose them. Now, after all this all the actually specific things that he says go unnoticed. The substantive things that seem really should be talking about is the threat to free speech that the people he is labelling portray to him when they try to de-platform him, others and demand him to use certain words. He doesn't seem to care at all about which words they are, so framing it as a gender issue seems dishonest to his listeners and so emboldening. Seems the Marxist part is simply anti-capitalist elements do you really think he seems not to talk about Marx, rather the various communist disasters that have happens because of them. So him, as well as many other people see those who rally against capitalism within universities as his enemy. So, this label... Its a group that he lumps these people together: Anti Capitalists and Gender activists(due to the oddly conservative censorship). And due to the ubiquity of among universities, implies that it is planned, seeing it as a growing ideology to depose capitalism and turn "The west" Communist. So brands them guilty of blindly working to create Stalin's Russia again as he believes that communism will always become that due to its track record. Now... You are sorta a... Anti capitalist gender activist from academia so... Dodging his brush seems difficult. Seems to me the only thing left for you to actually argue would be what you would actually want post capitalism and why it wont become all the thing him and his followers fear.
Your videos are excellent, and I really hope Dave invites you to an interview (and that you accept).
Jordan Peterson is a preacher, not a teacher
OMG THE DIVINE REFERENCE ilysm
I can really do without you trying to fuck Jordan Peterson, Armoured Skeptic or any other professional sillyman. There are so many hot lefty henchmen already that will smash your fasch any time you want.
I'm about a third through and I almost spit out my bourbon laughing.
He is pretty much the worst part of the "I know what's best for everyone if we just think about this reasonably u ah hurhurhurhur hue".
Ugh. I knew there was a reason I left academia. My head hurts...
Good video, I particularly enjoyed your explanation of Peterson's rhetorical strategy, which often feels like an overlooked aspect. His more vague statements (and the clear extreme ones) seem to be courting a lot of far-right and reactionary individuals. I think my most charitable reading of Peterson is that he is an opportunist trying to make the most out of his 15 minutes, purely for personal gain.
I hate Peterson lol glad u did this Contra
“Got famous for sounding the alarm on how protecting trans people under Canadian Human Rights law, shall surely lead to Stalinism.” That’s a bit biased of a nutshell, don’t you think? If you can go to jail or get fined thousands of dollars for not calling someone xe or xir that’s clearly a problem. Would most people be making demands to be called xe/xir and taking it to court? No. Is it still a problem despite that? Yes.
I like the topic, and it's a great video, but I find it really hard to follow along because of so much use of language I'm not familiar with.
Can we be friends, though? I hope so. The intellectual games are fun and all but it's all gotten way too serious, personal and tribal. I would hope that Contra fans and Peterson fans are both decent enough sets of people (some overlapping like me!) and not crazy ideologues that we could actually see eye to eye, still able to disagree but get along. I would like that. It would be a nice example against the hysteria that plagues everything these days.
Underrated comment. Am I a bad person for noticing that the Jews are only 2% of population and they control majority of influential positions in Banking and Media?
I like both as well. Its like having different fuckin people in the world suddenly became a problem. If I want to start a family and have a career I'll prolly ask JP. If I wanna eat mushrooms at Burning Man I'd rather hang with Contra. At the end of the day we can disagree that on all kinds of shot as long as we agree to basic human principals like eat yr vegetables and JEW$ DiD 9/11
[sic] I agree with this totally. I’m a fan of both Contra and Peterson. Contra helps me think more empathetically to others and Peterson helps me think more conscientiously of myself and my actions. I think everyone needs a balance between the responsibilities to the Individual self and the Collective as a whole. Generally just being more thoughtful I guess. It saddens me that a lot of the top comments here are very much pigeon holding people into certain camps. Peterson camp vs Contra camp, it being inconceivable that there may be common ground between the two. I’ve found common ground in myself so I’m sure there must be others?
Ugh...
Contra, I do watch Peterson and although I am not too keen on the Jungian archetypes and wotnot he is clearly a passionate and genuine person. I've been waiting for someone to actually critically analyse what he has to say - rather than do hit pieces - and you've gone some way to doing that - but you still have mischaracterised some of the things he has said. For instance I haven't heard hims ay anything that is against LGBT rights as such - and his comparison of transgender activists to Mao or Pol Pot is I think just a way of highlighting how far the activists are from representing transgendered people. I would really enjoy a live debate between you both if that was ever possible.
I am really like your video. My only gripe: although you raise very good points, you stay in the territory of how things shoud be and none on what people are making of things. Happens a lot when you talk about the left. Your left and what is seen and called "the left" are way different, and not making that distinction makes you look a bit ungrounded on current events. Example: "SJWs are western philosophy". If that is so, why so many SJWs say things "science must be decolonized"? But it could be me.
Abolish lobster hierarchies
I like that you mention HR Depts. are not Marxist. They are not. But a bunch of Millenials are, and Millenials are getting jobs. So eventually HR will be Marxist. My coworkers already are and it is a STEM job.
Mom and dad are fighting again
Your whole "I'm a sexual deviant" bit is overkill. One or two of such jokes can be funny, but ten minutes of it for the upteenth time, yeah it loses its edge.
The face of post-modernism
This video is weird and gross, I'm inclined to discount all your points out of hand because filming yourself molesting a doll is so obnoxious, and really makes me question your mental stability. dude get some help.
Youre not a woman.
Contra, though I consider myself largely a supporter of JBP (and you for that matter), I appreciate your perspective on the matters he discusses. There's certainly a greater diversity of thought than what can be found within the framework of Jordan's beliefs, and the importance of such a realization cannot be overstated. Also I quite enjoy your set designing sensibilities as well as the neon glow of your mood lighting. Congrats on surpassing the 100,000 subscriber milestone!
23:57 you contradict your previous statement about neomarxism not being compatible with postmodernism. You say that a postmodernist would say that the "west" is racist, exclusionary, supremacist. But, these are the points that a neo-marxist would make because neo-marxists divide people in opressors vs opressed, and tell everyone that their moral duty is to help the opressed.
fucking americans shiggedy.
First of all: "he protested a law to protect transgender people" Wrong immidietly, his problem was the compelled speach aspect of it, the fact that they are legislating speech, you could possibly be punished for missgendering someone under that law, since the ontario human rights comission dictates the law. Look at the lindsay shepard affair if you want direct proof, plus when he was talking about bill c -16 he got a letter from the university that he should stop doing what he is doing since it could be illegal. So about 4 minutes in or so you say he basically talks about basic self-help stuff, well yes, but that's oversimplyfying it, the best self help is supposed to be clear and basic, and if it's taken for granted and wildly known the society has done a good job, so a lot of what he does is explain thouroughly why responsibilty will derive meaning and purpose in life. And you said his videos are for young men, i don't think that to be the case, the youtube audience is around 75% so naturally it can happen that most people that come to his videos are mostly men, but the thing is it was slightly over 50 % of the people that bought is book were female, and what do you mean it's mostly for men? Why can't women have som self help advice which you seem to think is the only thing he is about? Ok so this video is pretty funny. You don't seem to like him comparing transgender activists to maoists, well what he means by that is they have similar ideology, Opressed vs the opressers, they just hade different people they saw as the opressers and the opressed. In the last like 10 minutes it is really hard to respond to, you go on and say a lot of things that are connected, but these points you make seem flawed. If you would discuss this with peterson do you really think you would come out on top? Peterson knows what he is talking about, the thing that annoys me in these last 10 minutes is you make it seem like he doesn't, and i understand you have questions about what he is saying, i just feel like there already are answers to what you are bringing up. For an example you say post modernism and marxism is western philosophy, like what? yes they of course they are, but what philosphosy is better? which one is the one we use and has peformed better for society marxism or capitalism? what even is the point here...?
Theyre not just requesting additional pronouns to suit their individual needs though, they're using state force to compel everyone to suit their individual needs. The former aligns with the values of "the west", but the latter alligns with the values of a totalitarian state. The very kind of state you accuse Peterson of simply "fear mongering" about.
I like Jordan Peterson. I don't have to agree with him on everything, but he makes valid criticisms of post-modernism and speaks from his conscience as an independent thinker in a world where most people just divide themselves along ideological lines and follow what Bukowski called "The Genius of the Crowd."
All these people saying "I'm a JP and a Contra fan", just stop it. If you like JP, defend him. Don't pussy out like this by saying "look at me being so goddamn nuanced, I like both of them" and then don't follow up with anything meaningful or say something that clearly reveals you like JP more but just don't have any arguments to back it up.
Natalie! You're so pretty!
I'm sure if Dr. Peterson saw the milk pouring thing, it might just give him a chuckle... if he's not completely weirded out by it... I guess it's kinda like Marmite? Could you do a video on identity politics and how it's employed if you haven't already? The impression I get is that is 'fuck you if you're not a woman, POC or lgbt' and 'fuck you if you _are_ one of those but have even slightly differing beliefs'
lmao ur impression of peterson's voice was spot on!
Not relevant but her voice sounds like a female version of Petersons Kermit the frog-ness.
Mommy
So I don't fully understand how postmodernism can claim that there are no great narratives, when the idea of *not having a great narrative* IS *a great narrative* about humanity. Doesn't that imply that postmodernist argument argues itself away? It's sort of like saying "Everything is subjective": If the statement is itself subjective than it cannot rule out any objective claims including the one that the statement is objectively false. And the statement can't be objective either, since it would be false if true. Isn't then postmodernism just another narrative out there? If so, why should I care about that and not some other narrative? After all, there's no way to discern which one is better (whatever that word means) since reason and rationality are the means by which people in power get what they want.
Could you please stop saying "daddy" like that? It's making me feel confused about who I am and what I want as a man.
I love you so fucking much for this
This whole video is essentially dress up with some stuff sprinkled in but even it isn’t very good. “I don’t like jps definitions” can sum most of this up and then a bit about how Marxism is technically a western invention (Marx’s got some interesting ancestry) so we should preserve it as well? I don’t think jp has ever said he wants to rid the world of these people he just wants to become bigger and stronger to defeat them, not eradicate or burn books or force people to talk in certain ways. And also another thing is that “he is smart with his words so he bad” ok..? He’s able to debate well and is well spoken and can trap Cathy... what does this prove. As well as the hierarchy thing we don’t know what Cathy’s thoughts were maybe she was insane and didn’t think hierarchy’s are inevitable.
trier2123241243 I didn’t make the second argument my man and like the second part I know exactly what he means if the exact definition doesn’t add up. He’s trying to say people who apply a marxist idea onto culture and race but in a fancy way.
Info S Info S it's more Jordan Peterson uses meaningless jargon. Marxism is western philosophy using it's literal definition. The philosophical definition has been argued over for centuries.
Jordan Peterson... Did more for young men and male suicide than feminism could ever accomplish.
If he's helped you or someone you know out of suicide, well, good on him most certainly. I would say that claim you make is well.. unsubstantiated. I'm not sure what sort of data could be used to empirically prove that point. But well, I'm all for things that reduce the amount of suicide in this world. I just find it a very odd thing to brag about.
I wish you could post more often but gees I can barely organise myself. I'm becoming a patreon, please keep us enlightened and entertained otherwise I will have to listen to MRAs say "all hail Queen Vagina" for my entertainment.
1:20 *beleaguered sigh* Same, tbh. Also, Lady Foppington is goals, and this is a really interesting analysis of Peterson. A good one.
not sure I understand the relevant point about "spending 4 years teaching people Capitalism sucks..." most people who emerge from leading institutions are ardent believers in the free market... neoliberal economic thought is extremely well represented in the university system... Yale, Harvard, etc the people that emerge from these institutions control everything...
I think she is speaking more of, the kind of leftist professors and activists and programs that Peterson would be inclined to rail against. It is worth bearing in mind that the richest of the rich, by math, are a pretty small number. Most college graduates won't go on to be the people that control everything, nor are most college grads graduating from Ivy League institutions.
Ooh, doing Dave next?! You do get around, you slut. ;) Anyway, stellar work as always. The envy is real. 1312
Love the bants. Subbed. ❤️
Gods save the lobster queen.
I saw a video of this guy this week. about 4-year-olds and adults looking down on them for misbehaving. After that I went on through a couple more... but on the channel I watched the tiles were about "alpha-males" and this kind of vocabulary... sounded dodgy... Anyway, I hadn't heard of JP until last Tuesday. To be honest I was like "Oh, yeah! Canadian scholars, right?" ... But then it reminded me of that "tunnel history" thing... I was quite intrigued by Peterson, I felt as if he wants to extend the realm of his studies into a right-wing political stance, like nutella on a crappy french bread (not "F"rench!), while appealing to an agreeable/disagreeable audience that believes their advantage over the outer West just came about because of hard work and a pragmatic stance in the rulling economic system ... and by that, whining is for losers and lazy people God keeps alive for some reason.
I try'd to give you a chance but this is the 3rd video of yours where i could not get past the 10 min mark, Jesus Christ youcome off as such a condescending ass.
This video could have been cut to about 1/3. But I guess style is even more important than substance.
The West = logos Postmodern Neo- Marxists seek to benefit from chaos for an ideological agenda. Benefitting from chaos is the anthesis of the logos. Therefore PMNM is “against the West” Took reading a lot of Plato to understand this. Still a great video!!
You picked up a new subscriber today :)
contra is my fave leftist
Should've used some KY Jelly on the Peterson mannequin since he's such a slippery MoFo.
I'm a New Subscriber and I really liked this entertaining video. Well done! It was insightful critiques of Peterson, though I think he's misunderstood a little bit. 3 Points I'd like to touch on: 1. Though Peterson may say anti-west, i don't think he says/means it's not west. he's saying it's the yang of the western ethos. Dare I bring Eastern terms into this...oh boi. And saying Judeo-Christian, as much as I'd like to give it up to Platonist compelling western thoughts since ever...I think it's Peterson's attempt to salvage what he thinks is a rotting civility by bringing faith and his archetypal process to remind us it's not all religious dogma garbage. The West is not soulless as he fears nihilism as I'm sure he's dealt with it too often with his patients. Plato unfortunately did not make the mark in being as influential as Jesus has been door to door. That can be debated though... 2. Marxism and post-modernism can be under the umbrella left thinking, high in openness, whatever. Fundamental differences does not matter to the ideological possessed because they themselves are in the "power" dynamic to care about the philosophies through and through. Jordan should just call these people puppets doing ignorant dirty work. These are swaths of people from various ideas, maybe even your friendly neighbor. He's pointed this out in some talks and warned of group mob mentality. 3. Peterson has lived a fulfilling career for himself with business side jobs, and everyone from the classroom to his clinic. He's got a great story as I've listened to probably 100s of hours of his audio. (finishes masturbating) He has supported Trans, and does genuinely believe there are generational ideologues seeping into the humanities. I don't think we should deny the idiocy of SJW dogma of "I'm making a difference" when you can by being educated and reasonably ethical. I think we underrate ideological possession from happening in HR departments too. It could happen considering the common person who would be forced to watch this video (because they'd rather watch buzzfeed) probably wouldn't understand 80% of the vocabulary or significance of these philosophical builds in time. (maybe I'm pessimistic). I think he doesn't give merit to Patriarchy and resorts to lobster gibberish because how he believes hierarchy is complex on competence and swapping identities for the sake of power dynamics, a naive aim that works to tear everything down where in fact naturally we're heading toward a more prosperous society anyhow. So when he's asked, is it appropriate for men and women to be flirting at the work place? and his response is Maybe, he's pretty much said "we're going to find out." He's talked extensively about women controlling their reproductive process and how unique our time in history is for women and peace. I think all he asks is we aim for a greater good (which doesn't bash Trans...) and not buy into our societal flaws as reason to break down into group mentalities that birth ideological viruses and burn down our library of Alexandria. He's a maybe guy, and people shit on him because he won't put chips toward fighting the patriarchy. I think he's aware it's a divisive game that he refuses to take part in. I don't blame him...makes sense from someone who knows a shit ton of epistemology. We live in the best times of our society so far. It will likely get better if we don't tear it down. This is his gist. Should he talk about other issues? I guess, but plenty of others talk their truths.
That sexual bathtub scene must be the only reason this video hasn't been downvoted into oblivion by JP worshippers yet...
I C O N I C
Another Fuckin Slammer of a video from contra the goat
Progressives are neo-Marxists. Stop hiding behind some bullshit mask. It's ok. We understand your authoritarian nature.Your beliefs were born from the same ideology that produced Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. HINT: What's the one thing that all the above & you agree on? There are oppressed groups & nasty oppressors.
mikeinbc wtf is a neomarxist? You morons are worse than sjws. Just throw some buzzwords around, and think you have some sort of argument.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/844/770/e9d.jpg
okay but where do i get the white lacy dress thing from? help me out here
Man, fuck lobster hierarchies.
It must feel great throwing darts at a portrait and wiggling around in a negligee while winkingly exclaiming "nonsensical", but patching theories together at their dichotomies dishonestly dismisses a booby-trap's net seams likely to seduce the less jaundiced -which is probably everyone else. No one on the radical left seeks to void hierarchy? No one on the radical left denies the inevitability and the competitive benefits of winners and losers? No one on the radical left is attempting to jury-rig (and hence infantilize, patronize and cripple through tokenism) representational outcomes of group identity demographics? These are certainly strategies against which Peterson particularly rails. Are you denying that the radical left is not in favor of these methods so that what they see as justice may be achieved? Many on the radical left see flipping hierarchies as not establishing a hierarchy at all and rather as a paradigmatic pendulum intentionally swung in the opposite direction of what they remain convinced is their right to determine as real history. Instead, this ostensible achievement perverts even a modest degree of balance through its use of vengeance. Worse still, their strategies oppose insuring that the means to acquire the merits of success can be diffuse and organic enough so that there are always at least some present and accessible in virtually all social scenarios. This is the West's strength and that Peterson sees the West as a monolithic amalgamation of competing ideas would be pretty palpable positing a close read or listen. Yes, the West! It is more reasonable, your insinuations of National Socialist propaganda not withstanding, to consider the objection Peterson lodges against pomo-marxism not so much in invasive terms but as the epitome of an internally destructive appetite that can easily grow beyond containment. EDIT: I look forward to your braving the youtube nazis and offering your take on the Marquis. Maybe you could throw in a little Pasolini. Wouldn't that be fun?
aaaaaand SUBSCRBED
I didn't even watch yet but I'm so glad you did this thank you
@ContraPoints Where did you get those earrrrrings?! (the ones you were wearing in the bath) I want! You're totally kicking ass at fashion lately, damn. Makeup on par too.
Cathy Newman reeheeheeally isn't a leftist.
I must say Lady Foppington's makeup is exquisite in this video.
There is no Pepe Silvia!
THAT LOBSTER DIDN'T GET BOILED, BUT ROASTED
"Sargon you little goose" XD
This guy is pretty hilarious, I like his points although I dont agree with all of them
YOUTHSSSSSSSSS!
I uploaded a Jordan Peterson spoof interview earlier this week, which was falsely flagged immediately after upload, & Youtube still hasn't addressed my appeal. Anyone want to show me some sympathy?
It totally stifled the growth of my channel, which is only starting out. Jordan's fans are insufferable.
Too bad Peterson won't respond to Contra because Peterson is a BETA FEMALE SJW.
Peterson is a post modern Bolshevik plant.
Subjectively speaking... If you say so...
I wish to marry you, please You are so clever and funny and beautiful, its unfair
Your explanation of postmodernism was actually really elightening. Always learn something when I watch your vids!
Judeo-Christian values are near-Eastern. I tend to be skeptical of people who claim to champion Eurocentric culture, who yet eschew indigenous European religion.
This video was amazing omg Natalie you're really stepping up your game
FINALLY SOMEONE TALKING ABOUT RORTY thank you contrapoints youre great
I'd watch this but I have a room tidy. I'll check in tomorrow with a response to put chaos into order.
long live the lobster queen!
I never realised how much fucking philosophy I have to read for my drama degree until I watch one of your videos and recognise every single name and laugh at your comment about how unreadable Derrida is
Don’t you see that he is comparing the control of speech with Stalinism, and not transgender people. If I have a right to call a woman a men, then I have a right to mispronounce someone. Yes it might be hurtful to them, but we can’t control ppls speach
9:00 gave me a giggle fit. I really do think he needs to see that part.
Peterson is the newest wrapper for the same basic right-wing conservative bullshit ideas. You would be AMAZED how many times right-wingers can unwrap the same "gift" of conservatism 101 and be enthralled by it having a shiny new wrapper.
JBP actually uses the term Cultural Marxism in one of his first political videos
I think I'm watching you get hotter over time. Sorry. I had to get that out. More importantly, your video is very well made.
❤degenerates❤
I'm acquainted with a socialist whose whole occupation appears to be attacking SJWs (he even coined the modern usage of the term, apparently) as detracting from an older class struggle politics which he thinks should be the real goal. The idea that these two sets are the same (let alone also postmodernist) is indeed absurd to anyone familiar with it. The sophists were accused of basically the same thing as postmodernists now, plus of course the original skeptics.
Try reading Derrida just for the joy of it. Don't try to understand. Then you'll get it.
Hello there
on the post-modernism and neo marxism, actualy came from russian thinkers, developed by french comunists to disguise comunism ideology. if you think for a second that russia or china are "the west", think again. On the other part of the argument, yes post modernism wants to take down the west. aswell has all value structures and ideas (once they can be multiple interpertations of them) , and stupidly , althoug knowingly, creating a total colapse of the logos. Just comenting the last part cause i think you really dont want a honest conversation about this.
i love the satire , very well done .
What a reprehensible video, it's so bad that one can't even try to respond to it, it's just a straight up F- , imo you should just delete the video, there is no fixing or saving this now.
I'll give you one example, the very first criticism of him is wrong, "he protested a law to protect transgender people" Wrong immidietly, his problem was the compelled speach aspect of it, the fact that they are legislating speech, you could possibly be punished for missgendering someone under that law, since the ontario human rights comission dictates the law.
That's not the reaction of somebody honest.
Btw you don't really seem like happy person that lives a good and meaningful life...
haha didn't think you'd notice the colin moriarty part, i was watching that stream when he mentioned you. About jbp's post-modern neomarxism, he has said several times that those two concepts are at odds with each other, he just says that they are using post-modernism to devalue the axioms, biological truths and other facts current society has been predicated on and then after devaluing them slide marxism underneath, because they were marxist to begin with. For example the concept of wealth inequality is directly portrayed as oppression in marxism and in modern day for example any wealth inequality between women as a group and men as a group was and is portrayed as oppressive or unfair even if evidence suggests that there isn't for the most part any unequal treatment and mostly it is about different averages between the sexes and life choices that lead them on having different amounts of earnings as groups, but they reject the argument with post modernism saying that there is no difference between the sexes anyway and then treat them as collectives and pit women against men (their oppressors). Even beginning from the faulty assumption that two random groups of people have to have the same amount of earnings otherwise the wealthier group is oppressing the other. Now capitalism of course has its problems if left unchecked will create massive inequality, but you can't throw the baby with the bathwater, capitalism drives innovation and economic progress and even with increasing inequality the trend is that poverty is decreasing around the world. The place of the political left is to advocate for the people at the bottom of the economical hierarchy and decrease the inequality that capitalism produces. Now it has abandoned it just to play identity politics and treating people in regards to their group identity and not who they are as individuals, using that as a segue to what you said about trans comparison to mao, he wasn't comparing mao to the trans community or individuals he was making a comparison of some trans activists are ideologically possesed and are driven solely by group identity politics which as a set of axioms are similar to maoist china, doesn't matter who you are as a person it just matters who you are in regards to your group identity. Probably you might disagree but he just has a hard stance on identity politics from the left and the right, as he has called out right wing extremists that also want to define themselves in regards to group identity. Well sorry about writing that much, I like your videos anyway and think you had no ill intent in mischaracterizing the central point you made about postmodern neomarxism, that indeed sounds weird anyway. Still enjoyed the vid, look forward to seeing you in the rubin report lol, good luck in all your endeavors
I've never watched a video of yours before but this was fucking hilarious.
thank god just when left twitter was going to destroy my last brain cell in comes contrapoint to save me with diversity of thought
Hey guys. JBP-tard here. I never knew exactly what a "Post-modern Neo-marxist" that JBP was talking about, I just sort of assumed it was what those SJW types were, thank you for your clarification between what postmodern beliefs and what marxist beliefs are. This was a great video to introduce me to the "Left-wing" side of American culture. Looking forward for more videos
That ending was fucking perfect
*LEARNDS DICKTIONARY #CONSIDERS ITSELF ITELLEKTUAL kek
You're just hating on the lobster army. LOBSTERS ALL OVER THE WORLD UNITE! SHOW HER DA POWER OF LOBSTERS CUZ THIS GOON TINKS WE AIN'T IMPORTANT!!
Oh hey it's a person who actually understands what postmodernism means. Maybe I should follow this person.
"I'm sorry Dave, I can't insert that right now."
Wtf what am I watching
Yes! I love Strangers with Candy!!!
Dis gon b gud
I disagree with calling "identity politics" what you said it is, I think we need a clearer term for our current discussions on identity, I think race, civility, social class, professionalism, ethnicities, family, friendships, and many other historical concepts had to do with "identity politics" race and racism of the 19th century as an example was a matter of identity politics, politics itself is almost always a matter of identity more than anything
There was a milk bath scene? Yaaassssss.
hey hey hey... what's wrong with being Scottish? :/
Thank you for the informative video but I still do respectfully disagree with you and could you please site links in the description because these topics interest me?
Wow, actually authentic representation of JBP's views from a left-leaning person. Impressed. So authentic that I think he would agree with the most of your video. For example on the fundamental contradiction between marxism and postmodernism (https://youtu.be/V32WHDuy-Do?t=2h5m1s ). As to his style of rhetoric I think your critique is somewhat legit since most people understand it too literally (e.g. lobsters etc.), but I think it is more temperamentally based and therefore is not crucial. And concerning his idea of the West rooted in judeo-christian religion I don't buy it either. He had a great discussion on this one recently with Matt Dillahunty. During the Q&A one guy asked him how would a real atheist look like? And get pretty "fascinating" response about Raskolnikov from "Crime and Punishment" (https://youtu.be/EDbAR0CoRno?t=1h27m48s ). P.S. If only mass and social media would operate on this level of analysis instead of A vs. B narrative...
watched some other of your videos, they are hilarious) subscribed
Good video Natalie as always, and hi friends if you look 26:56 My name 'Amos Yee' YES MY NAME IN THE CREDITS YES!!!!
Do you still think Child Porn is cool?
Mao and trans activists are the same; neither have done anything wrong
Congrats Contra girl on 100k subs :D
Blah blah you forgot to take your top off.
Thank you for pointing out that ID pol isn't postmodern. It's a classic modernist framing of the world and labeling it postmodern is nonsensical and proof that postmodernism the way the right often uses it has become a boogeyman word devoid of meaning.
You're so pretty!
Frankly, as someone who likes his new book and plenty of the points he raises from time to time, I find your response a delight. It helps me understand some of the problems and loopholes in his rhetoric, or at least how he communicates it, and getting a healthy and rational dose from an opposite point of view to what I'm used to hearing helps me get a grasp of the situation much better. In general, I think hearing a rational argument for two sides of a matter makes for a good habit, so I'm glad I got to see this. Thank you :)
Contra is the best thing to happen to the left on youtube
Dude, this video is good. I’m a JBP fan and this was fun, smart, beautiful, weird, insightful, naughty and just plain funny. Good job.
I continue to be impressed by your level of patience for the sort of crap that's coming out of today's right. I've never been great at talking about these sort of things, I get way too easily frustrated by what strikes me as obvious bullshit.
I'm getting a little tired of even people on the left ragging on that Cathy Newman interview. She's absolutely right about him, he's an old school reactionary and he constantly hides his actual ideas under several layers of mealy-mouthed plausibly deniable bullshit.
You’re weird, I like you.
I've been looking for this for a while. This is such a clear explanation. Thank you!
Seems to me that your main (and really only) critique is that he isn't explicit enough with some of his ideas. Tbh, some of the things you talk about being unclear don't seem so unclear to me... What I'm trying to say is: it seems like a lot of people have jumped on the Peterson hate-train recently, but most of the critiques can be resolved by simply watching his reply to said critiques or asking him for clarification. Your position is understandable, but some of the other Peterson critique videos seem like it's a bunch of people who want to hate Peterson and don't want to leave any room for clarification. They just assume the worst... Btw, whether Jordan is using the post-modern neo-Marxist term correctly or not, it seems clear to me what he means. A lot of people are taking the dictionary definition of those words (which is understandable) and then applying it to JBP's line of reasoning (this is bad). If they argued in good faith, they would argue what JBP is implying and not the meaning of the words he chooses. But obviously they just want to make him look bad.
Then why would he use postmodern neo-Marxism as the term and not something else? Being as smart as he is, you would think there would be a more fitting term that he would use to describe his line of reasoning; however, he still uses the term and people deconstruct the term instead of the argument. This is done very skillfully by Peterson and really falls in line with the point about him not being fully explicit. An invasion of postmodern neo-Marxism is an undeniably scary term to describe what is happening politically; but, if Jordan Peterson's line of reasoning is separate from the actual definition of the term then why not even leave the postmodern neo-Marxism reference out? The problem is, this leads to an ambiguous implication which can be manipulated by Peterson into saying that someone else is misrepresenting him and therefore they are wrong. If someone says something somewhat controversial and ambiguous that could have multiple implications and someone said "why are you bringing this up? do you mean (the worst implication )?" Why is the blame placed on the person who made the interpretation and not the person who baited out the response?
aaaaand in case you didn't see it, you're in current affairs :) https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/god-bless-contrapoints
peterson is not against calling people their preferred pronouns, he's against forcing people to call others by their preferred pronouns
REEE you misrepresented him!
I agree both with your personal reluctance to bother with it and the judgment that it is ultimately necessary. :-\ Thanks for doing it anyway.
Royston? Bring me my lust gurney!
Soooo what i got from this is that you agree wiyh him on all ppoints. You just dont realize it.
After binge-watching the sublime Cobra Kai, I somehow...ended...up...here?!?! Subscribed!!!
Daddy, show me the West!
Really hoping this was an attempt at pure comedy. Because on all other accounts, this was a shambles. You initially say that you've spent hours watching / listening to his video's and podcasts, yet what you take from the whole debacle that got him famous was that "he didn't want to call transgender people by their pronouns". Sigh. His MAIN point with that whole thing was that he was against COMPELLED SPEECH by the government of Canada, that goes directly against free speech. Also kinda funny how you're coming from this "he's on the right" angle, which also just isn't true.
Blaire white < Contra Points
Clicked randomly and immediately a misrepresentation. That's not his view of what West is, he of course realizes in addition to points attributed to West, marxism, postmodernism and SJWism are all part of Western thought. Just that he believes the former are what makes the West great. Also, wanting to be called by a specific pronoun can be seen as individualism, yes, but forcing another to call you that can not, quite the contrary, it's suppressing that person's individualism to call you what they personally choose to call you.
Can I just stop to say that irregardless of politics, Contra's transition is ON POINT?
Don't worry Contrapoints. I'm an Alcoholic too! :D My Avatar is me at a bar.
Progressive politics is evil and murderous. Classical Marxism was an economic theory that was totally wrong. Every prediction was wrong . The labor theory of value is ridiculous. And every single society based upon Marx's economics failed after murdering millions of citizens. As a result the Frankfurt school dumped Marx's economics entirely, retaining only his resentment, hatred for capitalism and lust for power. They also abandoned any attempt to improve or even envision a better society. Their job was just to criticize the society they preyed upon. Post-modernism maintains this adherence to being utterly useless and entirely critical. "On the left we don't really tell people what to do"???? I guess AAA wasn't enough to stop you drinking yourself into delusion. Telling people what to do is all there is to leftism. And leftists don't just tell you what to do, given any power, they enslave their societies and force people to do what they are told. Post-modernism is actually skeptical, so skeptical that it doesn't think Ohms law is real. Postmodernists think that gravity and electricity are social constructs. They also hold that no one can actually understand the Pythagorean theorem because it can be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways if you try real hard. Marxism and post-modernism share a belief that the only real truth is power, by which they mean political power, the ability to kill people. Post-modernism unlike Marxism can't believe in the kind of power that can be measured by volts and amps because for them neither amps or volts exist, being social constructs and all. Postmodernists spend their lives writing interminable texts that explain why writing texts is useless since texts can mean almost anything. And they write these texts inside skyscrapers, using elevators and air-conditioners while denying that the knowledge that made all those things possible exists. Postmodernists are either insane, or hypocritical liars. Richard Rorty states that "at 33,000 feet I am a modernist". So he at least is just a hypocritical liar. But this video is a pretty amusing presentation, sad that it is being used to defend evil and idiocy. Maybe you just need another anti-freeze highball, the drink of the proletariat.
mark abrams His predictions are accurate e.g. The falling rate of profit. ‘The labour theory of value is ridiculous’ is not an argument. It tells you the use value of an object when supply and demand are in equilibrium. Those who died under state capitalism doesn’t say much about Marx. Postmodernists don’t have much to say about science, so your points about ohms and air conditioners are non-sequiturs and devoid of all context. Post-modernism is a reaction to modernism.
"Who got famous because of sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender people under the Canadian human rights law shall surely lead to stalinism" - you are being dishonest
I liked this video, but I am amazed at the rude and arrogant people in the comment section, who actually call Peterson a fascist. I think there is a pretty watchable youtube video where Peterson justifies his use of those terms in an almost satisfactory way(it's something like jbp postmodernism neomarxism) I don't agree with him about using those weird words, but you seem to be simply guessing why he uses those terms.
look yes i see all you points but are traps gay?
Somehow ContraPoints holding a mannequin with her debate partner's face taped to it, sexually, in a bath, is the most ContraPoints thing ever
Your videos are so painfully funny, I can’t handle it. Btw if u get to drown him, technically, he doesn’t get to be daddy XD
~~~I JUST SMOKED A BUNCH OF FUCKIN PCP!~~~
If I had a dollar for every 18th century sexual deviant I had to kick out of my drawing room...
I am a Jordan fan. I can't right now. I seriously can't.
Is it wrong, that I actually think you're hot?
LOL you're hilarious. Good video. I love Jordan Peterson, I hope we get a response. I'd be interested in his take. COLIN AT THE END! He's one of my favorite people.
I've been waiting for this!!!!!!!!
That's the thing, my only problem with Identity Politics is when class is ignored or there's this antagonism to anything to do with class identity seems very suspect to me. Class is very important but its not the only category humans fall in and ignoring other intersections is downright reactionary, but no one who engages in the ideas of equality and liberation should ever never ever overlook class.
You've missed a core principle, Peterson tell's people what they "should" do not what "to do".
Speaking as a Peterson fanboy, I really enjoyed this video. I genuinely hope we are beginning to see a dialogue open between Left, Right and Centre minus the tedious RACIEST! SEXIST! blah blah blah.
Aron puma LOL! Yeah, I meant racist
Did you mean Racist? Or perhaps were you going for a critique of decadent speech and aiming to type "sexiest." ;) That does feel like an important clarification on a contrapoints video.
These behavioral comparisons to animals are so fucking stupid. We're not lobsters, wolves, lions, or cattle. We're humans. Humans have our own behaviors and our own instincts. We also have the most complex and overstimulated brains in the world. We're just not going to ever be as easy to pin down as a fucking lobster. The only animals we should be compared to are other great apes, but even then only tentatively because, yeah, we're smarter than them too. Shitheads who try and box us in with X animal are just identifying which Human instincts they personally want to promote in society, then arbitrarily declairing those to be the only true human instincts. Sorry, no. Humans are broader and better than that. We run all the gamuts, baby. Get fucking used to it.
The lobster queen is dead. LONG LIVE THE QUEEN.
Is "lobster" supposed to be a metaphor or euphemism for something? Because everyone seems to get some kind of meaning from it except me. What do oceanic crustaceans have to do with ANY of this?
Its a Jordan Peterson Meme, since he attempted to use lobsters to explain why hierarchies are natural for humans, and the analogy was pretty wack. Thus, people mockig him make jokes with lobsters in it.
I mean, nails are pretty much women, in tiny finger sized bites.
I was thinking about Jerri Blank just yesterday.
We don't need extra laws to protect transgender, murder assault, and all matter of physical harm are already illegal.. As for allowing a child to assert their own gender, I mean, I can't condone the state taking a child away from their parents for raising their kids the way it's always been done, just cuz it's not progressive enough for some.
The bill introduced by the Canadian government wasn't really an extra law. It simply included transgenders in an existing law which would protect their identity and prevent them from being discriminated against simply for being transgender.
Postmodernism is the use of critique to deconstruct social structures and paradigms. It should not so much be viewed as a philosophy but as a tool, especially outside of earnest intellectal circles. It is not at odds with Marxism when used as a tool to deconstruct the current paradigm to make way for Marxism, nor is it at odds with identity politics when it is used as a tool to deconstruct the current paradigm to make way for degeneracy and foreign invasion. The creation of something new often requires the destruction of something old, and postmodernism accomplishes that. Notice that the postmodern feminist in your quote, (((Judith Butler))), is using postmodernism as a tool, since, like most Jews, she is incentivized to promote non-identitarian inclusivity given that Jews are a rootless clan that live as guests or "renters" in others' countries. Obviously they benefit from the inclusivity of their hosts, but if the push for inclusivity turns identitarian, it forces Jews to give up their relative invisibility to rally under their identity as Jews to lobby for Jewish "rights" in their host countries. The problem with that is that while native citizens have a natural right to exist in their respective societies and therefore a right to be heard, Jews do not have an inherent right to exist in others' societies (and they know this well because they have been banished from their host countries literally hundreds of times over thousands of years), so doing this would make them more publicly visible as what they are: a foreign tumor.
Look at this guy using the word "identitarian" and thinking he's under cover Holy shit it's so sad
"Postmodernism is the use of critique to deconstruct social structures and paradigms" That's also the definition of modernism. You clearly have no idea what post modernism is
I really hope that post-credits scene is a preview for your next video!
BITCH YOU LOOK SO GOOD
another mind to do yo ting all over on is the aforementioned Slavoj Zizec, as one you could do volumes as he sounds colorful like the greek greats n others, you would do him so good, ohh yes you would ;) lolol
I stand censured. I’m one of the fedora-y brocialists who now sees the deep seriousness of identity politics in a new light. Thank you ContraPoints, I owe you a moral debt! ❤️❤️
this was fascinating how they try to reduce it to an us vs unipolar dichotomy coupled with the again reduced struggles on each issue being the pro/cons of each, all mixed together n given a bs left/right label n more...oi!
you contra-inue to amaze me with your presentations and thoughts coupled with decadent naughtiness i personally enjoy and you artfully and adroitly employ them contextually! meeee liiikeeeyyy! sapiobonerific baybay! awww yeahhh
Heartfelt thanks to the dumbass libertarian Colin Moriarty for name-dropping Contra on the Rubin Report.
"Not sure if I (f23) can go through with boyfriend’s (m25) Jordan Peterson fantasy." https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/808kcb/not_sure_if_i_f23_can_go_through_with_boyfriends/
14:20 - silly Abigail. Not just nails. It's also lipstick, dresses, flicking your hair back, and speaking in a whispery voice. And liking being bossed around in the bedroom. Duh! Not offensive or harmful to women AT ALL.
Contra the ContraPoints position on JP: http://www.outsiderintellectuals.com/on-postmodern-neo-marxism/
7:10 - wow, you're comparing forcing people to use pronouns else they'll lose their jobs to him giving advice in his book, where the consequences to you not "doing as he says" will be... nothing? When governments or corporations start ordering people to live as Peterson says, say what Peterson wants them to say, then you'll have a point. Until then, no. Don't pretend that refusing to use preferred pronouns is always a case of someone being an asshole, wanting to hurt you, etc. It can be a simple matter of not wanting to be forced to lie, not wanting to contribute to the equating of womanhood to following stereotypes, etc.
I didn't. Reread my original comment. "Governments and corporations..."
Yes, I have. Workplace contracts are not the same as legal bills, do not equate them.
Have you? I can tell you that more and more workplaces here are requiring people to sign papers saying they won't "misgender" people; it's safe to assume that not complying will result in people being fired.
Don't pretend that you've read the C-16 bill. You have not.
You’ll never be a woman no matter how much you try.
Wait, there is infighting within the US Left and within the US feminism??
There is always infighting within the US Left, really the worldwide Left. And within the right too, it's just the human condition.
Peterson has to see this
He's not lying the Left has a soft spot for Stalinism and Maoism just like the Alt Right has a soft spot for Nazism. Along with denying their Holocausts.
This was a brilliant take down of Dr. Peterson’s vagueness and incoherency when it comes to expressing what, precisely, he objects to so vigorously. I would argue though, that Dr. Peterson fell prey to the same thing that many of us out here have in this age; namely that in trying to sort through the ridiculous degree of contradictions and mutually incompatible beliefs and positions that the contemporary left fosters, Dr. Peterson just lumps all of those contradictions in together and misrepresents them as a coherent worldview where they are rather, an incoherent worldview. He is right though, that there is in fact, a worldview. You point to conflicts between academic post modernists and left liberals in academia, but that’s not really what most concerned people are concerned about. Peterson does take aim at those academics, but I think the problem is despite the fairly philosophically coherent examples like Judith Butler, the majority of academics at most lower and mid tier universities that the average person attends are not expressing a coherent worldview, but an incoherent one. The left very much does mix fundamentally post-modern ideas with modern ones. That result, is the one complained of. For example, the left does embrace a modern idea, the coherency of identity as a means to understand and interact with humanity. But it embraces this concept within the framework of an ethics of the will, whereby what is moral is what is desired or contrived as such by the individual. That is a fundamentally post-modernist idea, a la Camus’ myth of Sisyphus. This is why the contemporary left is viewed as increasingly totalitarian and threatening. On one hand, they can tell you “this is the way the world is” and in the next tell you that there is no truth but what a given person desires. It’s why the left can argue for extreme individual liberty when it comes to some things, but absolutely believe that the state should police and penalize other things. It also demonstrates that wherever post-modernism is concerned, incoherency follows. It’s all well and good that you think there is no truth but what you make, but the minute someone else’s self-truth conflicts with your self-truth, what the heck do we do? The only way we can and have responded to this conflict is by creating systems that regulate power, so to maximize the capacity of individuals to live their “truth” without coming into undue influence from other self-truth livers. This project is probably what Peterson really cares about. While you are right that post-modernism, Marxism, liberalism, Christianity, are all technically “western”, I think you have to admit that some things won out more than others in the West, and some things are more foundational than others. This is exactly why Peterson points to Judeo-Christianity, because it truly does underpin or at least frame most of what came after it. Marxism and Liberalism both rely heavily on common reference to Fundamentally judeo-Christian ways of looking at the world. Heck, Marx essentially quoted Jesus in the communist manifesto. In summary, I think the conflict JP is waging and what the western world is waging, is a conflict between whether truth is objective and independent, or subjective and dependent. And while both sides often incorporate assumptions of both of those larger views, I think that the left fundamentally believes, even if it doesn’t always act, as though truth is entirely contingent and personal, where the right believes that it is constant and universally applicable. That’s really the fight here, and it’s hard to boil it down to that when people contradict themselves as much as they do. I think JP’s point, and the right or centrist or liberal view, comports more with observable reality. And this is precisely because where the left claims no truth but my truth, they are incapable of furthering that view without insisting through their political activity that *someone’s* truth should be imposed to the detriment or exclusion of contradicting truths.
12 Rules for Life is bogged down by his desire to bring Judeo-Christian literature into places it doesn't need to be. I gave the audiobook a try, it's OK, there is some good stuff in there. However, it reads very much like it's written by an apologist, someone who seems to want to write off any harsh interpretation of the religious texts as misunderstandings of what they mean, but don't worry, Jordan has figured out how even something as disturbing as God ordering Abraham to slay his only son Isaac as a test of faith and loyalty was actually a message about how you sometimes need to give up what is most precious to you in life. You need to make self-sacrifices. That's all it is... only it fucking isn't! You don't just remove the jealous, ruthless God from the story and turn the whole thing into a self-help metaphor FFS. He does this several times in the book and its very easy to see through. Also, the way in which he seems to see some things as just too complex, and other things as just plainly simple, whenever it suits him, is particularly annoying. For example, apparently you are not an atheist. Even if you think you are, you aren't, because you are too complex. You don't know what you are. Apparently, there are no atheists, they just don't know what God they worship. Right, OK then Jordan. Then, in the same book, he implies on multiple occasions that the horrors of the 20th century (mao, stalin, hitler) come about when these religious traditions and ideals leave society. Oh wow, it's really that simple huh? Something as complex as the formation of the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, is simple but apparently you are too complex to ever be an atheist? And why is that even in a self-help book in the first place? It really feels like two Jordan Peterson's wrote the book for two different reasons. The first one is the experienced clinical psychologist who actually has a hell of a lot of good things to say, particularly to young people. The second one is a Christian apologist eager to shove the bible into anything he can, even where it is totally unnecessary and doesn't seem to fit at all. The result is a bit of a mess. I'm still happy I checked out the book as some of it is very entertaining and informative. However, most of it is boring old assertions and arguments I've heard over and over again.
"So who's Jordan Peterson?" *deep inhale* That was the perfect encapsulation of the Jordan Peterson Experience.
After the Toronto attack, hate speech laws are needed more than ever. Peterson's alt right bigotry isn't just idiotic and wrong, its dangerous.
wow so much butthurt in this video - just ... wow
26:00 I love the John Waters reference!
Watched hours of Peterson myself. Peterson isn't wrong about cultural marxism, denying it exists and what it does simply means you're oblivious to it, cognitive dissonance and denial are one with progressiveness. Cultural marxism is what turns a weak-minded white man into a liberal bugman, brainwashing them to self-destroy in order to help any cause but their own. The one thing Peterson is factually wrong about though is blaming straight men for whatever is wrong in society today. Straight liberal men are *also* at fault, but that's it. He basically spends hours telling men to self-improve to become worthy of something that's not worthy at all. Oh, and he's spot-on on gender politics.
Absolutely false. Like, I respect a difference of opinion and everything (which is why I won't bother correcting your on the gender thing) but the conspiracy theory of marxists sneaking around and manipulating society is..completely without merit. We're in the middle of the biggest right-wing swing we've seen in decades, the left have done almost nothing since the 70's, and somehow they're still a threat? Um, how?
I disagree with the characterization of Anarchism as opposing "unjust" hierarchies because it carries a lot of philosophical baggage about what exactly we actually think is or isn't "just," at least without further clarification. The reason for this is that, by such a definition on its own, anyone could call themselves an "Anarchist" insofar as they personally oppose whatever hierarchies they happen to think is "unjust," while potentially excluding other kinds hierarchies that the actual Anarchist movement has historically opposed, which is the problem with "Anarcho-" Capitalists. The truth is that Anarchism opposes *all* hierarchies within the context of politics- social hierarchies.
Good video. JBP does represent the left as more unitary than it is - especially in academic circles. Postmodernism and neo-marxism do go together though, as you yourself showed at minute 24 when you said that a true postmodernist would not just take apart the concept of the west, but also call it out as oppressive, exclusionary and supremacist etc. As you said earlier in your explanation of marxism, this theorizing of history and societies in terms of oppressors and oppressed is very much the core of marxist ideology. So while the two might not always go together, they certainly can and in public discourse often do. And that's what JBP is up against, constantly victimizing some and villifying others and trying to demolish not just unjust hierarchies, but any kind of hierarchical difference. That doesn't mean that he defends all hierarchies. His lobster argument is more sophisticated than that. He speaks of hierarchies of competence and a lot of western legal traditions in which individual liberty and freedom of speech are essential values. That is where you misrepresented things somewhat. But still, good video.
Anybody calling anybody daddy makes me wildly uncomfortable.
It's a bit off topic, but why does the LGBT community love to oversexualize themselves as much as they can even in the most innappropriate situations as well, but then cry out transphobia, homophobia when it gets met with disgust, even though the same thing happens when a heterosexual person does it ? And what does dick/pussy sucking "humor" have to do with making a 30 minute argument about not liking the word "Post Modernist"? Just because plenty of people have been labeled post-modernist in the realm of philosophy doesn't mean that post-modernism can't be used in a huge context. Even though post-modernist architecture and arts exists as well, they don't have much to do with philosophy. It's just a term used to define the timeframe in which something was created, and shouldn't be thought of as anything more. Whatever the naming is, it is undeniable that this newer form of social justice has a hell of a lot in common in with the principles of marxism (e.g the fighting of classes).
Alright, well I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Straight people do the exact same thing. The only concession I'll make is that straight people don't have mardi gras. Doesn't it make sense though? These people are judged, ostracised and sometimes worse because of who they choose to have sex with. It's not LGBT people that chose this path, society decided to make their sexual behaviours into a huge deal first. Your definition still doesn't earn the "postmodern" title. And the rest could be applied to literally anything. Islam, Nazism, Monarchism all have these fundamental classes, are they also postmodernist? Of course not. Asians having a higher wage than average doesn't make the systematic jailing and execution of black people suddely "not racist". America is a county where actual, literal nazis run for office. Don't tell me there isn't a racism issue.
I definitely am, since one's own sexual life is normally thought of as a private thing, but when it's about the LBTQ community, saying "I love licking pussies/I love sucking cocks" is completely acceptable, and so is dressing flagrantly. Why can't people dress decently on pride parades? And the naming "Postmodernist Neo-Marxism" fits it in my opinion, since it is the worldview that there are 2 main groups, the oppressor (bourgeoisie/the white patriarchy) and the oppressed(proletariats,everyone else), and the way to equality is to overthrow the so-called white patriarchy.It goes beyond fighting inequality, and also has the hatred of capitalism associated with it. Going by this logic, asian countries have asian oppression, and black african countries have black oppression. Yes, America is a mixed nation, but the majority is white. (Universities can be majority jewish/asian though), and you had Barack Obama as president for 2 terms, and aside from the rednecks, people generally liked him. If America is systematically racist, then how come Asians earn about 20000 dollars more on average?
Are you suggesting that there isn't as much oversexualisation in heterosexual communities? Also the defense of postmodernism is laughable. Your conclusion is that any attempt to undo injustice is marxist.
Having now watched it I would say that still his objection was based on compelled speech even if misguidedly - he might have misunderstood the legislation - I still don't see why he is said to be against LGBT rights - and even if his position is wrong he is allowed to express it especially if sincerely held. I think the idea that this had just been a calculated way to get views on his youtube channel is completely wrong.
OK I hadn't seen that.
John Cox Except he wasn't. He just sold cute ideas, to sell his books. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb3oh3dhnoM
I think he is objecting to compelled speech rather than transgender rights which is not the same thing.
The attack on bill c16 is an attack of transgender rights.
DeoMachina I dunno man. I saw all of that in my college. Now I see the same in US colleges. To the point where it makes the news. So, prove that I am lying. You are not even attacking the argument.
But that isn't happening. You are lying.
DeoMachina I have to add: colleges have been propaganda platforms for marxist for ages, to the point where it is a stereotype in my country and most of Latin America.
DeoMachina extremes look for each other. It is not weird for white nationalism to make a comeback when you have people telling whites they are inherently evil simply because they are white with no consequence. I do not like either. Both would get rid of me for I would not agree with them. Both would get rid of me for not falling in line, one of them for not falling in line and not being of the right skin tone. You sound like you do not live in reality, or perhaps you love what is happening.
Nobody took their free speech away, some students are just very unhappy about literal white nationalists using colleges as propaganda stations. The white nationalists still get to speak, just not there. But it's kind of fuckin' weird that nazis are making a comeback...yet you're worried about marxists?
DeoMachina college students wanting to suppress rights like free speech suggest otherwise.
People have been bleating this for decades. Um, hello? If that really was the case, the USA would have gone red years ago.
DeoMachina no. They go to college for that.
Conspiracy theory. Kids didn't just suddenly become communist.
shut up weeb
Harry lol how can one be a fan of some one as reactionary and ignorant as Peterson and at the same time say they are fan of contra, this doesn't make any sense.
ColeYote I wouldn't knowingly lie. And I'm not even wrong, I mean regardless if Jordan is right about Bill c-16, his problem was the compelled speech aspect.
All of those things you just said about C-16 are *LIES.*
ColeYote just because you're ignorant of it doesn't mean it's not true.
Nobody is doing that you stupid fuck.
Feminism is about advocacy for women so, no shit?
I really enjoyed this video. As someone who has been following Jordan Peterson for a while, I have been getting very frustrated with his arguments. On the one hand, he gives off an aura of authenticity and intellectuality, but he also seems to over simplify complex concepts (like lobster hierarchies or PoMo). Thank you for this excellent deconstruction of his viewpoint. I think I have understood the man a bit more because of your video and now have some more talking points when discussing J Pete with friends. I wonder if you have seen this video he did for Big Think (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UVUnUnWfHI)?? He makes a very similar criticism of the left and PoMo and Marxism as he has done before, but here he makes this very legitimate point. He says the there are those on the right who have decided which markers of the extreme/radical right are intolerable - racial superiority he says is a well accepted marker on the moderate right of something which can never be tolerated. He goes on to suggest that the left should do the same - identify a marker which would make a doctrine/ideology intolerable. He suggests that it should be the 'doctrine of equity', saying that equality of outcome can never be achieved. I think here he makes a valid point, not about equity, but that leftists should identify a marker for what is an unacceptable doctrine. What do you think of this final point?
The back drop of this video looks just like a bar in DC
OH NO! AN INDIVIDUALIST! QUICK GET HIM TO THE GULAGS!!!!!
The idea that not wanting to devolve into identity politics puts you in the way of helping minorities is completely bonkers. Individualists want to uplift everybody. The fact that anyone is trying to malign that speaks volumes. Also, you say you'd rather he doesn't compare the activists to stalin to make a point, maybe if they stopped acting like brownshirts, than your complaint wouldn't fall on deaf ears, Contra. You trying to boil down what the activists are doing to "telling people what pronouns to use" is very dismissive, yet again, about the real complaints that people have. Do you not realize it?
Jordan Peterson is a hot dad who i want to shut up
JBP is not using lobsters to justify hierarchy, or to claim that they are inevitable, but to explain how we got here, and to point out that it needs to be considered as we move forward. Lyshenkoist tendencies do in fact exist still and following them might go to bad places. For example: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08038740.2015.1136681
the bi-manicure resembles blinged-out classical guitarists' nails.
Best video I've seen in ages. Perfect mix of humour and reason. Thanks for making this. Oh and your set design and mood lighting are par excellence.
Oh my God, how did I miss the awesome Pink Flamingos reference at 26:12!?
That's a better explanation of the time line of modernism to post modernism than I had in 3 fucking years of university. Good work.
First time viewer, and damn, both your sense of comedic timing and your analyses are razor sharp! I'm one of those loser guys with whom JP's stuff about growing the fuck up resonated pretty powerfully with (as you say, because of the language used - turns out that's pretty important to people who think analytically) but I've also been a "practising" atheist my whole life (and appreciating his nuanced-but-subjective take on the archetypes in the bible and their social impact ain't gonna change that) and think of myself as left-oriented. So I'm generally in agreement with what you like and dislike about the guy and what you agree and disagree with. I'd also throw into the "dislike column" how he tends to brush over just how much of social hierarchy is NOT predicated on competence like he asserts - he throws a bone to those of us who can see how the wealthiest and most powerful actually keep (and inherit and pass down) their position by saying hierarchy is not ALWAYS a fair meritocracy (and oh-dear-yes-that's-a-problem) but the reality is that it hardly EVER is. Shit, is that too Marxist a comment for someone who counts himself as something of a JP fan? A bit where I disagreed with you: Identity politics isn't some innocuous organisational mechanism to rally advocacy around, it divides people and uses the idea of privilege to insist on who can and can't talk about an issue, as if we have no common humanity or can LEARN about what we might be unfamiliar with. Seems to me it's essentially as discriminatory as the oppression it's attempting to fight.
"What do you people want from me" You. "clearly he has real talent as a public speaker" Really? For me, he gives the impression of a dull, grey, block of wood...as if all the wild places of his heart have been carved out, or ground down, and replaced with chains and gears.
In before '... you just aren't on the same level of analysis as JP'.
Fug, I don't know where I stand anymore... I'm an egalitarian. Gender roles are stupid. Degeneracy is funny. Be nice to minorities. I'm turning every type of gun into an anime girl just to piss off the nazis.
15:25 I support degeneracy! Hail satan!
Peterson doesn't care about angry trans activists telling him what to call them, he cares about the government enforcing it.
I wouldn't call him a fascist, but I would say he is a diet fascist. He seems to have a hard on for social darwinism.
00:21:00 hits the nail on the head with how Peterson wiggles out of arguments. The same thing Sam Harris does..
This is amazing
"sometimes boys just need a daddy" fuck you're right
The transgender activists hes talking about are like stalin though. Mainly because they are Antifa and admit it, Antifa is definitely a communist group. If you dont want to be lumped in with the shitty violent side of the left then disavow them.
I was using the general you in response to most leftists. I know where contra falls on the violence issue and thats why i bother watching her. Im quite right wing but find her to be the most reasonable leftie ive seen on youtube. I was just talking about the perspective older folks might have because as far as a lot of people are concerned there seems to be no difference between antifa and all the other protesting lefties. They all seem to be the same thing. Honestly for the most part they are the same thing, i havent seen a ton of nuanced views outside of this channel.
Contrapoints literally has a video criticizing violence by Antifa. Personally I feel the need to point out that although the politics of Antifa are a nice variety of left wing thought, generally anarchists make up the bulk. They don't want the state to crackdown on Nazis, they believe there's a need for communities to crackdown on Nazis by any means including violent ones when necessary to deny them a platform. It's a really interesting history that's worth more than judging on surface level aesthetics.
Old white guy won't shut the hell up - the Jordan Peterson story
The video I was just watching was Jorden Peterson.
I wish universities were as cool and transgressive as they're in right wing fantasies.
I take issue with just one thing in this video: 25:50 The "reason" that Hume critiqued was abstract thought divorced from the input of concrete experience, which was the mode of knowing about the world that the Rationalist philosophers advocated. Hume and other Empiricists rejected the idea that one could derive truth about the world simply by connecting thoughts to other thoughts following rules of reason or logic; truths about the world have to be discovered in the world itself, not in the minds of people who only entertain ideas about the world. This is an important distinction to make, because it underlines a huge weakness in the worldview of online "skeptics", who seem to believe that abstract reason alone can produce anything of concrete practical value. It can't. It's a tool, and, just like any other tool, it's only useful within the limited range of pursuits for which it's specifically suited. One of the many pursuits for which it's unsuited is the discovery of moral or ethical values, which is essentially the point Hume was making when he wrote the quoted passage.
This video was an actual masterpiece
Yet another absurd hit-piece full of strawmen and ridiculous leaps of what we will generously call "logic." The surest way to spot a fanatic is their seeing fanaticism everywhere but in themselves. Opening with proclamations of how you're not going to act like Kathy Newman and then just rephrasing her drivel isn't fooling anyone. You have, as usual, made no arguments. You have simply stated your ideological presumptions as a given and proceeded from there pointing out how—obviously—anyone who contradicts you is clearly evil. Lame. As to the corporate link: no, they don’t believe your bullshit. They are simply co-opting it to control you. Fundamentalism is handy to those in power that way. Congratulations on selling your soul to the very people you claim to oppose in exchange for a pat on the head and the vacant assurance that yes, YOU are the GOOD people. Now, regarding postmodernism and “Marxism.” Yes, they are a contradiction and Peterson has always pointed this out. No one ever accused you guys of consistency or intellectual rigor.
I wasn't arguing; I was dismissing. You are totalitarians. You are deceitful. You are slanderous. Your best “minds” are obfuscating, pseudo intellectual hacks. That you preach your bigotry in the name of tolerance fools no one. In short, you are morally and intellectually equivalent to people like the Westburo Baptists. The only differences between you are matters of window-dressing, not substance.
not an argument
This is one of your best.
Unrelated to the video, but you are getting cuter by the day it would seems! (Cute enough that I would lock you up in my polyamourous BDSM dungeon. And I mean that in a totally not creepy, positive way.)
Waiting for a deconstruction of Dave Rubin as well ^_^
Obviously the identity politics game isn't an intelligent plot to overthrow western culture. That's an unforeseen side effect.
+ContraPoints Basically, Peterson doesn't understand shit about philosophy and you're giving him way too much credit.
Bro, are you related to Kinobody / Greg O'Gallagher? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbook3j0ZFY
Minor point - the Newman interview isn't BBC. it's Channel 4, whose newsroom is run by ITN
Why go after Peterson he is a petulant child...if you want to critique someone actually intelligent Ben Shapiro is the one.
I wanted to write something smart (mansplain) but really you said enough
Protections for transgender persons will lead to Stalinism? I think this means that Mr. Peterson is another guy who can, in my humble opinion, jump up his own ass. In fact, I'd be willing to help him in that endeavor.
contra is right in that peterson and other neo-liberals are hypocritical for their reactionary stance toward the fruits of liberalism/the enlightenment, and yet still clinging to the root which produced them.
Good and very informative video. It's sad that people actually take Peterson seriously.
Natalie I love your content. It is really refreshing to see someone deconstruct Peterson's views, and argue against the most charitable interpretation of his philosophy. One question: you frame Peterson's self-help content as a "Trojan Horse" for his political agenda, but are you sure it isn't the other way around? It seems to me that he gets a lot of attention for his political beliefs: that's the source of his initial notoriety, it's what interviewers ask him about, and it's certainly what gets him play time on right wing and "new center" media circuits. However his direct messaging to his supporters (i.e. his book and his lectures) seem to lean far more toward the personal responsibility side of things. I think you could argue that rather than being his true end-game, Peterson's politics have served as the hook with which he got the attention of a generation of lost young men who've been spoon-fed this reactionary anti-sjw rhetoric for so long, and largely he's used his spotlight to push his own positive message. He didn't have to do that. I'm sure Tucker Carlson and Dave Rubin would have been happy to continue having him on every couple months to talk about nothing other than the excesses of the left and "cultural marxists" since the initial bill C16 debate in Canada.
Girl you are just a force of nature. People just have to respect your intellect and your talent. That is what makes you so effective. Just great.
Channel 4 not BBC (very different things in the uk) , aside from that the video is phenomenal.
I don't feel to comfortable about this. It's way to erotic for me to consider criticism against Peterson (also it make my peepee feel funny)
Marxism or any modern(and not postmodernist deconstructionist) "Progressive" ideas which purports to be for betterment of people in general fail in the fact that they either are ignorant about or underestimate their own(and their comrades') capacity for evil Postmodernist deconstructionist ideas, on the other hand, have deconstructed everything to the point that action becomes impossible for them. A truly postmodern intellectual would either be a nihilist or a buddhist monk, because if everything is a power game, and power games are in net, harmful, then why bother playing them..? With irony you can only do so much. Read the writings of David Foster Wallace on irony And how he predicted an age of authencity and authentic emotions and authentic talk(have seen those clips of Dr Peterson breaking down and getting emotional) almost a decade ago
This is freaking brilliant. You're like the political Plinkett
Economical hierarchies are products of competence.
Natalie is getting so pretty!!
little brain: determinism larger brain: manifest destiny even larger brain: divine right of kings largest brain: all hail the lobster queen
ooooh that post credits like some fuckin marvel shit
"Everyone is problematic and I disown them all." Twitterpated
I'm not going to lie, informative as these videos are, the lighting may be my favourite part. I fucking LOVE the lighting!
Hey, really big Jordan Peterson fan here but I honestly really enjoyed this video and subbed as a result. Recently I have been experiencing this discrepancy that although Jordan Peterson espouses that people shouldn't be ideologically possessed I feel like a lot of his fans or at least right-wingers seem to have these very symptoms. So I've been looking for more balanced viewpoints that doesn't seem inflammatory in nature or clickbaity and wow you really enlightened me on actual left perspectives and had fair critiques while being really entertaining. So thanks, looking forward to more.
Kudos for having the open-mindedness to look for critique and challenging perspectives! I wish I could encounter more of those values on the internet.
God save the Queen. A fascist regime...
I love Jordan Peterson and I think this video is great
All hail lobsters! And short fingernails.
so, as you know, this is where us SJWs hold our meetings and I would like to bring forward an agenda for us. it's: -kill people -burn shit -fuck school
*I'm fuckin' radical, nigga*
Oh! Darling! You should stop having sex with people from the far right! Intolerance could be contagious! [btw, I loved the counterargument of the lobster queen!]
The Cathy Newman interview is not BBC, it's Channel 4, that's a 5 second google. (With you on Hume). I think you miss represent his objection too bill C-16, it was not an issue of prefered pro-nouns, but compelled speech, which is an Orwellian line to cross. Set design is on point, strangely impressed by your wallpaper door.
Yugio psycho analysis
Great write-up in Current Affairs
I dont agree with a lot of your opinions but appreciate the reasoned arguements atleast (and creepy humor, haha..). Ive heard not great things and didnt expect it. Good job.
Andrew R Swope maybe you’d like these: BadMouseProductions, chescaleigh, chrisiousity, marinashutup, TheeKatsMeoww, Newsbroke, Claudia Brown, Empire Files, Ethic Ethnic, Randy Rainbow, Hbomberguy, EdwardCurrent, C0nc0rdance, rantasmo, Cody Johnston, La’ron Readus, Gwen_No_Fear, Folding Ideas, KyleKallgrenBHH, Rap Critic, Atlas’ Cyclops Den, GoingRampant, Rebecca Watson, Psychological Psocks, Ask a Mortician, Knowledgable Reaction, Philosophy Tube, Riley J. Dennis, AProgressiveThinker, Rowan Ellis, Kevin Logan, Parody Project, Sexplanations, T1J, Step Back History, Thejuicemedia, Kati Morton, Owen Jones, Andy Hartley, Kat Blaque, Overly Sarcastic Productions, the Bronx Blogger, JodySinead, Newsbroke, The Grapevine, The Cynical Historian, Intelexual Media, The Good News Channel, Myles Power, Invisible People, The Uncorrupted Report, Mrs Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian, a privileged vegan, Isaac Arthur, Thom Avella, Inequality Media, Danny Korcz, Michea B, Three Arrows, Michael Rowland’s, Tiyana Jovanovic, DemocraticSocialist01, we are mitú, Matt Baume, We Own It, Democratize the Media, LTfisch, Lindsay Ellis, Maggie Mae Fish, zentouro, Pop Culture Detective, Shaun, Mad Blender, anactualjoke, Gordon Dimmack, Democracy At Work, NonCompete, Mexie, Malmrose Projects, eternal Albion, Innuendo Studios, Invisible People, Unsubbed Serf, Libertarian Socialist Rants. Have a good day!
Every time you call Jordan Peterson 'daddy' I die inside.
Huge win in the battle of ideas
Even the more critical comments actually address the points (or lack thereof) made in the video, instead of just going for the low hanging fruit of throwing cliched anti-left buzzwords at her.
Happy to see how many comments come from JP fans who genuinely welcomed a new perspective and listened to her points. I greatly admire that approach and I wish I'd see more of that on both sides.
Kanji Well actually it's a yes or no question. You can add caveats if you want to. Seriously, it's quite pretentious to beat around the bush.
Whenever she says “so you are saying is” is not putting words at someone mouth, is interpreting for an audience, this is at the most shitty hosting but it happens in every prime time interview, this one time the crutch became more noticeable
No she isn't, she put words in his mouth consistently. "So you're saying this" and "you're saying that". The way she conducted that interview was disgusting personally.
Well, he's basically a coward that can't really admit what he wants to say, because everyone would reject those ideas, so he has to pretend and use weasel words. Hiding is all he can do. Taking that away would be almost like bullying.
Jared Lowrance these are also weird. You’ll like them: BadMouseProductions, chescaleigh, chrisiousity, marinashutup, TheeKatsMeoww, Newsbroke, Claudia Brown, Empire Files, Ethic Ethnic, Randy Rainbow, Hbomberguy, EdwardCurrent, C0nc0rdance, rantasmo, Cody Johnston, La’ron Readus, Gwen_No_Fear, Folding Ideas, KyleKallgrenBHH, Rap Critic, Atlas’ Cyclops Den, GoingRampant, Rebecca Watson, Psychological Psocks, Ask a Mortician, Knowledgable Reaction, Philosophy Tube, Riley J. Dennis, AProgressiveThinker, Rowan Ellis, Kevin Logan, Parody Project, Sexplanations, T1J, Step Back History, Thejuicemedia, Kati Morton, Owen Jones, Andy Hartley, Kat Blaque, Overly Sarcastic Productions, the Bronx Blogger, JodySinead, Newsbroke, The Grapevine, The Cynical Historian, Intelexual Media, The Good News Channel, Myles Power, Invisible People, The Uncorrupted Report, Mrs Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian, a privileged vegan, Isaac Arthur, Thom Avella, Inequality Media, Danny Korcz, Michea B, Three Arrows, Michael Rowland’s, Tiyana Jovanovic, DemocraticSocialist01, we are mitú, Matt Baume, We Own It, Democratize the Media, LTfisch, Lindsay Ellis, Maggie Mae Fish, zentouro, Pop Culture Detective, Shaun, Mad Blender, anactualjoke, Gordon Dimmack, Democracy At Work, NonCompete, Mexie, Malmrose Projects, eternal Albion, Innuendo Studios, Libertarian Socialist Rants, Unssubed Serf. Have a good one
Let me just say that I believe he's the type of person who is willing to change his mind or his approach if his opponents are reasonable. I'm tired of this "let's ruin and believe everything this person has to say is horrible" approach. Jordan Peterson is doing things in good faith, unlike some other people. Sam Harris specifically talked about how he sent an email to Jordan about how Jordan was misrepresenting Sam's opinions and then Jordan apologized and said he will be spending some time to read his books in order to understand more clearly. No more 'problems' after that. Jordan is not the type of person we want to be using these shunning tactics on.
I would agree that he's not out to cause as much harm as possible. I don't think he's a monster. However I do think he has a career, and that he would be far from the first to tell half-truths/outright lies to sell more books. He might actually believe he's doing the right thing, somehow.
Perhaps I'm not seeing things clearly, but after watching so many videos of him, he doesn't really seem like the guy who wants to intentionally bring suffering to the world. Not to mention that some of his ideas are not what he believes but simply an exploration of new ideas.
Let's be real for a second: The only people who wish to be misunderstood are liars and cheats. So the honest and genuine amongst us take care to be clear and to clarify. And if we are public speakers/authors? It's doubly important. So it's not an accident that Peterson is vague all the time. It's intentional. But why? Well as I've already established, there can be no good reasons for this. Yes, him clarifying would be an improvement, but don't forget that being vague was a choice he made.
Couldn't have said it better. Classifying a vague group of diverse, often strongly disagreeing sections of liberal thinking under a bunch of scary-looking reactionary buzzwords it makes it easier for him to push a borderline conspirational narrative of post-modern neo-marxists trying to take over the world. Every [buzzword buzzword] who says they care about an issue are lying and only want power, etc. etc.
@Othelloz I'd love to ask him why he uses those words specifically. Based on everything I've seen and read about him, I assume it's because those words are the closest he can think of to describe the 'groups' he is talking about. I would much prefer this to be clarified by Peterson. Isn't this what you should be saying: it would be great if Peterson could clarify some of the things he talks about in order to provide more fruitful conversations where everyone's terms are used in the same way? We already know that Peterson doesn't see 'God' the same way the typical public does and this has led to a lot of people arguing and assuming he sees 'God' the same way they do. The only thing I'm saying is that some people are assuming a positive interpretation because of their overall knowledge of Peterson and others are assuming a negative interpretation. Both sides are wrong for this. But I just wanted to point out that the negative ones don't seem to want to have their mind's changed, they just want Peterson to be wrong and show to others how much more they know about the meaning of some words. The proper approach is not to assume, but to ask for clarification.
It seems clear to you what it means, exactly. He makes it so his audience fill in the blanks themselves, of course it's clear to them. He is whatever you want him to be. But that's dangerous.
axisaudio nat is making waves. The lobsters have forgotten to swim and will either drown or be saved by the queen. Or something like that.
yeah, he is against stalinism
how
otengammai yep, hope you like it! Though I’ll admit some channels are rather more dry, in the sense that they are very long and sort of monotone, but it’s worth it for the intellectual deconstructing of bs people/arguments. Personally some of the more “fun” ones like ContraPoints would Be Hbomberguy, and Thejuicemedia, but they are all very informative and awesome. Have a good binge!
@ evywthingseemsdiff again: FANTASTIC!!! That's *quite* a list! Let's get started! Thank you...much appreciated!
otengammai life is mysterious. But rather than letting life’s mysteries guide you slowly, I’ll just drop by other channels to check so you don’t find them after only watching Cobra Kai: BadMouseProductions, chescaleigh, chrisiousity, marinashutup, TheeKatsMeoww, Newsbroke, Claudia Brown, Empire Files, Ethic Ethnic, Randy Rainbow, Hbomberguy, EdwardCurrent, C0nc0rdance, rantasmo, Cody Johnston, La’ron Readus, Gwen_No_Fear, Folding Ideas, KyleKallgrenBHH, Rap Critic, Atlas’ Cyclops Den, GoingRampant, Rebecca Watson, Psychological Psocks, Ask a Mortician, Knowledgable Reaction, Philosophy Tube, Riley J. Dennis, AProgressiveThinker, Rowan Ellis, Kevin Logan, Parody Project, Sexplanations, T1J, Step Back History, Thejuicemedia, Kati Morton, Owen Jones, Andy Hartley, Kat Blaque, Overly Sarcastic Productions, the Bronx Blogger, JodySinead, Newsbroke, The Grapevine, The Cynical Historian, Intelexual Media, The Good News Channel, Myles Power, Invisible People, The Uncorrupted Report, Mrs Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian, a privileged vegan, Isaac Arthur, Thom Avella, Inequality Media, Danny Korcz, Michea B, Three Arrows, Michael Rowland’s, Tiyana Jovanovic, DemocraticSocialist01, we are mitú, Matt Baume, We Own It, Democratize the Media, LTfisch, Lindsay Ellis, Maggie Mae Fish, zentouro, ContraPoints, Pop Culture Detective, Shaun, Mad Blender, anactualjoke, Gordon Dimmack, Democracy At Work, NonCompete, Mexie, Malmrose Projects, eternal Albion, Innuendo Studios, Invisible People, Libertarian Socialist Rants, Unssubed Serf. Ciao comrade!
Totally wrong. It was not a lie, if you actually watch what he says about it, it is the policies surrounding the bill that contains those things he is taking objection to, so no. He didn't lie. I can make short sentences too. I don't know what arbitrary things you are thinking of to label him a conservative, but sure, have at it. He has repeatedly said that he does not have a political agenda, but when you criticize the far left and the SJWs you get painted with a fascist / nazi brush almost no matter who you are and what you say. Contrary to (somewhat) popular belief, holding viewpoints that oppose the left does not make you Adolf Hitler incarnated.
His main point was a lie though. He claimed the bill contained things it did not. He lied. (He's also clearly a conservative, I don't know how you can even deny this)
i think contra look better than blaire tbh
"progressive politics is evil and murderous" As opposed to...**checks notes** Bombing the shit out of poorer brown people?
mark abrams His predictions are accurate e.g. The falling rate of profit. ‘The labour theory of value is ridiculous’ is not an argument. It tells you the exchange value of an object when supply and demand are in equilibrium. Those who died under state capitalism doesn’t say much about Marx. Postmodernists don’t have much to say about science, so your points about ohms and air conditioners are non-sequiturs and devoid of all context. Post-modernism is a reaction to modernism.
its ok, daddy can be wrong sometimes
?????????????
Am I the only one who thought this was a bit rapey?
Two genders only.
contrapoints is actually jordan peterson in drag
This is probably the best video I've ever seen on YouTube.
dam u look hot
Even ignoring the content (which was great by the way) that was one of the funniest, most well constructed videos I've seen anywhere on youtube.
When you let the state tell you what you must, and cannot, say... you're fucked. Disagree with this? That's fine, but it makes you a Statist. And a silly sausage.
Yep. The "Neo Post Modern Neo Marxist" label is rapidly becoming as vapid as the "fascist" label. Both side dish out silly alarmist labels in lieu of actually debating. Someone says something slightly conservative or right wing? They fascist neo-nazi cunt. Who, if we allow them to continue, will destroy our civilisation and march us all to the gas chambers. Someone says something vaguely left-leaning or progressive? Then they are a neo-Marxist postmodern arse hole who, if we allow them to continue, will destroy our society and march us all off to the gulags. What ever happened to listening and debating ideas?
Still clearly a man. I'd suggest to keep up with the hormones a few more years.
So I wanted to thank you for being your strange self. Your production values and costuming are killer and you seem to be having a really good time doing your thing and being yourself. Which brings me joy, because one of my younger sisters is in the middle of transitioning and it's really nice to see someone just having that as part of their identity and being a successful but still eccentric human being. My sister's got some issues and I worry about her finding her stride in the world, I'm concerned that part of her thinks that once she becomes a WOMAN (heavenly chorus and lightning bolts) she'll feel normal and all the things that make life difficult will melt away. And I think it will help her feel more herself, but chasing normal is a farce. This might sound like a backhanded compliment but it helps knowing your kind of weirdness is out there, because you're eccentric in a creative way and I can point to you and people like you when my sister doesn't think the world has a place for people like her and say "Look at these people, they are killing it, they are happy, they exist, there's space for you in the world!" So thanks for that. As for Peterson; I can't speak to any of his other stances, I haven't really been keeping up with what Peterson's been up to, but I was always under the impression that the original complaint about the Pronoun law was that people were being sort of bludgeoned for things they hadn't said rather than things they had and there was a lot of pressure from the university administration to adhere to these new rules before it even became a law or face job loss. As I recall he was hugely (justifiably or not) concerned about the way the law was written making it precedent for essentially compelling certain kinds of speech. Not that he had a problem with using certain pronouns. Though I do recall he found it perplexing the sheer multitude of terms that were listed and how many designations (of note were the many "animal-kin" designations) were given the same weight as those we've become (or are becoming) accustomed to. I didn't really have a problem with that stance, I think it's way easier to tell people they can't say discriminatory things in a professional setting than it is to tell people they have to use certain terms or risk being penalized. And I can see his point in being opposed to that tactic in enforcing anti hate laws. Of course the law also essentially just updated some aspects of the Canadian criminal and human rights codes to account for gender identity and expression (and catch up to some of the provinces in doing so) which was good so he might have been making a big todo because his bosses were being really pushy and he's now become a celebrity over what amounts to a workplace disagreement. Which would be hilarious if it didn't cause so many people so much grief.
Watching this from the other side of the political isle, I have to admit the video is hilarious. So, let me preface this by saying that I do not consider myself a Peterson fan, though I share some of his views. That being said, the argument presented here is sound, but, ironically, like the Cathy Newman lobster debacle, it only chips away at the surface, targeting his phraseology and formulations instead of the substance of his claims. Yes, ''postmodern neo-marxism'' is a nonsensical term. And, yes, Peterson is only using it to avoid the extremist baggage that goes with ''cultural marxism''. However, the fact that some leftist academics (Herbert Marcuse in particular comes to mind) actually attempted to push socialism through culture rather than economics. Now, this isn't an assumption, or a conspiracy theory, as Marcuse openly discusses these things. For example, in ''Repressive Tolerance'', he argues for the complete abolition of freedom of expression for right wing ideas (all of them, not just the extremist ones like fascism). In "One-Dimensional Man'', he claims that the workers have become ''too integrated'' in capitalism, having lost their ''revolutionary potential''; that, instead, radical intellectuals should create a revolutionary vanguard by rallying the ''socially marginalized'' (women, racial and religious minorities, LGTB folks). So, when you take this ideological platform into account from a theoretical standpoint and compare it to what is going on in American and Canadian college campuses in practice, can you truly see no connection?
This is a great video with some great points and I wish I could focus on them more but I’m vexed and haunted by the JP mannequin
This video has done the best job so far that I have seen of pointing out how utterly AVERAGE Peterson's intellect is. Scratch a bit and there's literally NOTHING interesting there.
Here's why pronouns can fuck off. I got a million labels and gender fluid blah blah neo faggot isn't something I need. I've been DJing for 10 years and I don't like it when people say I'm a DJ because it describes a tiny fraction of who I am. People are too shallow by and large not to just default to their fuckwit preconceptions about whatever group you're described as. I don't want or need a pronoun but now I fucking have one and frankly I'm not tolerating that bullshit. I don't care what category I fall into. I'm very poor and I already have to fight stigmatising categories. I don't need another. Seriously, fuck off. Pronouns are fucking dumb. How you got time to get invested in that bullshit? Like dude, I think that's privilege and good for you for having it but miss me with that shit.
12:02 no Zarathustra’s Serpent?! I’m incensed!!
I hope Jordan Peterson watches this. It will make him so uncomfortable.
You are chaos, he is order. You are a cute couple.
My boner is incredibly confused right now...
"you're saying we should model our society.... around lobsters"
omfg daddy Peterson!!!!
Out of all politic channel Contra has the highest production quality
So good
i loke your definition of ironism
I never thought one needs to read that many books to understand the breath of Western philosophy and you went an extra mile to somehow read the Map of Meaning. And I didn’t know there is a fight within the left. I thought the left were all are united. Marx vs. identity vs postmodern!! Worst team up ever. Well, I felt like I need to donate to your pateron for reading all those books... I fell away from Jordan when he was not clear on his beliefs against Harris. I guess there are infighting within the right too. I thought you were going to talk about C-16 but surprise that you went for his belief system. I appreciate your help. I learned something even though the solution is not in sight. I just know what it is not. The left has to figure out what they want to be: Marx, postmodern or identity or something else and nothing else.
Alright. You got this unapologetic JBP lover to subscribe. If only to reimagine the bathroom scene as a self-insert fanfic.
I see PM-NM as a catch-all for people possessed with intentions that are primarily destructive of culture--folks who disregard Sturgeon's Law that ninety percent of everything is crap and are perfectly happy doing away with every hard-won and time-tested notion that makes people unlike them happy--heroism, success, tradition, security, merit, artistic beauty, etc. Whether the PM and NM are mutually contradictory doesn't matter; only the goal matters. The implication, unwittingly shared by George Orwell, is that those who fall under that tent--the whole ideological Left, as you pointed out--are driven by jealousy and resentment while also lacking any consideration of one's own role in their state in life. Peterson champions responsibility, which is so often missing from the modern discussion of what to do about social problems--but I'll concede that it certainly isn't the whole picture and that historical oppression exists and needs to be considered accurately.
You're amazing
This channel is fantastic! Contra has set the bar on what to be if you're an SJW type person. Funny, insightful, intelligent, intellectual, and did I say funny? Good stuff.
I don't agree with most of what she says but I will agree that if more SJWs were like her and actually had conversations with those they disagree with, it would be more productive.
I call her Miss Peterson. She said that shouldn't be a problem.?.
So within two minutes of your video you say you're not into reason and truth? Hmmmmmm..... You're an idiot and I'm already done listening to what you have to say.
Yeah, you're welcome. If you didn't turn it off at "reason and truth aren't really things I'm 'into'" then you're likely as confused as this creature in the dress.
thanks for the input on the entire video you didn't watch? lmao
That Sargon self-pwn tho... Michel Faux-Coo
This was the last place I'd think I'd find a solid/well-thought argument counter to someone like JP. And I actually like/sort of follow the guy! Good stuff ContraPoints. Earned that subscribble,
Holy shit you're make up is so amazing in this video!!
Gotta get me that bisexual manicure... BUT HOW WILL I PLAY MY GUITAR???
We must defend post modernity against the neo over intellectualism of SJW´s like Peterson.
This was a great analysis. Not only was it informative, but it was amusing, too. Regarding "PoMo Neo-Marxism vs. The West" I think you missed the mark a bit. When people talk about "The West" they talk about the ideas that they value, given them by their ancestors. Free Market, and Free Speech the most important of those, I might say. These values are DEFINITELY under attack. I think it's more complicated than just "Neo-Marxists did it!" But Marxist thinking and Critical Theory are definitely elements at play.
Comrade Contra A.K.A. La Contra is at it again!
I can't watch your videos. You look too damn good.
spot on
David Brooks called him, queue hysterical laughter.
Damn. That was beautiful.
First, to get things straight. Are you really suggesting that Communists (academic or otherwise) actually weren't plotting to destroy the West? I mean, does the Cold War mean nothing? I suppose you could argue that its all the West's fault that we couldn't let the Communists live their peaceful existence, but for some reason I don't think that's a complete story. Sorry if that seems like a strawman, but I just genuinely don't see how you can possibly think that Communists weren't trying to destroy the West. It isn't like the Soviet Union actually thought that it could coexist peacefully with nations with "free markets." I just don't understand why thinking that Communists have been (are) trying to destroy the West makes you a fascist/nazi. I would go into how terrible the DPRK is (or how bad the USSR was), but I'm sure that will be met with 95 theses against the West. Look, I agree that talking about "Postmodern neoMarxism" is inflammatory, but do you think you're not being inflammatory by suggesting that Peterson is employing "fascist" tactics? Its hard to know where to go from there. As usual, you enlist the typical "Postmodernism is opposed to Marxism" and vice versa sort of argument. This is true, but only to a point. The sad thing is that I think you're actually aware of this. For example, its not like the Postmodernists like the current status quo, and you're absolutely correct that they just want to "deconstruct" everything. You also admit that they just see shifting terminology/vocabulary as a shift in power. So from that it makes complete sense why Postmodernists would be (neo? whatever the hell this prefix means)Marxists, at least in the sense that its just a tool to cause chaos (i.e. deconstruct what we "think" we know). That doesn't mean that Postmodernists would like marxism, but instead that they see Marxism as a tool. So if you were going to accuse Peterson of anything here, I would actually argue that his most damning criticism is that he's actually a bit of a postmodernist himself. I actually think that's true, and I hope one day to ask him about it. Also, I find it highly interesting about the "sarcastic" conversation. Was it sarcastic because you were actually admitting that progressive politics takes the place of "purpose" in people's lives? Watching your videos, I really think that your "progressive politics" is really important to you, and it drives you to act. I don't know, it really sounded to me that you are reinforcing Peterson's point here. You can sit there and say that you don't think your life has any purpose, but you're certainly not acting that way. If you only did youtube videos for the reasons that you said, you wouldn't be exclusively making political videos. By the way, are you really suggesting that transgenderism isn't about "deconstructing" gender norms? Is it really that much of a stretch to suggest that "you can become the opposite gender" is attacking how we understand gender? I'm really confused about your question, because its almost like you don't listen to yourself speak. You have an entire channel about this sort of thing. As to the "abolition of hierarchies," I simply don't believe this statement. Its right here in the communist manifesto: "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." Now, you might argue that they'll set up "new" social conditions, but a) why on earth would those be any better? and b) if you've thrown out all social conditions, then you have no social conditions to create. You can't just make social conditions out of nothing. I really think, quite literally, at least for Marx, his end goal was some sort of communal anarchy absent power. The way he talks about people who aren't on board with communism, for example, is almost like they're an ancient people. Its almost like he thinks that the communist is "enlightened" (which makes sense, because he's working from the Hegelian Dialectic) and the people who don't get it will wither and die, leaving only like minded spartan people minus the spartan spirit. But maybe you're right. Maybe anarchy does mean that there is a rule. Kinda goes against the name, but ohwell. Honestly, I kinda hesitate to even post this. It seems like, to me, that you haven't even tried to engage with these ideas. I will agree that Jordan Peterson is just like yo, but on the other side. He's certainly a political figure. He's certainly says controversial and interesting points of thought. However, I kinda get the sense that you're not very self aware about what you are. I kinda get the sense that you think that you're actually not trying to do the things JP is saying tha you are, when--especially in this video--you do them over and over all the while denying that you do those things. In most of your videos, I would have taken that comment about Freud to be a joke, for example; but in this video (especially the bathtub dialogue) you seem to deny that you want to, say undermine gender norms ALL THE WHILE BEING A WOMAN WHO WAS ONCE A MAN. How can you possibly sit there and say with a straight face that you aren't interested in destroying the current cultural values? I guess you do that by just throwing your hands up in the air saying "what are the current cultural values anyway?" To which I say, bullshit. You act on values, I act on values. Everyone acts on values. To borrow a phrase from Nagel "you don't have to know the origins of the universe to know you want an asprin when you have a headache." This video is just really frustrating to me, because I get the sense that you're actually really angry about all this. It seems to me that you're so angry that you've decided to block out what you really think about this only to hide in epistemic skepticism so you don't have to say what you really think. I simply don't believe that you've shared your actual opinions here. The reason being is that even the videos that I disagree with vehemently are delightfully provocative. But here, I'm just left thinking what the hell you are actually trying to say.
Knocked it out of the park, great job!! ...and you didn't even dig into the tastiest lobster claw of all: JP's Christian apologetics; wherein the postmodernist hater deconstructs the concepts of truth and objectivity on a subatomic level.
Non postmodern feminists can suck my queer penis
well done Main point: Marxism— grand narrative post modernism— rejects marxism in many ways and grand narratives in general
Im a big fan of Petersons , But I think I found the devil to sit on my left shoulder. Subscribed.
was that a weed plant
This is the best YouTube video ever
I have learned alot from JP and alot from ContraPoints! Tis possible to do both my friends. Most important lesson I have taken from JP, do not give in to the negative aspects of Tribalism that exudes from the extreme right and left, be your own person. Take responsibility so you can make your life and the lives of the people around you better. Make your self strong so you can lend that strength to others. Peace and Love good people.
26:10 Fucking awesome reference!
very well made!~
I don't think you tackled the topic well enough.
as soon as she snorted her pinky I subscribed
D A D D Y
I'm so happy you have made this video response. I saw JP's BigThink video and I agree, he's an articulate man who denounces white supremacy, but he's got some issues in his arguments, and I love seeing you lecture about him!
I UNDERSTOOD THE PINK FLAMINGOS REF
This was a very informative and entertaining video. Thank you
Splendid vid! Thanks yo
My purpose (as a Discordian) Is to weaken and disorder all forms of order. Stronger Orders make for stronger disorderers.
love how you structured your video. Very cool.
I stumbled upon this video. It’s hilarious and so well done. I saw a video of him saying he wouldn’t support gay marriage if it were supported by Neo-Marxist. Like I’m sure gay couple have a picture of Marx next to their pictures of Judy Garland. But yeah, it’s okay to deny human rights solely based on his personal dislike for support from a small segment of society. How prevalent does Peterson think Neo-Marxism is today?I know plenty of conservatives but not one Marxist! This is just a straw man in order to give his ideas a sense of immediacy.
Watch one video on anime traps and suddenly Facebook starts recommending me shitty leftist propaganda...
Any summary of Peterson's work that does not address: the Perato distribution, evolutionary pragmatism, and a biological model for the emergence of ethics is an oversimplification. A straw man. I think you know that. I think your deliberately avoiding these things. The left will never properly address Peterson's criticisms until they start engaging honestly with his arguments instead of trying to generate excuses to dismiss him. You came closer than most. I like watching your videos but, I wish they were as insightful as they are entertaining. Also I would like to see you address the work of Steven Hicks. I think that might make Peterson's "postmodern neo Marxism" look like less of a "cluster fuck".
Very good video. I haven't found many entertaining and intellectually stimulating leftist (or rather, not right-leaning) channels. Good points are made. Easy to sit down and watch and stay focused.
I just can't listen to your voice.
Why are your videos so scary
Wow! This is incredibly hilarious, creative, insightful. Where have you been all my life, ContraPoints!?
It wasn't BBC interview
This video was amazing. Also, in the car today, I was singing "Lobster Queen" but to the tune of "Dancing Queen by ABBA lmao.
You aren’t interested in reason? How are we supposed to have a rational conversation if you aren’t interested in reason?
Is homie here supposed to be discrediting JBP?
I really enjoyed that. I lack much training in philosophy and Western culture because I got an engineering degree, which doesn't make you take much of those types of subjects, but JPs calling identity politics neo-Marxism made no sense to me, so I've been watching things by and about JP for awhile to try to understand better, and this one is Gold.
Big JBP fan, the bathtub scene was my favorite part.
Would you ever speak/debate with him? It would be fantastic! I think the left needs someone that can have dialogue with him and I think you're a great and I think your criticisms are fair for sure. Just stumbled across your channel, subbed!
first thing you said about Peterson was a strawman. video over
You got some of the best political content on YouTube but legit all your jokes are about gender and sexuality
I've been subbed to you for years, and I have to admit I haven't really been watching the last year or so but damn! You've really stepped up your game. Well done!
I love all free expression unless it expresses distaste of my own expression... Believe me, that makes perfect sense. Now enjoy this video of my lies while I pretend my body didn't naturally produce a male genitalia. It's ok because this is my expression. Just remember that if you don't like my expression your expressionary reaction is the problem and allows me to belittle your expression en masse. Don't mind that less than 0.0001% of Earth's total population is transgendered, it's most certainly normal enough to be considered natural. This is art, not delusion. You are rude and bigoted if you disagree...
Screen captured in case you delete for further ridicule...
Something something Kermit joke
Postmodernist points are being used as an (illogical) excuse for Marxism, the people who are doing so are contradicting themselves and I believe that's the point. They say, you can't possibly know the truth while simultaneously saying the 'oppressed' or 'harassed' person is right. Yes, postmodern Neo-Marxism is an illogical name for an illogical group.
Omg I love this channel now!
Fuck off
This is a deeply disturbing display of borderline personality disorder.
You’re so weird, I think I’m in love with you
Actually this was too weird
I disturbingly liked your video (mostly because of the sex-doll), even as a self-reportedly Peterson-fan, but I would like to hear your thoughts on this; it seems most of the disagreements/polarization is against the extremes of the opposite position. For instance; Marxism isn't only defined by it's grand narrative that postmodernism denies. It's also defined by seeing a power-struggle as classification between groups, which is a postmodern (at least today) concept. And while postmodernism asks legitimate questions about common sense/the grand narrative, it's also provided answers with a certainty the theory itself disavows. Perhaps you'd be willing to consider this article and the ones it links to: https://areomagazine.com/2018/04/28/skepticism-is-necessary-in-our-post-truth-age-postmodernism-is-not/
Goddamn if you're not sexy as hell
Liked for you putting 2:42 together. High-quality video shitposting.
I don't think you understood his points about hierarchies. Hes not justifying or defending them, he wants ppl to understand them better - to stop blaming capitalism or the patriarchy for the negative effects of a natural dynamic which is 3.5 billion year old.
Cultural Marxism isn't a conspiracy theory, its reality: https://youtu.be/uP1XOeW2g0Y
The only reason why this moron got "popular" was due to his misrepresentation of history and Bill C-16. his debate with Matt dillahunty really shows his stupidity
Do you think Peterson wants his 12 rules to be enshrined in law? You compare Peterson writing a book of guidelines with changing the actual law in Canada to compel people to use "trans" people's pronouns. Do you see the difference between writing a book of ideas that people can use or not use at their discretion vs making laws that compel speech? Do you really not see the connections between neo-Marxists, HR depts, feminists, SJWS, postmodernists, etc? All advocate that there are no differences between sexes or races, and that equality must be enforced by a government. They say both that everyone is equal, but that diversity is good. You say Peterson is contradicting himself in his attacks on these disparate groups, but the contradictions are within the individual ideologies themselves. Why do you act like women should be "equally" represented in government positions? What if fewer women want those jobs? What if fewer women are competent enough to fill those positions? You say Marxism is at odds with postmodernism, but Peterson talks about neo-Marxists, who he says have given up on the class struggle and switched the debate to over your beloved "oppressed people." You exemplify this by bringing up "disadvantaged people" constantly and talking about hierarchies of race, gender and economics. What are the hierarchies of race and gender? Like what does that mean? How are those relevant to any Western nation where equality under the law is ubiquitous? Or do you, like the neo-Marxists and SJWs, want an equal outcome for every race and gender? And you want to abolish the hierarchy of "economics?" What does that mean? How is that not exactly what Peterson is talking about? A hierarchy where the more competent rise to be more economically successful is inevitable unless you have a neo-Marxist totalitarian state which prevents the rise of the competent. Requesting someone use a pronoun can be seen as individualist - having the government compel people to use whatever pronoun you choose or make up out of thin air, is not individualist and is totalitarian.
we're breaking the lobster ceiling
You missed the neo in the Marxism. It helps bring it together.
ContraPoints vs JBP debate/interview/talk. Do it. Peterson constantly complains that left doesn't invite him. I trust ContraPoints to handle it much better than Ms. Newman.
But also like why do we have to live under the impression that life is suffering in the first place? I feel like in order to better live a life when discussing philosophy by not starting with the given being that suffering is the default people would be better off. And I’ve been diagnosed with major depression so like... yeah I don’t know.
Can we talk about Pepe Silvia?! I'm dyin' to talk about Pepe Silvia!
Lol jerking off and taking dirty bong rips to this. Looks like i found my trap anime waifu. Imma do a cum tribute to lobster bae now hit me up on twitch
These comments shitting on Peterson are embarrassing...
This was hilarious, well done.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The insight is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the degeneration of western civilization most of the jokes will go over a typical recipiants head. There's also Jordan's chauvnistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal PhIloSoPhY draws exclusively from psychology literature, Carl Jung for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ramlbings, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CULTURAL MARXISM. As a consequence, people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the self-help in Jordan's existential catchphrase "Clean Your Room!" which itself is a cryptic reference to Molyneux's epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those post-modern simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Petersons genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them.
The biological differences between men and women mean we shouldn't expect 50/50 numbers across the board. So when men are more likely to die at work, and women are underrepresented at the extremes of certain fields, we can't infer sexism. The conversation doesn't have to end there though: is there any way to improve the process for sexual crimes which disproportionately affect women (except in the US if you count prison rape)? Should women get lighter sentences for the same crimes and win custody of children more often in divorce? What percentage of female engineers and politicians should we even be aiming for? I don't think JP is shutting down those conversations, and I know that the right-wing position isn't 'you don't deserve justice and equality'. Those are nebulous terms, we just have different definitions. Great video Contra, really made me examine my ideas as usual. You're looking really great, I hope the transition is working out for you
You’re my new fav whatever this is.
As someone who has been accused of being a Petersen fanboy for calling out certain left-leaning youtubers or media outlets for making trash arguments and strawmanning against Petersen, thank you so much for making this video. It is intelligent, well-researched, organized, and really funny. But what's really bothering me is that it isn't people like you who are challenging Petersen in interviews. Instead it's big corporate or govt-funded media like Channel 4, NBC, and Australia's 60 minutes who completely malign him, selectively edit his interviews, and strawman his arguments, while at the same time completely failing to engage and confront his viewpoint in an intelligent way. And I think that's why your average "Petersen fanboy" can be resistant to criticism against him, because they only see it in the form of the dishonesty that always comes from corporate media...who I don't think are friends to the real progressive left either.
Kizzume Fowler sent me
Everything about this video is amazing. How had I not heard of you until now!?!???
I'm a huge fan of dr. Peterson. he's helped me a lot. This is the first coherent argument I've heard against him. I agree with some of the stuff you said and I disagree with most of it. You gave me a lot to think about and for that I thank you.
I was genuinely impressed until you started cutting clips of him speaking down to 3 to 5 words at a time in an effort to misrepresent his point of view. Regardless, it is very refreshing to see an outspoken liberal making a logical and well thought out argument, and doing the research to back it up. The norm today it seems is to go straight for character assassination, and your typical "racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot" buzz word basket of deplorables rant. You seem like the type of person that you could debate with and come out learning some new things and respectfully disagreeing on others (and probably have a few good laughs). Respect.
Fair enough ContraPoints, you kept me watching for the whole 28 minutes. Fantastic and reasonable response to Peterson and for the first time in what seems like a long time, I have changed my view on something. And I'm a stubborn narcissist at the best of times so that means something
Great video as usual Nat :3
Tranny sounds like he has swallowed an unfinished sentence
Well, I stopped watching after you called it a BBC interview. Basic fact checking out of the window, yeah? Not unlike Mr. Peterson, trololo.
Arguably, you make the best content on this godforsaken site.
hold on I think you are philosophically lazy. The problem with Jordan Peterson is not what he says is not true. There are merits to his work that’s why a guy like me likes him indeed. His problems are his definitions of true and his definitions of religiosity. But Let’s take a look at what he actually says about god for example. He says one’s highest value in their life is their god. On the surface, it seems it is Nothing to do With a god as we Know it but Then he continues to attach this to archetypes And evolution and collective subconscious and say any values adopted by the masses will act as a superorganism( a god ) or there is this subjective allegorical superorganism that inhabits all humans or living beings ( a god). sometimes he extends this superorganism or spirit and connects this to personified judgmental future. That’s why he quotes Jung a lot “ people don’t have ideas, ideas have people” There are problems With these claims but let's continue assuming there are archetypes and supper organism, he connects these values to a metaphorical realm which is in fact in his mind is allegorical "realm of potentials" "more real than real". he believes that these values exist in a realm independence of reality. and conscious beings bring these value to reality by speaking the truth or lies or acting out. “He says for example world is not made of matter it is made of what matters “ With these definitions yes we all believe in a god. And this god, in fact, has some sort of self -awareness because we humans claim that we are self-conscious For example. His says ” rage hunger ..or even sex-drive is a god ” now let's talk about flaws in his views; 1. why "this god" should be Christian god? (flawed) 2. He connects this highest value or god or superorganism to meanings and claims there is this meaning realm Which is an allegory realm that exists beyond reality. he tries to prove this allegorical realm with " mushrooms LSD or existence of mystical experience". (flawed) 3. His grand narrative, in fact, coherent and all-encompassing "true" but it is totalitarian in nature so assuming he is correct. there is no need for a new story or narrative since we already figured it out in biblical stories. (flawed)
It is a pretty good video. However failure to recognise however unlikely postmodernist neo-marxist alliance is just lack of observation. Yes they might be disagreeing and have a lot of differences but a common arch enemy is very uniting.
That wasn't the BBC... it was channel 4.
I was disappointed by this. Peterson is much more of a straightforward fraud than contrapoints implies in this video. He's essentially a fake academic: he has no formal credentials in politics at beyond undergraduate level and little prior to that. His lectures are absolutely terrible conspiracy theory horseshit with no sourcing: he's like a pretentious Alex Jones. I'm guessing contrapoints was using socratic yes-yes method to pull over Peterson's fans, but I felt a tougher line would have been more appropriate with someone who is up there with lizards-are-our-masters lunatics.
Progressivism is cancer
By calling someone a racist, and then immediately saying that person is Scottish as its a negative- is racist.... hahahahaha, this is ridiculous. I'm glad I watched this video with an open mind, because the contradictions and haphazard, shallow analysis of philosophy make this a hilarious parody of intellectualism (typical modern day leftism).
Pathetic view numbers, you wouldn't even be worth Jordan Peterson's time to debate.
peterson fan here. thanks for taking the subject seriously and summing up all the parts of daddy peterson i'm _not_ so keen on, it really helps. i've been recommended your channel before but never clicked a video as i was too afraid you'd be not-so-good and put me off the left even more (i'm originally a leftist but disillusioned) so i'm happy to discover you're actually both sane and hilarious, haha, definitely subbing to get a leftist voice of reason in my life as well.
I'm a big fan of Professor Peterson, really enjoyed this video. It can be difficult to find critical responses to him that are.. well.. reasonable. I'm wary of any one-sided influence, so do really appreciate having a counter perspective on things. I think some of what you said has been explained to some extent by Peterson himself, notably the apparent rift between post-modernism and marxism. You made good points without attempts at misrepresenting JBP, so again, much appreciated from this Peterson follower. Ty.
Well, the discrepancy between JP's views on the modern left, the activists, his definition of postmodern neo-marxism and all that and the reality of the situation isn't nearly as wide as you make it seem, in my experience. Also, I was under the impression that at the core of *that* postmodern neo-marxism were the collectivist ideas that place emphasis on group identity at the expense of individual identiy, which is what he primarily advocates against. Many popular views nowadays seem to portray this exact ideological consideration of the world, which resembles Marxism in the sense that it always attempts to put forth a narrative of "X group vs Y group", and in the years prior to Jordan's ascension into Daddy-hood such views dominated both the political discussion and, perforce, the corporate policies of most major businessess, as well as legislation, as seen with Canada's infamous bill C-16. Jordan's popularity, and the reasonable, well-adjusted, non-hysterical or toxic part of his following (which is a far greater percentage than the media would have you think, again in my experience) is merely the due kickback to this global ideological trend. I can't make the claim that every proponent of *these particular* leftist views is consciously out to establish an authoritarian communist dystopia, but to my understanding, neither does Jordan. Power is not typically the individual activist's motivation, but rather the inadvertent yet inevitable conclusion of their kind and altruistic (at face value) philosophy should it come to prevail, as was observed all throughout the 20th century. Those are my interpretations of JP's arguments, and based on those, I do very much support what he has to say. I'm not up to speed with the literature on political theories, of course, so I can't comment on the accuracy of his terms, but on a practical level I can recognize the issues he points to as real and see the sense and utility in most of the solutions he proposes, or at the very least appreciate the existing need for such solutions to be found, which itself goes a long way. I really, really enjoyed this video, and am relieved to see that the mindless JP horde (which is sadly very much a real thing, if all these Peterson DESTROYS!!!1!!11!1 compilations here on YouTube are anything to go by) has not found its way to your comment section, at least not as of yet. You are massively charismatic, your video formula is hilarious and, most importantly, you stand as a testament to how a trans person can be this "overwhelmingly" queer, own it fully, and at their core remain decent and pleasant to watch and interact with; far more so than those aforementioned, insufferable horde numbskulls.
compound politics hurt my brains.
Have a debate with Jordan Peterson!!!
"So much for the tolerant Jacobins." I freagging died.
Aren't lobsters solitary creatures? Is there a lobster hierarchy at all?
Its a channel 4 interview not a BBC interview. Great vid tho.
A lot of his ideals really do seem to be a Trojan horse to shit on minorities. But he's so sneaky about it that if you try to call him out on it, he can try to portray you as a shrieking irrational SJW. A lot of fascist provocateurs love to troll minorities into getting heated, upset, and defending themselves - then pouncing on them for getting too heated. It's super frustrating.
Hey Natalie, I love your videos! Any change you could do a video about Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens?
What is gender? No self-proclaimed progressive has ever managed to provide me with a coherent, usable definition. If no-one can demonstrate that 'transgenderism' is a meaningful concept, then treating 'transgendered' people (that's the correct conjugation) differently under the law is obviously a terrible idea. Yes, gender eccentrics ought not to be persecuted for their differences, but no, that absolutely should not mean that a person gets to arbitrarily decide which pronouns others use to refer to him. Your ridiculously antiscientific narrative on gender is not helping said eccentrics.
While I could easily define 'psychological projection' and your mistyped version thereof is obviously meaningless, that is a complete red herring and is entirely irrelevant to this argument. You have failed to defend your ridiculously antiscientific ideas and you have conceded. Fuck off and learn to think, you arrogant retard.
John Martin - OK, my turn now. I challenge you to find a 'usable'* definition for *psychological-projection*. If you can, I will choose not to accept/understand it, but will also (arrogantly) claim that you don't understand it. *'usable' as in 'John Martin agrees with it'. At which point ... there is no point.
And no, I do not commit the strawman fallacy. You are unbelievably arrogant and pathetically dim.
I read it understood it. You did not. You've failed to come up with any semblance of a reasonable definition of 'gender' which is not either a synonym for 'biological sex' or the grammatical construct attached thereto. Colour me unsurprised.
John Martin wow, you done gone went from cheeky minx to impossible dullard in one swift straw-man. Please stand up straight. Now click the Oxford Dictionary link I gave you, and then read out to the class the definition of the noun 'gender'
That's the definition of 'gender', yes: a synonym for 'biological sex' and also the attached grammatical construct. But this is not how 'progressives' such as ContraPoints use the term and by this coherent definition, transgenderism is logically impossible. The 'broader range of identities' part is the idiotic part that no-one has managed to properly define. Glad I could explain this to you in simple terms.
John Martin, you cheeky little minx. Do you need 'progressives' to help you use a dictionary or medical textbook? Gender: usage - The word gender has been used since the 14th century as a grammatical term, referring to classes of noun designated as masculine, feminine, or neuter in some languages. The sense denoting biological sex has also been used since the 14th century, but this did not become common until the mid 20th century. Although the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they have slightly different connotations; sex tends to refer to biological differences, while gender more often refers to cultural and social differences and sometimes encompasses a broader range of identities than the binary of male and female. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
please help me I'm new here But I cannot unsee it
i am. so, so excited to watch this.
is this a girl? or a girlguy? or guy? do y'all know?
Yeah, that is the most important question to be asked after watching this video. I am glad you did not lose sight of what is truly important.
As a eastern european commie lesbian, im not a fan of JP and its really hard to describe why you don't like someone. I don't like his weird mild inconcrete answers. Or the fact that he is rich (don't trust rich people, they fucked someone over to get there). Or the fact that he has narrow set of western values. I don't know he just gives of inflexible middle aged parent vibe.
In my opinion, this is the best video I've seen on these subjects in years.
I really appreciate how well studied you are for this. That in tandem with the level of editing and setup shows how hard you work and i respect that like crazy. I think you may have simplified and in so doing, misrepresented SOME of what Peterson has said, especially his confrontation of Bill C-16. He just said he refused to use compelled speech when it's being enforced by a government but if a student personally asked him then he wouldn't hav e a problem with it. I don't know if he was being honest or not but he seemed candid. Either way, great video. Props
(I'm a bad and shallow person and am only commenting to tell you how pretty you are
https://youtu.be/NM-JDHL3f0Q
20:06 "Opposing the social advancement of disadvantaged groups..." Right there, that's the problem many rational thinkers has with the left. That statement alone when framed as it usually is... Advancement vs who? Often the answer is "Against privileged or non disadvantaged groups." 1. You generalize and discriminate to apparently "stop" generalizing and discriminating. 2. You negate any moral authority you had by committing the same act you rail against. (1) How do you know a group is disadvantaged, or one is advantaged? You have to make a sweeping generalizations. Remember *WHY* racism was bad in the first place? People looked at someone, made a broad sweeping generalization about who they were, and acted as if they "knew" about them enough to act on this person they don't personally know at all. (2) You act on this generalized "moral authority", which is racist, sexist or (pick another poison) and because that group in the past committed (again you are making the same mistake) you are right to enact laws, treat them badly, ruin their lives, etc. So if you were "right" to generalize this group in the first place for whatever reasons you had, and then act on it. Then that group who you are acting on, who did the SAME thing with a different shade was acting correctly as well. You NEGATE your own ideal. Welcome to the idiotic cycle of violence. It's a cycle of hypocrisy. To say you need to *ADVANCE* a generalized group of people you consider disadvantaged means you are generalizing like all the racists do! It's not about making anyone "invisible", it's about making the idea that you KNOW all about someone based on a generalized group invisible or not exist. As it should be. People with on their bodies are always invisible and never talked about! It's not that they are invisible, it's that the aspect of them you are trying to highlight PALES in comparison to who they are as an individual person! There's a very good reason ad-hominem is a logical fallacy!
the difference between his 12 rules is that it's not gov. mandated speech, your being very disingenuous.
clean your room
Are you taking testosterone blockers and stradiol?
Yay for someone actually understanding postmodernism for fucking once!
Even though I would say that I generally believe/accept the mentality behind Peterson's teachings (I don't think that's the right word but you get the idea) I tend to find myself in a truly anarcho-libertarian state of mind. I hate government interference into people's lives in any way. And because of this, I think even as a fan one has to see the possibility of truly terrible people taking his words and ideas and perverting them for fascist goals. The flipside of that is that there are a lot of people "SJW's" who are very whiny and that doesn't seem to help the situation either. I guess this is just an example of a slippery slope, And I feel Peterson is more the top of a mountain which can easily slide left or right. I loved this video because it pointed out some obvious fallacies in his work, and even if I wouldn't personally call myself "left" I can easily agree with her points. Be kind to the people who you come in contact with, and respect them. I think this is one of the more thought-provoking videos I have seen in a while. Well done. Much Love!
Marxism is Jewish not Western
You are the fucking patriarchy dipshit. Fucking trannies are so God damn stupid.
You kind of look sexy as a girl. Good job weirdo
I think the attempt to combine post modernism and marxism is related to equating marxism and Leninism. Lenin kept using the term socialism but in reality it was communism and the united states played along at the time because workers having control wss just too naughty to be allowed.
I dont agree with everything you say but good christ this is funny shit
Marxism is workers control production, post modernism seems to be feels are more important than facts.
Neck beards = neards. "Nice neard bro"
Also there is no Carol in HR
Since when was BBC leftist?
Since anything left of Pinochet was declared communist by """""classical liberals"""""
I wish he would watch this.
why are you ceding so much ground to peterson. he's incredibly dumb
"unjust hierarchies" hjahahahahaha if theres a meritocracy you can keep fucking kicking and screaming saying its gender/sexuality/race/weh I couldn't sit through the video.
You realize Jordan Peterson is left-winged... right?
Abraham Lincoln not really. As religion often dictates what people shouldn't do according to moral principles which might impede on a person's liberty.
Religion isn't right-winged, Black. Conservatism/progressivism are both innate in liberalism. You have to be conservative on some issues & progressive on others.
Abraham Lincoln liberals are left winged but it's hard to call Peterson a left winger when he peddles religious conservatism in his lectures. Lol, also believes if you have some moral compass therefore you must be a Christian bullshit he pulled on matt dillahunty.
It's sad that you deny reality, Gage. It's almost as if you're stuck in 1800.
are you fucking joking lmao
So liberals are not left-winged to you. That makes you an extremist.
Abraham Lincoln lol, no.
I think JP is a post -modernist. And full of shit. Just like me. And a threat to progress. Unlike me.
Says corporate HR departments are Marxists, forgets about James Demore getting fired from google for daring to write a scientific paper.
I find myself intellectually turned on. I also find myself aesthetically turned on. Actually I think I'm just turned on. PS: I ship JP and you.
JP's course on personality is great. Maps of Meaning is pretty good. The best thing about it is that it introduced me to Jung, who led me to Richard Tarnas, Jean Gebser, Alfred Whitehead and John David Ebert, which I'd say is the best generalist intellectual on the internet, hands down. JP's politics? They're absolute trash. His whole diatribe against post-structuralism and marxism is taken from Stephen Hicks's book. Talk about being ideologically possessed. Great video! :-)
If being a daddy means I get to listen to Led Zeppelin the sign me up!
"Judeo-Christian" actually has Middle Eastern origins, while neo-Classicism was what inspired the founding fathers. The buildings of that time mimicked Greco Roman architecture and democracy, while not permitted for everyone, was from Athens, Greece. Humans are not lobsters. Even humoring him to discuss animal social behavior, why lobsters? Why not seahorses or corals? There are many different types of animals, with their own hierarchies (including those with alpha females). Years ago someone with religious right ideology argued "Even the birds know." It is fine to ask, "Know what? Which birds? Do you mean sex? So are we discussing hummingbirds, emperor penguins, or cardinals? Or something else?" Hummingbirds are like free love hippies, emperor penguins change partners each mating season, and cardinals remain with one partner for life. If he seems vague, is it so bad to ask specifics?
Wow this video was well done and quite hilarious. I haven't gotten your style up to this point, but now I do. You weren't intellectually dishonest, as you strived for. But I am certain that marxism and postmodernism are not mutually exclusive. You nail the description of postmodernism: an inability to to know what you know and a very reductionist and divisive approach to thinking. Peterson has clearly said before that postmodern neo-marxism is marxism with gender vs. gender and race vs. race instead of class vs. class. If you combine the two, you get a reductionist and relativist approach to race and gender; that it can be endlessly deconstructed and focuses on oppressor versus oppressed (ala Marxism). In short, the exact definition of intersectionality. Postmodern neo-marxism IS intersectionality.
Where's that white dress from? This video is perfection. Subscribed
Do Culture of Critique Next!
I've always been a huge Jordan Peterson fan. This is one of the first videos I've seen that actually brought up some valid criticisms of him. Especially without resorting to personal attacks or anything. It's nice to see people on both sides are still willing to have civil conversation about politics, or anything for that matter, as lately all I've seen are personal attacks. Although one thing that I didn't think really applied to JP here was the note about people requesting pronouns and its relationship to individual liberty. While "requesting" the use of the pronouns does not violate individual liberty, and could be seen as even promoting it, Peterson argued that the legal requirement of using these pronouns is against individual liberty. This "compelled speech" as he calls it was part of the Bill C16 that his grievances with gained him a majority of his initial popularity.
As a devout JBP fan, I can honestly say this is my new favorite youtube channel. Dragon slayed. Treasure found.
A great video. Your opinions on this topic feel fresh and real when compared to some other options on Peterson on both sides of the aisle. You really went down to the language and broke it down more than I personally and I think others care to do. I've agreed with Peterson on these subjects other than self help for a little while but I think that's because he sounded smart and I didn't really look into them. They just felt reasonable. Having real political opinions on things is hard and takes up more thought in the day than I care to give most of the time.
o look....another woman with an opinion.....how "revolutionary", darling.
There is a monumental difference between a voluntary acceptance of the idea's that Peterson puts forth, and having legislation force you to accept ideas, or even make you speak, in ways you find repugnant. This seems to be a distinction you don't see, or if you do, you don't address, why?
tf is this why is it recommended?
Ahh, my favorite YouTube tranny talking my favorite YouTube cultural critic!
The Enlightenment of the Buddha will lead us from capitalist oppression. The West must be quaking in their boots
Conservatism is reactionary... yeah no shit. What a pointless video. The fact that it's reactionary is literally in the name of the ideology.
I love you, you are beautiful. Keep up the amazing work.
mood
Excellent video je suis impressionné une vrai Georges Sand
I consider myself a fan of JP. I really enjoyed this video and will likely check out others. You gave me a lot to think about and I'll be sure to call more of what he said into question. His advice has improved my life recently. I think that's why criticizing him can make some more extreme people so defensive and rude. Keep up the great work and much love from the other side.
I am a big Peterson fan, and it is so refreshing to hear a well-thought and articulate critique on him. Great job!! In-depth research, fantastic explanations, very good arguments, and the bits of humor kept me quite entertained. ya fuckin nailed it!
This is ultimately a fairer look at Peterson than most lefties have given him, albeit a catty one. It’s a very low bar though. The “Cultural Marxism” point is based on a fallacy. If Hitler told me tomorrow that the sky was blue I wouldn’t disagree just to show my contempt. The truth or falsehood of a statement is always the important part. Peterson has not argued for a particularly organized conspiracy either, but that the bias of academia has produced this effect organically. Points taken on lefty infighting, but that doesn’t really militate against what he’s saying. Part of what he’s trying to avoid is the societal decay inherent in all that naval gazing and hair splitting. Regarding civil rights for LGTBQ++++++, he’s consistently advocated for equal rights but no special treatment, true to the “individualist” label he champions. Why don’t you see about getting him on? Maybe after his book tour when he has spare time again? Your points regarding sheep following Peterson due to inability to accept nihilism are interesting, I’m not sure if you’re trying to be edgy or serious. Many other thoughts but probably no one is going to read this anyway. Cheers.
Wtf someone making sense in a video essay I must make it become cancerous. H this comment
I love the proletariyacht
Wtf did I just watch? Lol. Well if you want individualism try changing your name. Everyone having their own personal pronoun makes the language confusing and frustrating.
Definitions as Peterson uses them: Post-modernism: infinite subjective interpretations of the world = we can’t know objective reality and there is no right and wrong. Western values, EG dominant Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian ethics are now passé at best, often viewed as flatly evil. Resulting values vacuum makes people look for meaning elsewhere. Neo-Marxism: Bedrock ethic is punch up. All humans are categorized roughly into oppressor and oppressed categories (collective identities), mapped onto race / gender / sexual orientation. The only moral good is to work towards equity, which mostly means everyone has equal resources = flatten the hierarchies.
How could someone possibly "disagree with everything" another person has to say? What does that even mean? Much of what ContraPoints has to say are simply facts expressed from a point if view. Is it the facts he's at odds with or the right of another person to their own perspective?
How dare you dissolve my unrealisticly cohesive world view with your awareness of dizzyingly varied perspectives. You biznitch!
The funniest woman in the left is a man LOL
When Contra mentioned Rorty I almost creamed my pants. I fucking love that neoprag sob.
As much as I like Peterson for some of his beliefs that I have found personally helpful, it's pretty clear that he's WAAAAAAAAAAY overrated. It's kind of dissapointing that he isn't more empathetic to leftist viewpoints given how astute and reasonable he otherwise seems to be. It's almost like he's bought into his court of sycophants and that thought makes me sad.
Unfortunately he panders to his audience for money. I remember once he completely destroyed the "men going their own way" movement as pathetic (which for most in their ranks, it certainly is). He got a backlash for that and then completely withdrew. Also he's a hypocrite for denouncing others as ideologues when he obviously has an ideology of his own that he peddles
Great love it! My only criticism... Please change your wallpaper
I don't agree with the vast majority of what you said here, but you're entertaining, bright and fair in your reasoning - subscribed.
great set design!
I don't know how you manage to get 160k views and not get swamped by Peterson acolytes downvoting it.
Checking the comment section they're being surprisingly reasonable compared to the other crowds Contra tackles. She even said on twitter that a lot of JP fans responded positively to the video! A lot of "I'm a JP fan but I enjoyed this and agree he might be overrated/wrong/too dismissive" or "I disagree with most of this but you seem like a rational person." Still another half of faux-eloquent transphobia and insults, though.
Thanks for your thought-provoking video. In the words of Jerri Blank, 'pee on me!' ...Errr... ummmm
Wtf did I just watch? Was it a comedy piece? If so good job cause not much of your arguments make any sense.
this is ahh.... weird!? You do realize the more people talk about him the more popular he gets.
The Cathy Newman interview was Channel 4, not BBC.
What an entertaining video! I was curious when I saw the title specifically on what topic you would critique JP. I find that he can speak for minutes on end without saying a thing. But it’s a testament to your argumentative rigor that you were able to deconstruct him so. Also, and this is totally off topic, but I am impressed by your video work flow. That lobster queen joke invoked the usage of the 18th century sexual deviant costume twenty minutes after it was first presented. It seems you either must switch in and out if these costumes constantly, or just plan your videos in their entirety, and film scenes non-chronologically,which will be woven throughout the video. Anyway, as always I had a good laugh, and learned something new. Thanks!
The one thing i noticed lately is how conservatives have been arguing againts materalism, hedonism and how money is making people evil and spoiled which ironically means they are arguing againts capitalism
Yeah, it's an issue with treating them as individual problems of flawed people instead of a product of vast, unchecked systems.
H'YUGE Jordan Peterson fan here. I've seen many videos of people trying to come with counter-arguments to JP, this is by far the best one. You pointed out some stuff I can't dispute. Good show.
Dem references.
Big JB fan, loved the video.
I'm a big Peterson fan and agree with most of his opinions, but your video was excellent and hilarious, well done!
ContraPoints is the best thing that happen to YT!
I really like Jordan Peterson!
I'm a big fan of Peterson's work, but I think it's important to have reasonable voices of criticism (such as yours here) to challenge his points. (almost didn't watch the vid, because the voice you put on in the first 40 seconds of the vid was so unpleasant to listen to)
This was pretty good, I could have missed it but I don't think when describing postmodern neo-marxism you actually explained NEO-marxism, like you explained Marxism and postmodernism and said there not compatible which is true but I don't think you touched on its neo iteration which is definitely more compatible with postmodernism in comparison to plain old Marxism, still I could be wrong, and just have missed it, and still it doesn't effect the video that much, and still, awesome video, subbed.
This channel is awesome
23:30 to 24:10, way to disprove your own point in 40 seconds or less, you idiot.
entertaining... yes shallow... yes but in all seriousness the lens with which you the content and the person is both skewed and clowdy... LET THEM EAT CAKE
I have just subscribed, thank you. Do not wear black face.
I like Jordan Peterson. But I must say that I actually enjoyed your video and you brought up some very good counter points. Would love to see a debate between you two.
When talking about what Jordan Peterson thinks you never once seem to think that you could be wrong and he could be right, because you hold fundamentally different ideas as true, so when he gives you nothing but true statements you assume he is being disingenuous or is implying something else, instead of taking his points at face value which is why he will always win in a debate with someone like you.. Neo marxist post modernism is any post modern thought built into the marxist framework of oppressor and oppressed. Oppression is alot more complicated than neo marxist post modernists think it is, including you. Oppression has a definition and it is alot more useful than the marxist definition that all neo moarxist post modernists use. Also identity politics is not SJW activism, it's any form of politics BASED ON IDENTITY, this includes fascism and political racism.
Just watch PSA sitch's vid on the cathy newman debate, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwbMdfdrIV8
Your consumption of the mutilated corpse of a holocaust victim for a cheap joke hurts your message a bit. I think I will just drop another friendly reminder that if you actually care about being opposed to institutionalized oppression you need to stop supporting the perpetual mass rape and murder of animals. I want to like your stuff, but it's hard for me to take seriously moral prescriptions from anyone who doesn't understand why needlessly stabbing an animal to death is wrong. You expect of others to do the right thing by changing their regressive habits, so lead by example and do the right thing yourself. ❤️
25:06 / 28:19 have no idea have transgender people requesting, my problems comes when i am demanded by law to call people certain things.
also women are completely fairly treated in western society if not treated better than average and are over represented in education. ever thought they could be under represented in government because the average differences between men and women mean that they are less inclined to seek out that type of occupation? not possible in your delusion huh? well at least she doesnt completely swear by some of the retardation on either side and it seems like she put effort into the video but "he should have been easier to read if he wanted to be read" is just like oh god really hes hard to read for you what the hell at least you put together a better video than most of the other stuff ive seen of people trying to engage and criticize jordans ideas and they need to be criticized and refined but maybe try again? be a little more intellectually honest this time and maybe read a book or two on economics? pretty please?
You don't like reason or truth... At least you're honest so I can avoid this trash.
you have a poor understanding at best of all the stuff you talked about in this video and even his opinions are misrepresented you should be more careful when trying to make a serious video. also the underlying idea that you think capitalism is still bad for society but you have nothing to compare it to that actually works like good like getting a job under capitalism? yeah if you choose a low demand topic of study sure you think it would be better if we were all just assigned and given jobs? so delusional and you had some reasonable criticisms aswell overall 3/10
the laughable description of identity politics is actually disgusting by the way that kind of disingenuous take makes you hard to take seriously at the start you say they didnt really engage his ideas and then you do the exact same and just give your half read opinion and misinterpretations sigh could have been so good.
Hmmm I probably don't agree with everything you say, but this is a really high quality commentary channel based on this video. The visuals, comedy, and research is all there. You seem to be a leftist who has their life together with the ability to use your brain too, so I might have to subscribe.
can you write a book on how i should live my life?
It's was on Channel 4 not the BBC
Man, the lobster fandom is really getting out of control, isn't it?
I hate you because i 've been meaning to make this video for almost a full year now and you beat me to it... although mine wont be so weird
35 years ago this man said this and they called him crazy. Sorelian revolutionary identity syndicalism ends bad. Xenoestrogens (EDCs) are killing the coral reef. https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4 https://youtu.be/LSz_nks0Yuk
Great video, Milady! C'est Magnifique!
Also no wonder the good Ol' Marquis de Sade got arrested! Won't be seeing him at the Parisian Salon this week... His ideas were absolutely astonishing!
14:06 you treat the topic of being a transgender female like it's a joke. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even take your fucking self seriously. Clown.
I love Dr.Peterson, and I'd love if he could see this video.
"Societal structures are natural" And being gay/lesbian is also natural, but naaaaaaaaah.
Good criticism, I always thought postmodernism and ID politics were contradictory and ppl believed them both. I didn't realize those are two different leftist groups. However I always thought by neo-Marxist Peterson and others mean the opressor v opressed mentality in general.
when did she start looking like a drag queen?
Wow I think I just fell in love with you.
as a bisexual I indeed agree "degeneracy" is the perfect word to describe me :>
"on the left, we tell people what not to do" which is still thinking that you can tell people what to do or how to think, or else they are inherently a bad person for disagreeing with any aspect of your worldview. the difference is, Jordan Peterson wouldn't call you a deplorable racist sexist bigot transphobic homophobe for not following his life advice. it is there to follow if you want. the left's advice for behavior and life is much less of a prescription like Dr Peterson, but more of a demand lest you want to be branded an evil reincarnation of Hitler.
he doesn't call you that just by simply not following his life advice. he calls you that if you genuinely are one of those people. such as the people who wrote and signed bill C-16 into law, for example
Right, he calls people "Neo Marxist Post Modernists that are destroying Western civilization." That's so much better.
Looks like this tranny needs to clean its room...
I've never been more jealous of a lifeless mannequin in my life.... Ehem! I mean, yeah. Great vid!
I’m a huge fan of Peterson’s lectures and his general advice for individuals but your video really helped address a lot of my questions about his political / ideological rants. I still see some of his ideas about “the left” having both Marxist and postmodern views but this video really cleared up a lot of my confusion on the topic... like you said, I think a lot of the confusion may come from the fact that a lot of the left are arguing amongst themselves, and from the outside it appears to be one collective.. by the way, this video was brilliantly put together, enlightening and fucking hilarious hilarious at times! Great job!
Hey you're not bad! Subscribed ;)
I needed a transgenre in my youtubers list quota...
Fuck you lobsters
Can you please stop using stigmatizing, homophobic and trans-phobic slurs like "degeneracy"? They're otherizing to people who happen to be GSRM, even when you put little hearts around them.
Can you please make a video exposing the OrlandoPulse as a propaganda-stunt? Like Sandyhoax & Parkland PsyOp. Thanks!
wtf is a lobster in this context
I am prone to agree that we shouldn't use "postmodern neo-Marxism" as a catch-all scare word, because Mage the Ascension was fucking awesome and if you disagree it's because you're Technocratic scum. But the division between the intersectional left (which is all about framing those identities you mention as unilaterally oppressed groups that you can stratify along the same lines as you would the bourgeois and the proletariat) and the gender-critical radfems (the ones you guys like to call TERFs) ought to be a clear sign of who is winning. Judith Butler would be an exemplar of the sort of person JP describes as a "postmodern neo-Marxist."
You purposefully miss his ultimate point about identity politics that is the categories in which group identities can be divided in to in the end are endless and the like the Marxists the followers of identity politics put group identity over individual rights and liberty. Also you try to paint his opposition too bill c-16 as trans-phobic where as just recently we have seen how problematic the bills language can be also that it can be used to silence debates and discussions about gender and maybe even race. Seeing as how leftists like to silence any discussion that doesn't support their talking points are you really surprised with the use of this bill in the Lindsy Shepard case. In the end what he is advocating is individual rights instead of group rights. Fair inequality is better than unfair equality.
25:04 made me laugh. You're "requesting" individual pronouns by trying to create legislation that infringes on the liberty of people who don't use your pronouns. Whether or not it constitutes "hate speech" to repeatedly misgender someone, there is certainly a case to be made that it constitutes harassment (at least under Bill C-16).
Probably because Capitalism isn't bad. Marxism is a fantasy.
Hey, you make couple of valid points. However, you missed some. One thing you never mentioned was how Jordan Peterson only cares about pronouns because the Canadian govt. want to make a law that forces people to call those like yourself who are transgender or otherwise their preferred pronouns. The govt. should not try to control speech in any way. Now he never mentioned taking human rights from transgenders. However, that’s what the left what it to seem like. There is a great amount of hypocrisy and hypersensitivity in the democratic side that is driving tree-hugging, freedom-loving hippies like myself who identified as liberal away. For one thing Feminism is supposed to be about womens’ rights. Yet, feminists also support Islam which is a mysogynistic and controlling ideology. If you don’t believe me look up rape gangs in Europe and then check out videos of Speakers’ Corner in England. Lauren Southern asked feminists if they preferred Islam or women’s rights. Only one was able to answer. The rest just acted like children. Liberlism is basically about control themselves. Antifa is a great example of the violence of the left along with the Black Lives Matter movement that promoted black supremacy instead. If any of these movements cared about equal rights they would defend the rights of western citizens despite skin color. Now there are more people of color becoming Republicans and Democrats try to shut them down. Just check out Diamond and Silk or African-American celebrities such as Kanye West. Democrats considered him cool until he started supporting Trump. Candice Owens, who makes great points, is an African-American Republican who got tired of black people playing the race card. If the Democrats and BLM cared about blacks then they should try to deport the illegal Mexicans in California who go into black neighborhoods and shoot them. This comment is way too long so I’ll just stop it here. This video was entertaining but, not the best source of information. God bless.
I think you have a fair shake to peterson and it looks like you gave a shit enough to do some reasearch, which is why I subbed. Though I think I disagree with you on most issues the far left finds most pressing in modern politics. I am not a huge fan of Peterson and while I think his work is somewhat important, it’s mostly due to a lack of others doing the same work. Peterson often degenerates into flowery word salads and Jung-worship. His take on religion is mind numbing and ridiculous, which I’m glad he was more exposed for by Matt Dilahunty. But I support Peterson as so far as he supports a kind of libertarian liberalism and opposition to censorship and identity politics, as well as the growing oppressive nature of political correctness. It seems Contra is one of the few, if not the sole leftist who sees valid criticism of the left’s ideaology and tactics. The purity spirals of a “no true Scotsman” variety. The hyper vigilance in respect to the most minor of possible offenses. I would like to see a conversation between Contra and Peterson. Would be interesting. Though I’m sure Peterson would word salad his way into a jungian psycho analytical blah blah blah bleh blah
Kudos on production quality and the civility but following the logic in this video feels like getting a swirly in Australia. Listening to this is like taking an interesting photo and inverting the colors in photoshop. JBP does not justify injustice due to the existence of hierarchy, that's so absurd you might as well just mime lalalala for 30 minutes. Most of the video is explanation of terms, throw in some sarcasm, sexual innuendo and cutscenes, concede a huge portion of the claims of the right but skip the conclusion.. and then in the tiny fractions of the video where actual "contrapoints" are presented, they are ludicrously inverted yet masked with a tone of reason. It's like following a massive draw by numbers but the last number was on the opposite side of the sheet.
Thank you. This was pretty awesome. I don't have a personal opinion of JP, and when it comes to core values, I do see myself more on the left than on the right. However, over the past years, I have come to be rather frustrated by parts of the left. The level of naivety and dogmatic moralizing as well as the lack of an intelligent long-term strategy and self-awareness has just been depressing. Anyway, your channel and way to approach typical "leftie" topics gives me hope. This is a great way to take a clear political standpoint while at the same time being (self) critical, nuanced and respectful of opposing viewpoints. Plus, great humor, too. Subscribed!
This is so fucking good. First YouTube channel I'll ever donate to. Please keep up the good work.
Nice to see a decent rebuttal to Jordan Peterson.
"On the left we don't tell people what to do". JBP literally became famous because he was told he MUST use a certain pronoun. He refused, not because he gave a shit about the pronoun, but because COMPELLED speech is authoritarian.
Not BBC! Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman ! But otherwise an interesting video :)
Regency contrapoints (with snuffbox) is probably the best thing I've seen today.
You were fairly close to confronting his ideas... (It was a good video though, and interesting nonetheless)
At the beginning of this video the following claim is made: "[Jordan Peterson] got famous for sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender people under canadian human rights law shall surely lead to stalinism". When and where did he say that? Citation needed.
It’s not about human rights laws, you already have all the same human rights as everyone else, it’s about forcing everyone to call you what you want to be called under the threat of shaming, fines and jail time
Are we going to keep sidestepping the fact that the pronoun issue isn't about "mere requests" to be addressed in a particular way, but rather for refusing to do so becoming a punishable "hate" offence?
haha top hit for Jordan Pee.
I"m a fan of Peterson, but I found this stuff to be some really funny shit! Well Played!
I fucking love it!
Judeo-Christian values, there's an oxymoron if there ever was one.
We need to protect trans people. But I guess we don't have to protect white women and children from Muslim rape gangs all across Europe...
I THINK...... you're gonna end up on the right..
You wish......
When Peterson talks about "Neo-Marxism" he's refering to the application of Marxist philosophy to identity politics. Essentially, neo-marxism is the idea that identity politics can be understood in the context of a war of classes or categories: the privileged (white, cis, heterosexual, men) and the disprivileged (black, women, homosexual, trans...), essentially victimizing the disprivileged while putting the blame or responsibility on the privileged. What Peterson tries to say when he compares them to communist regimes, is that those ideas follow essentially the same pattern and motivations, and can very easily lead to the same place. Postmodern Neo-marxism, in the context he uses it, is the idea of questioning the basis of modern science, philosophy and society, while at the same time trying to offer an explanation to those by the application of Marxist philosophy. For example: STATEMENT: "there are two genders, man and woman" POSTMODERN NEO-MARXIST RESPONSE: "this is false, it is a social construct, gender is actually not a binary state, but instead, we think so because our (patriarchal) society has indoctrinated us into believing it. All children are born genderless but we imprint their gender roles and behaviours onto them when we raise them, there is no such thing as a baby being naturally "male" or "female".
You accuse Jordan Peterson of attacking a straw man in regards to leftist ideology, yet from the very beginning of your video you paint an inaccurate description of Jordan Peterson, particularly with Bill C16. While it is clear that you are ignorant to his message, I can't tell if it is willful ignorance or if you simply missed the point.
"" it is clear that you are ignorant to his message"" What is he your preacher?
My response as someone who supports Peterson is: Peterson mentioned the disparity between Marxism and Postmodernism and how it doesn't make sense that it would work together. But then look who he has to deal with: People who try to argue that there is no difference between genders, who still say there's dozens of them and can't stand being critizised. It's good to know feminists with a brain have found out that you can't make all these claims at the same time, though. I think they are underpresented in a certain political group.
This is too funny. Great arguements too. Subscribed!
I just figured out how to defeat him: Jordan
On the otherhand CP, you are in fact both a trans activist and a Marxist, so Peterson is right on this sample of one.
Good job! It's tough to get around the people who keep thinking that because Peterson says some things that are obviously right then everything he says must be obviously right.
lol, I wrote this comment seconds before hearing you make the point yourself in the video
You know, anytime a girl falls for the bad boy, she accused of having daddy issues. It's usually goes something like "Wow, her dad must have an abusive a-hole that's why she falls for abusive a-hole". Well, that's how exactly how I feel about JP (mostly male) fans, I just can't understand what they see in him other then they must had a Dad who was either abusive or neglectful. Sorry, that's just my honest observation.
deleting comments ya fucking degenerate
I think the importance of JBPs objection to bill C16 is highly dependent on your own experience in academia. Many seem to think that this his notion of cultural Marxism is blown out of proportion if they themselves have not encountered it to the degree that others have. And I would also like to preface that his concern stems primarily from the fact that it's occurring in the very places where we are taught to be open to ideas and expand our own consciousness. Many of his points as he emerged into public sphere really tied together a phenomena that I had noticed, but not been able to properly piece together until he articulated it. One of my favorite art history teachers to ever lecture was accused of racism and nearly fired for showing a clip from a film monologue where a character describes a vacation where he briefly mentioned exotic women. Yet the crux of showing the clip was the delivery itself, as opposed to the content of what he was saying - And the instructor made this very clear before showing the clip. The irony is that the student in my class who had accused him had sat through months of his lectures where he went to great lengths to criticize the fetishizing of other cultures by the west, as well as going out of his way to acknowledge influential black and native figures in art history whom academia had not properly given due. You have seen similar cases to this crop up all over with Brett Weinstein and very recently Lindsey Shepherd. I have friends with their own personal experiences almost identical in structure to mine, and this case with Lindsey Shephard truly indicates how much of this is probably going on (See Jonathan Haidt) and getting swept under the rug. Even in high school, my social studies teacher was utterly bias and constantly argued and in a way that conditioned us to believe communism was the most viable system! To say that I have not seen Marxist ideology leak into all sorts of different academia throughout my life would be a lie - And many who watch Jordan have had similar experience. Peterson's concern is not exactly paranoid, especially when the very foundation of how we communicate and express ourselves is under attack. The point was not that Bill C-16 was going to end society and free speech on it's own, but he was truly concerned it was a stepping stone in a larger and (clearly) developing and biased trend of thought that could allow emotional and reactionary and emotional (Virtuous on the surface) laws like C16 be passed before we as a society adequately discuss what they really mean in a broader political context. He does not think most of the youth and people who act out in this manner are truly following Marxism in a direct manner - He is just pointing out very close ideological overlap in conjunction with postmodernism (Obviously he is using the term postmodern in a different context) I appreciate the willingness to tackle his ideas with some nuance, however I must say I don't understand this love in the comment section for the skits... If they were maybe more connected to the actual content of the discussion and moved things along - it would be much easier and more efficient as a viewer on the opposition to try and unpack your ideas. I will take a wild guess and assume you admire the works of Refn and John waters, but those aesthetics fit more snugly the content of what they are trying to explore and discuss in their films - But you do you I guess... Also, it's clear that Jordan has a vocal minority of preachy and unbearable worshipers who should rightfully be detested - but I think most reasonable people who find Jordan Peterson insightful in any manor acknowledge that he does not necessarily say anything new, but he provides new context and life to basic things that we already know understand but have not had reaffirmed in a long time. This to me is a quality that most great art has, and Jordan with his eloquence, clear attempts to get at the heart of truth (regardless if misguided at times) and delivery is certainly a component of his recent explosion in popularity. Jordan is an absolutely brilliant speaker and communicator - Much like Sam Harris and other quote on quote "Celebrity intellectual" types who rise to popularity. Even Sam Harris has acknowledged JBP immense verbal IQ. Yet he gets accused of being vague because he manages to breakdown very complex topics for a wide audience, however I don't think this can always be successfully done without slip ups or reduction in cases like "Cultural Marxism" or postmodernism. My final criticisms of him would be that In his debate with Sam Harris, he was utterly dismantled. Second, is that It's clear "12 Rules for life" is a distilled "Maps of meaning" without nearly as many interesting concepts, ideas, or well defended arguments. Third, I the have always found his reluctance to admit the stupidity and overall destructive nature of organized religion, as well as his blatant over interpretations and analysis of direct, clearly non metaphorical biblical passages both irritating and misguided. Still that still does not prevent from thinking he is an incredibly interesting thinker who has a plenty of ideas to consider that are starting conversations and discussions.
Very informative and enlightening video. I feel connected with a lot of things Jordan Peterson has said, like the fact that in nature certain gender-based hierarchies seem to be inevitable for example the female-based hierarchies in Hyenas and Bees and his example of the hierarchies in Lobsters, and helps us understand the human hierarchical default and tribalistic tendencies in human nature. It would be a step in the right direction to overpower and overwrite our tribalist behaviours we often times don't have control over. That is something I want to experience within my lifetime. More so, because I myself am of Arabian descent and both my parents are immigrants, what was mostly the reason why I got bullied in a mostly white school. A great example of where the "weaker of mind" children access the tribal nature more easily because of group think. But how far can we go in correcting our human nature, and more importantly how long will it last before everything we have worked so hard to achieve in correcting this nature before it goes full-circle and we repeat our history? I think Jordan Peterson and many other intellectuals need to keep producing these perspectives, so we can engage in a true and honest conversation that in time will lead to a better understanding of society, and will benefit a multi-cultural world in general. Thanks for making this video, it gives me alot to think about. And I subbed to your channel in anticipation for what's to come next ;).
Nicee
He didn’t bring civil and lgbtq issues into this. They were coopted by the activists he takes issue with. Like the vids, u got fab girl flash. Being cool n funny doesn’t make you right dohhh:)
the Canadian law doesn't protect trans people, it criminalizes any misgendering of them regardless of intent, the wording of the law is vague and nebulous... and you believe such a law will bring about the acceptance and integration you hope for? lol sounds like the logic of peace thru segregation, and that worked out so well... btw Marx was a douche and his ideas have killed over a billion people in their time on earth, what a dude to stick up for lol
Loved this video. Your production is top notch and hilarious. I do have a critique on a couple of things though. I don’t think you understand what Jordan Peterson means by post modern neo-marxism. He is describing the post modernist push to use the state, corporate rules or employee codes of conduct to institute speech codes and hate speech laws. As well as special protections for certain exclusive classes if people. These are policies that he sees as Marxist in nature. I think its valid to view authoritarian push of post modernists as Marxist especially when when the authoritarian policies they are pushing violate the free thought or speech of others. Also what you are saying is his definition what the west is off. He isn’t talking about ALL western philosophy. He talking about philosophy and culture that have been the normative guiding force behind western civilization. Which would not include post modernism.
WHat? an actual reasonable criticism of JBP? as a jbp fan, I cannot accept this
Have you got an inside out decapitated dick pussy?
I can understand the appeal Jordan Peterson l must say some of his psychological insights interesting and lecturers are interstings by I disagree since I'm not as traditionalist as he is and I'm not that fond of religion. But I'll admit some his fans act a bit much and get a bit anti- leftist. But I most say love the video Contra points keep it up. Also it was British channel called Channel 4
I'd probably fuck Contra
I loved every minute of this. I love your videos!! You are so beautiful
2:02 - It wasn't a BBC interview, it was a Channel 4 interview.
I'd like to know what he said at 7:22 to completely enchant Rubin and Shapiro. They both laugh, Dave turns towards him then they both unknowingly lean towards Peterson simultaneously as if that will get them some more of his sweet wisdoms. It's kind of creepy and it's a perfectly chosen snippet to represent that ocnversation.
You've got sanpaku. Just something I keep noticing.
Thanks for the calm video that wasn't chock full of personal attacks like so many people only deal in. So, I find your criticisms interesting, though I think the biggest flaw in your argument is quibbling over definitions. This is something that also happens too much, as our vocabulary is too limited to describe exactly what group of people/ideas we have in mind. So, the question is, what does Peterson actually mean by postmodernism? I think it's unfair to say he's overgeneralizing when the term itself is self-refuting. Is it absolutely true that truth can't be known? Nobody, literally nobody, is actually a postmodernist. Unless theyre suicidal, nobody is going to question the truth of the premise "if i walk out in front of that bus, it will probably kill me." Now figure out how to use a self-refuting term to generalize a bunch of people. Still, who he has in mind is most important. Even if he were using the terms incorrectly, the key is not the term used but the group in question. Now, I would also disagree that postmodernism as you defined it makes up only a portion of the Left. But I'll grant your point for sake of argument. Peterson is concerned with the fact that the postmodern form of Leftism has the power to actually get what it wants politically, and the horrors that will bring down on the world. The same folks who are postmodernists, as you've defined it, are the same folks who are moral relativist by extension (I can't judge another culture's practices, even if they're Nazis), whose only creed is political change without end, and so on. Their philosophy is assumed on some level among most groups in society (there are tons of Christian relativists, for example). I'm a teacher, and I have debates on a variety of subjects in my classes. One of the things that perhaps 75% of my students say is that they can't judge whay someone else does, no matter how awful. And I live in a very conservative area! That attitude has gotten more common in my seven years of teaching, too. And this attitude is a direct threat to our existence as humans, as is postmodernism as you've defined it. That philosophy leaves wide open the gates for totalitarianism, which I think is the crux of what Peterson has criticized it for. I mean, why not have a dictator if it's not appropriate for you to judge what someone else does? This is turning into a rant. I know you have tons of comments, but if you'd like to respond and discuss, I would be happy to talk to you. :)
Mhin'qa take your racist and disgusting nonsense elsewhere. Reported.
brennen spice huh?
"Someone has to whip the neckbeards into shape I guess..." Really?
You're just laying down those identity politics! Have u tried sitting with your back straight? Now there's a solution to societal problems that we can stand behind!
Great Job! When are you going to be on Bill Mahr?
Unequal outcomes are not direct evidence of injustice. To say that Peterson ~implies~ unjust hierarchies are legitimate is intellectually dishonest, or you infer that simply because you do think unequal outcomes ARE evidence of injustice. Equality of Opportunity VS Equality of Outcome. What do you think is more important with regard to social justice?
psychologists are mostly cops...peering inside with their torches
Did you seriously just fucking try to normalize smoking pcp?
Peterson doesn't self identify as a conservative. Stop forcing your labels on him.
Calling yourself something, and then doing everything that is antithetical to being that thing, kinda puts that "label" into question.
He's repeatedly said he's a liberal. Have you watched any of his unedited interviews?
He absolutely does self identify as a conservative, he just doesn't say so.
Watch Jordan Perterson for yourself. Make up your own mind. Don't listen to oversimplified misrepresentations.
I left a comment earlier saying that he identified as a liberal and I find it hypocritical to for Contrapoints to force her labels on him. Someone responded by telling me that "she literally said that in the video". I deleted the comment rather than watching the whole half hour over again. I regret that now. When does she say that? After implying that he and all his followers are alt-right for 30 mins?
Well despite the creepy drag queen coming onto a mannequin thing, this is the only good critique of Peterson I've heard. You actually have listened to the guy, unlike other people seem to want to hate him just cuz. Your wrong on that one thing that everyone trips up on though. He doesn't give a shit about who wants what pronoun used. People can work than out between themselves he says. The point is the Canadian government forcing the use of words(as he sees it). It's not the same as "I don't want to because I don't like it". Your "girl" voice sounds like a Kids in the Hall Character. But it's sort of fun to see a guy in drag acting snarky and theatrical. The trans-fad going on with the teenagers right now lacks any colour or fun!! I'm sure it's the real deal for some of them, but I'm guessing most will grow up to be boring suburban binary gender married bozos like the bisexual girls who came before....
He never spoke out against trans rights, he spoke out against impelled speech. His whole point is that once you let the government make laws forcing you to say something, where does it stop?
Jordan Peterson identifies as a liberal. He is a leftist. No matter how many times you try and frame him as the opposition, he will still be a liberal.
First of all, he said in interviews that hierarchy exists in nature. His point was that it wasn't created by the patriarchy. Secondly, since when are liberals opposed to hierarchy. That would be news to Trudeau. Clinton too I'd think. Dumb ass.
are you fucking kidding me. He made an entire fucking video supporting hierarchy.
I must say you became my drug. I don't know how I ended up watching this video, but I am now watching everything you made. I found my other me
You know what? I like you. You're not *needlessly* aggressive, you don't talk down to your audience in your video, and you're funny. You present your idea with a personal take, but without giving off the holier than thou vibe I find many left-leaning videos have. Kudos to you, thank you for the video - really good one
I appreciate this comment so much as a Contra fan! Thank you, man:))
I love Jordan Peterson and really love you perspective on him. Also your video was so entertaining and im subbed. But i think the fear of radical leftism is a real concern. The UK is a radical country where not subscribing to political correctness can land you in prison. You can see threats of censorship or the Facebook pages of police in the UK. Also the cases of Alfie Evans and Count Dankula would be huge violations of the Bill of Rights in America and its scary to see that stuff happening and a country so culturally linked to America. However i love how you broke down the postmodernist neo-markxist contradiction and question what really is "the west"
fucking please...the UK political landscape is overwhelmingly conservative. Stop trying to blame the left for things when the UK has had a right-wing government for nearly a decade.
Thank you for being what the left needs right now. Nothing will upset the alt-right more than having a gender queer using arguments and not just “being offended”.
Ex-JP fan here. I was a fan until it became clear he was a really a bit loony when it came to left-wing-conspiracy stuff. Though he rightfully exposes how sexism and racism are cynically exploited by the left, he NEVER speaks about the fact aside from that, sexism and racism are also very REAL problems. Unfortunately almost everyone on the left seems to be too scared or insecure to actually engage on the subject matter, resorting to slander in stead, and therefore they make JPs points seem even stronger. So thank god for this video that faces JP head on, on fair terms, and brilliantly calls him out on his bullshit in a hilarious way.
Postmodern neomarxism as used by Peterson is obviously a loud blanket word, he uses it disregardless of meaning ascribed to both words by postmodern or Marxist intellectuals (who do not agree upon any definition anyway instead caring of developing enough originality to take a sweet spot after inevitable death of Badiou and Lapavitsas). He uses it to describe any political philosophy that cares about social planning or engineering. He might as well used ‘Platonism,’ ‘redistibutionism,’ ‘philosophy of closed society,’ or ‘social engineering,‘ yet ‘Postmodern Neo-Marxism’ sounds much better and irritates precisely right people. While disagreements over vague terms as ‘alienation’ or ‘globalism’ indeed takes place among certain academics, it is quite challenging generally to find a Rawlsean who is unsympathetic either to Marx or to Foucault. In other words, he treats social engineers just as a normal person treats flat earthers, not giving a fuck whether this is a Creationist fundamentalism, visual hallucinationism, esoteric neo-Arian alchemy, or hollow earth theory. Simply call them flat earner loons, it pisses all of them off.
Fair criticism. I still love Peterson. Don't care so much about Peterson the political commentator and he quotes the bible a little too much for my personal taste, he's not an expert on everything nor can anyone be. However, I do believe that as a motivational psychologist, he's second to none. He's somehow managed to cure the existential misery of a large group of young people (myself included) by telling us to stop being whiny little bitches, pull our finger out and just get on with it... And we love him for it. He's a silver-tongued genius.
JORDAN PETERSON DOES NOT claim that trans rights will lead to genocide. He is saying that the underlying doctrine is basically the same as the marxist doctrine that killed over 50 million people in the 20th century. Try wrapping your head round that before you write Peterson off. Ok? Oh yes, and as an indigenous British person STOP APPROPRIATING my British, Georgian culture. Got it? Good!
I shouldn't have smoked before i watched this.
The Cathy Newman interview was Channel 4, not the BBC
I'm worried that people who are into Jordan Peterson will come away thinking that holding a conservative ideology contributes to worldly success, whereas in reality, it's more the case that successful people promote conservative ideologies because doing so safeguards their power. What brings success is hard work and dedication, limited by luck and innate talent. The ideology that drives you to work that hard could be conservatism, but it could also be just about anything else, really. Praying will not bring you money, and neither will conservatism on its own. Meanwhile, as a conservative drone, you would be playing into the hands of the wealthy.
Disliked for giving points to the dumb scammer
Also for slandering Stalin and Mao
Jordan Peterson is not evil and he does not force people to take his words. Your frame of him being evil is just kind of lame. Honestly your entire argument is based on an assumption. That being said, you are entertaining. Even when you are short handing every topic Peterson talks about and exaggerating everything Peterson stands for. Honestly no your argument wasn't that good at all. It was all assumption. At least you are funny though.
Honestly He is just deep down a good person that wants everyone to do well in their personal lives. Attacking Peterson is just not a good idea personally. Shapiro is a much easier target.
The more I think about it, the more it seems like there are only two possibilities: Either Jordan Peterson is a man who constantly regurgitates the rhetoric of fascists and uses a term very specifically and very obviously 'Cultural Marxism' except even more ridiculous in exactly the same context that fascists use 'Cultural Marxism' and he is so utterly unaware of the implications of his own language that he has no idea that he's doing that. _Or_ he's intentionally dogwhistling neo-Nazis. So which is Jordan Peterson? An idiot? Or a fascist?
So the general impression I'm getting from this here is that Jordan Peterson is yet another 'classical liberal' whining about how things are changing and that's bad, except he does it in a really well-spoken manner and says things the alt-right love so they use him as an argument to authority.
So ... it seems postmodern of JP to deconstruct 20th century communist despots in a way that allows comparison to today's "SJWs". Or is he taking apart the modern kids in order to liken them to those murderous thugs like Stalin, thus throwing current motives into question? I think I've got it wrong, because it can't be postmodern to simply argue points with which you disagree; that's old school. Yeesh. I've been watching your channel all day and you've made me think a looooot. Thank you! Like I said, you're very good at this.
So this is Chris Chan? I heard he had tried becoming a woman.... I didn't believe it though
You're very good at this.
Seams you kinda lack self awareness, if everybody needs or appear to need, a "purpose in life" and all those peopleDON'T believe the patriarchy is real, and all those that DO don't need a purpose, maybe, just maybe, you have made fighting the patriarchy your purpose, while you do seam mostly self aware, you seam to fall short in this regard. Though you appear to actually get close.
The consensus seems to be that the lobster gang approves. Great job, Contra. Also, this video is 100x more entertaining than anything Peterson has ever put out.
hands down the best drag queen on the internet!
She's trans
"hello, dave." you killed me
extremely fucking good video. thanx for explaining this justin beterson guy
The bottom line is that Jordan Peterson just isn't all that smart -- he presents arguments that seem, on surface, to make sense, but once you scrape the patina off [ *if* you make the effort to scrape the patina off], you find that it just doesn't hold together -- the main reason for his success is that, though he is not all that smart, there are many many people who are even less smart than he is & so, as things are relative, such people are impressed w/ his "intellect" -- like most people of his sort, he is avid at attacking the a prioris of others, but maintains an unshakable oblivion to the a prioris that he himself holds...
He's a tenured professor at university of Toronto. Formerly taught at Harvard, has written numerous peppers and is highly referenced in his field. He's managed to convince some pretty smart people he's worth hearing out. Even if you don't agree with him, why do you think he is stupid. Some great mind have had some pretty muddled ideas. And I find that if you listen to his whole talk he makes sense, even if I don't agree.
Yeah you are right the enlightenment sucks
can't wait for the inevitable dragging of homestuck into philosophical discussion which may or may not happen while Natalie is making youtube videos. anyway i'm thinking of putting the mask in my icon back on and talking abt politics and going by "leftist rorschach" or something anyway pt 2 this video was great, as are all of your videos and i would die-i'm really glad i watched that video you did with lindsay ellis awhile ago and found your channel through it.
You make the world a worse place.
HI im a not an inteligent person in fact im stupid, and dont care if people insultme for this, but will try to acomodate some way of thinking to the topic at hand. I Think Peterson brings some isightfull and somwhat novel points of view, for what it is an infinite, complex and ever changeing field of discution, thats why his views seems broad. Seriouslly dont think that anyone could say what the heck is happening anymore, so i will not sweet on semantics of what is the correct way of thinking or behaving. Dont know if your points are right but at least they are interesting, somwhat auto indulgent, and i know flawed as petterson's are, but thats not a problem really. usually don't write on this kind of videos cos, let's be honest, dialog is dead and discution dead as well, but I have watch your work, and find something profoundly disturbing... the lack of Latinoamerican Writers on the bookshelf you usually display behind you (if you have some I could not see them). I could recommend some if you like fiction: Borges, Onetti, Quiroga, Lezama Lima, and if you feel a bit brave a good old Jaime Saenz, if you want I can send you one for free just because I want to remediate some First World problems and you look hot on wig. I can only send one though, because im poor, capitalism does not reward readers .
I dishate ContraPoints. I agree with close to 0% of what he says and the skits can be cringy but at least he's out here making arguments with a sense of humor. Most leftist just reee the word "racist" into the void. As wrong as he is about nearly everything, I like listening to his arguments and would beer him and hear his side out. I literally only have one far left friend that is capable of this and that sucks.
As a Peterson fan: great video. One of the most level-headed, thorough, and reasonable responses I have seen. You definitely made an effort to make an interpretation of his broader work and arguments, rather than many critics who lazily focus on one or two dumber things he said in older videos. I think if you and him got a chance to talk he would have a lot of good responses to your criticisms as well, but as it is this is unfortunately one way. Also I fucking love Strangers with Candy.
your videos are getting so good, it's crazy
Can anyone cite any of the clips you used from Peterson in this video please? Just wanna check the context to make sure you aren't trying to push a false narrative.
yr fake voice is ridiculous
Why do you look and sound so retarded?
This comments section is.... Actually very civil. Woah.
I seems to be ideologically opposed to you, but I heard about you from Colin Moriarty and he was right about you. You're awesome. Keep making videos.
Fine, Contra. I’ll subscribe. I had a few misconceptions about you and few major differences, however, your videos are too damn entertaining and informative to resist any longer. Looking forward to the wacky ride. You live in Maryland, yeah?
Genius
I disagree with a good chunk of what you said, but it's good to hear from someone who brings a dose of rational thought to the debate. I do think that you oversimplify JP's arguments a bit: I don't argue that there isn't a hint of sinister authoritarianism behind his intentions, but you can't really make the argument that identity politics are in any way a force for good. Whether they are white supremacists or hardcore feminists, forming political blocks on the basis of physical attributes is absurd and incredibly tribal/barbaric, especially when each block accuses the other of ruining the world. Never in history has any good come out of that. Either way you've earned a subscriber.
I was hopeful at the start, she seemed elocuent and smart. But then it just came down to semantics and misrepresenting JPs views...same old.
This was very good. I think Peterson would have a chuckle at a good amount of your barbs. I also don't think he would be too angry discussing your points. Clearly, his frustration has to do with a number of not-so-bright activists who have, for some reason, achieved enough social power to shut down talks, suppress speech, libel, cast threats and a range of other pretty nasty things. Thank god we have someone on the left who is willing to engage ideas honestly and head on. All power to you and yours!
My favorite part is when you bring up the presence of what we call post-modernism in ancient athens and the enlightenment. One of my biggest pest peeves is people identifying "ancient thought" with Plato and Aristotle. Like goddamn, Plato himself made the point that his view was the unpopular one at the time!
How are "Progressive" ideas the unpopular ones? 96% of the MSM is anti-Trump and transgenderism and a bunch of other "post-modern" shit is being pushed as "perfectly normal", and warranting chopping people's dick off and pretending they're the opposite SEX. Real Communists would have used these retarded useful idiot unemployed/Brony/whatever the fuck Antifa and LGBTQAIP++ people and then send them to gulags. Why embrace and push decadence that don't advance society? What good comes out of butt-fucking? In the void of adoption, what good are gay people other than for "progressive" votes before they evidently die of AIDS from one of the 400+ men they fuck in their lifetime. Wake the fuck up. Your ideologies are disgusting, and so are you. You're not a "rebel," you're a faggot, and you feel the need to be control freaks over everyone else's fucking lives. Let there be White ethnostates, let there be Gay-only states, and Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu states. Hell, let there be "Communist" states (because it's never ACTUALLY Communism, the theories always jut "mis-interpreted" to slaughter millions and then never mention how Nazism killing some Jews doesn't amount to the democides done under Communism). But whatever, it doesn't matter anyways. When the dollar collapses and Nigs and Muslims are chimping out in the streets, I'll be ready. How about you, Antifa?
huge peterson fan. Still really enjoyed the video. I mean, I feel like a few nuances of his arguments were purposefully overlooked to suit your criticisms, but this was probably the best criticism out there (and really enjoyable to watch!)
(7:13) Wow, some of those kids are going to land up on Dr Phil for being rebellious.
Loved this! Thanks for all the information you present in your video!
By "West" we mean "What made the West succeed". It is not to mean Western as in the geographical location, but about the axioms that made Western Civilization stand out among the others, and those ARE Judeo-Christianity (only a fool would deny that), Capitalism, and Individualism.
"The West isn't what you think it is, it's specifically the parts that I like most" We don't hold others to this standard. What's crazy is that the best countries in the West (and the world actually) are the ones that explicitly reject all three of those things, makes you think
This was so good! Thank UUU!!!
Though I'm a bucko this is a good video (in spite of the first 10 minutes).
"No one on the Left" = "Everyone else but me"
It was a Channel 4 interview. Fucking great video though. Something something lobsters something
I love JP. I'm just here for the DECOR... I'm so confused. I should probably clean my room...
You are trying really hard, I respect your struggle. You still very much exemplify that void he is talking about. We all know how you gonna end up. Degenerate and Sad.
Progressives are being called Regressives now. So yeah, Progressives' label is scary enough.
17:42 Your definition of identity politics isn't correct. I believe you framed it the way you did because it makes a lot of your arguments stronger. You should make a video on the subject of identity politics. I would like to hear you talk more about why you think this way. How would you differentiate black identity politics from white identity politics given your definition? 21:00 You say there are numerous ways to respond, yet belabor one way of responding, which you would probably agree with, is the wrong way. There are other ways of responding which would enlighten everyone as to what JP thinks by digging deeper into what he thinks. Cathy didn't have tough job. It's simple, ask a person to expand on a belief more and phrase it back to them in a way you think they would agree with while keep digging.
The problem with the left in 2018 is that thing called rabid Leftism. That's a more complete boundary than some specific philosophy, but also more vague. Feminist academia and their raging activists are exhibit one.
A super video, as always. I find the inclusion of academic administrators in the postmodern neo-Marxist bagel quite strange. They were not as receptive as JP would seem to think they should be to (when I was involved with UCU, one of the trade unions for people who work at universities) thinks like gender pay audits, dealing with the gender disparity at the professorial level, and so on. We've also just finished (or finished a chapter, at any rate) of industrial action against the university employers over pensions that saw weeks of strikes. Can I ask - how much of Peterson's thinking do you think is a development or misreading (if I'm being charitable) of Popper's concern about totalitarianism and/or (if I'm not being charitable) of ideas as expressed in Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism?
thank you for not patronizing and instead actually clearly explaining your points
Note "Our Boys" shows Marx and Engels. Labeled as such, undermined your argument defending what Peterson describes as Post Modernism or what is in essence Cultural Marxism as you noted. By aligning yourself with their ideologies. While I can appreciate your methodical, well thought and creative approach to critique, Marxism is ultimately an ideology of theft and coercion. Which is exactly why Peterson speaks against it. Having been entrenched in Academia for a couple decades, he's experienced it first hand. As has anyone truly honest and standing center on these issues will admit. I cannot count how many Professors, Teachers, Speakers and Students I've encountered that espouse as a matter of their education, some degree of Marxism as the answer to Society's ills. This is the impetus for the theory of "Cultural Marxism" because a nation's culture(s), are then effected by people in the right places(College positions, Politicians/legislators, celebrities) push this culture to replace the old. Without understanding that the old culture is still evolving and may voluntarily come around to a more favorable and equitable outlook on it's own. By pushing the "new" culture it appears passive and maybe even evolutionary but in reality it's manipulation because no Society, nor the world as a whole with over 7 billion inhabitants, will agree nor sacrifice their own cultures and identities to appease others. So when Canada tries to make laws that if you misgender someone, you suffer some legal penalty, this is Authoritarianism. It doesn't account for that person's own beliefs of which they have every right limited by acts of violence of course. It doesn't account for the thousands of years of observable science and social structures, despite the truth of a minority of more socially liberal cultures like Native American tribes. Voluntarism is absolutely necessary for any social or political changes to come about without violence or some level of force and even resentment. To some, this is all reminiscent of "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."(Ayers) as we see Left groups aligning at marches, and political rallies. Maoist concepts of the great leap forward were irrational and horrific as the results proved. Where Peterson gets it right, is that ultimate responsibility is in our Individual hands. For our choices, decisions, etc. As are the repercussions of our choices. Nowhere has Peterson stated that Transgenderism IS fascism or Communism. Instead, he's saying more that the organized effort to Coerce an entire society of people to use words, that a minority of people demand, or even a majority of legislators, is pretty Authoritarian. Going back to my Canada point or as we've seen here in California recently. Particularly when despite their claims, the Science is still out on whether or not for instance the 100+ to 300+ alleged genders exist. As well as the deliberate separation of "Gender" from it's synonym "Sex". Personally, where I'm from(NYC) I've known Trans people since I was a teen in 1980s, and most were wonderful people, all were wrapped in some internal and external struggle for acceptance. Or with depression, substance abuse, prostitution, etc. I sympathize with them, and think that all people should be free to be who, what and where they so desire for whatever their reasons are. Likewise, and I believe this is the crux of Peterson's opinion on the issue, other people shouldn't be forced to sacrifice everything we've been taught both through the sciences and experientially for millennia. Without the 2 main genders, there would be no society for you, nor I to live. As well, all people in a structured society have had to struggle. It's not fair, but like anything it takes time with less force and more freedom of choice even for those who are against your choices. That Marxism demands coercion is a Historical fact, and the tired point "that wasn't real communism" doesn't alter the reality that once you centralize power in the hands of a few, expecting the so called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" to become a reality, you're kidding yourself. It has never panned out that way because of Marxism's inherent flaws. In essence making it little different than any alleged representative government or more totalitarian governments. All of which require some degree of force to function. In other words, no system is perfect but there are some terrible systems despite the good intentions that paved their roads to hell. Freedom is not just a word but a philosophy. As for Marxists and Identity Politickers at odds, this is true IMHO but not at a significant level. Certainly not when it comes time to vote in candidates, or push a relative issue from a shared agenda. As I've witnessed, again going back to the 80s, through the 90s and into the millennium... Marxists tend to infiltrate Identity political movements. Not necessarily intentional, but as a means to a collective end. Similarly the Civil Rights movement was susceptible to their infiltration with promises of equity and equality. It all appears an attempt at "Group think"(Collectivism) and just because a group thinks a certain way doesn't mean it is the be all end all in thought. In fact, it is the same stance any LGBTQ, is railing against when they're demanding equal treatment and/or anti-bias laws. Collectivism doesn't work involuntarily, because like it's brother Communism, it requires force because no two people will agree on every topic all the time. While Individual Liberty does jive with people "requesting" individual Pronouns, but again and I am repeating myself ad nauseum here I know, NOT THROUGH GOVERNMENT FORCE. There is no Individual Liberty when Government Force gets involved. Individual Liberty is a two way street as noted above. All that said and some of it redundant, I did enjoy your video! No, I've never read Peterson's book, I've only watched his lectures and interviews. No, I've never met him either.
4:38 that's an abvious cut there, he never said that in the real interview.
your make up game is on point!
Good stuff. I don't think Peterson is anywhere near as wrong as you seem to think, but I do think that you made some solid critiques and made a very entertaining video.
Thanks for clearing things up: I am a kind of queer left progressive but relatively laid back person and love daddy, I mean Jordan Peterson too so I was confused. I also know now that although Sargon does make a couple good points, I do hate him very much. I also now fully understand the term reactionary which is helpful. Sometimes I think you are a creature from my imagination but I am not smart enough to dream you up yet, beautiful.
So I'd consider myself someone who likes and identifies with SOME of Jordan Peterson's viewpoints, I am also definitely someone who identifies as from the left of politics. First off, I thought this video was great! (I love your sense of humour, haha!) I don't like how Jordan Peterson allows religion (aka old school identity politics) to seep into his writing. I don't like how he allies himself with other people who are on the right who I don't like - but I don't pay attention to them anyway, so whatever. I don't like how he seems to make up pseudo-academic names for things which are perhaps outside the bounds of his academic forte, as you demonstrated. However, I do think that there are things he says which ring true in society - even if not articulated as well as they could be - and which should be taken seriously if WE wish to be taken seriously. I think Peterson is fundamentally anti-authoritarian and small statist. In his case, he's probably a conservative and so it manifests itself as part of an overall libertarian political stance. I think that that is possibly what he refers to when he claims he is a "classical liberal". I think that this underpins a lot of his controversial opinions, but I think that it is also why so many people identify with him. On the Canadian pronouns issue (for those who don't know, Canada made a law which legally requires people to use certain pronouns), I think he is correct. I (I hope obviously) have no issue with using a pronoun if someone asks (Jordan Peterson has gone on record saying that he also doesn't have a problem with this I believe), but I agree with Peterson that it is dangerous to legally mandate the use of certain words and phrases, and that this is altogether different from banning the use of certain words and phrases, because it sets a scary precedent - it produces a new tool that can be used to legislatively enforce something. For me, and many, it's not about the domain (trans rights and activism), it's about the strategy (legally compelling ordinary people to do or say something or else risk punishment). I think that social pressure should be the tool used to get people on board with pronoun use - not legal means. I don't think Peterson would have engaged with this topic if that was the case. I think that this same pattern is observed in some rhetoric about equality in representation the workplace, for example: my understanding of Peterson's core argument is not that it is a good outcome for women to be less represented in the workplace. Here he has an opinion on the domain (feminist activism) and the strategy (legally compelling companies to enforce ratios based on gender): I believe he simply advocates for an equality of opportunity (I work in the tech sector, and we're DESPERATE for more talent - nobody in my sector who is worth paying attention to cares what gender, race, creed, etc you are), and not an equality of outcome, because the outcome should reflect INDIVIDUAL (not group) interests. And again, we should be really selective about what we choose to force someone to do, as opposed to banning things we can't do in society which is a bit more straightforward I think. To me, this is why he labels certain activist groups as totalitarian: because the strategy they are using is authoritarian and designed to compel against will. This is also why people on the left like myself identify with him - he's talking about fighting against authoritarian ideals which cut across both the left and the right of politics. Spouting racist crap, being nasty to trans people, or not making a cake for a gay couple "because Jesus" is horrible, nasty, and morally wrong. However, making it impossible to see and challenge people who have those opinions is dangerous and a recipe for radicalisation. People need to be called out in public when they do stuff which is socially unacceptable, so that others understand why. The rest of his public persona that I know about is generally less interesting to me. I hope you can tell by the way I've written this comment that I'm not looking to troll or come across as abrasive. I'm not an expert on Peterson, or on social theory or philosophy or politics, but perhaps this comment can help you all understand a little further why people like him (or at least the parts of him that they see!). I welcome all constructive feedback! And in the spirit of free speech, if you want to be an asshole, feel free to do that too, but don't expect me to respond :D
As a fan of Peterson and his work, I just wanted to say not bad. Thought-out and entertaining video. We need more conversation like this.
You had me at PCP :)
Dam! Had me again at Rorty!
Peterson sounds like the new Shapiro.
Gee Nick you really did fall flat on your arse after crackergate.
I am JP fan, and found this to be insightful and extremely entertaining. I can’t quite get there on some of the argumentation, but appreciate the video.
This was a great video and i would love to see anyone try to respond to this you are becoming the idubbbz of the youtube politi-sphere due to your "fuck everything" attitude and hilarious self aware skits while still getting across some cogent points backed by research and i really dig your content for that. and even when we disagree i am still highly entertained. all of these factors lead me to the belief that you require more popularity, and so i subscribed. keep up the great content.
@28:04 very similar thought to mine, although I agree in some things with ContraPoints. Subscribed!
TJ Kirk made a good analysis
Very entertaining video as usual Contra, I have to say one thing though. I rewatched the interview and nowhere does he mention that all hierarchies are natural or acceptable because it's natural. he simply says that it's natural behavior. Your point that the lobster argument is a strawman is pretty much void without specifically mentioning where he says that all hierarchies are okay due to hierarchies being a natural occurrence, which he as far as I'm aware never does.
4:34 was that a cut?
22:40 I think that's actually where Peterson is going with the lobster analogy. Right wingers are essentially aristocrats.
Hey what you have to say is worth listening to and thinking over. But I think you're going to lose a lot of people with your cringy sense of humour. I get that it's kind of your shtick and you do it in all your videos. But if you're going to criticize someone seriously you should probably not spend a good part of your video ridiculing them. Just my two cents. Otherwise, great video and thanks for your insight!!
This is really great. Thanks for making this video.
I'm not a hume fan, and I believe that he is a racist and that's obviously bad. Just like.. it's dumb to equate one idea they have with the rest, no matter how terrible they are. Early philosophers had a lot of good foundational ideas we need to know about, but we simultaneously terrible people. Acknowledge good and the bad and separate them is all I'm saying
you cant trans your gender
Explain.
This is smart
when will you kill yourself already?
Top notch argument. You TOTALLY destroyed her points. Keep up the good work.
Oh my god look at that list of patrons!
I disagree with most postmodernism yet I have to say you are one of a very very few leftist who is able to articulate your views without overtly emotional and false accusations against those you disagree with.
Can you make a video on the historical sargon of Akkad with the help of Shaun?
Who's mentally ill, You or Jordan Peterson?
The guy who thinks Frozen is propaganda, obviously
I really like Jordan Peterson! I think people on both sides of the isle just need to chill the f out.
@DeoMachina I simply described reality, if that disgusts you then that is a problem you have with reality, not me. Reflect on that and the fact that you are arguing that needlessly stabbing animals to death being wrong isn't a good enough argument to not do it, do you think that sounds like the kinda thing an oppressor might say? Now if you want to bite the bullet on that and admit you are an oppressor, I can't stop you, but I also can't take any complaint about cis-heteronormative-patriarchal oppression or white supremacist capitalist exploitation seriously when you are happy to continue systematically oppressing and exploiting beings weaker than you. Reflect on the fact that you need self-interested motivation like economic and ecological reasons to do the right thing, so how can you expect the "privileged" white man to ever do the right thing if it doesn't benefit him? And why should he if you aren't willing to? Be the change that you wish to see in the world. If not you, who? If not now, when? If you still refuse to do the right thing, you have no grounds to criticise others for their refusal.
Real talk: You have converted 0 people with this rhetoric. And your will continue to put people off veganism forever if you keep this up. The strongest argument vegans have are the economic and ecological ones, so focus on that.
how about now? did you know its illegal to pay women less than men because they are women? women aren't payed less overall for the same job they are payed less because they choose different jobs and because they work less than male full time workers. we aren't talking about if women were treating unfairly in the past we're talking about present day. and also your talking specifically about recent american history completely leaving out the rest of the world were there are places women still aren't allowed to vote and have many rights restricted. there are places they are oppressed but in the west they definitely are not. and yes it is their choice to be a nurse instead of a hydraulics engineer. thats the thing though when they live in a society where they can make a good living doing whatever they want they can choose what makes them happiest and how many hours they are willing to put into a job and still have a life. more men are willing to have no life working for various reasons so on average across all male and females in full time men make more also represent like 93% of workplace deaths if your risking your life you better get payed more or they wouldn't do it. honestly if you come at me with the men and women are the same bs i would be wasting my time so maybe you have a productive response to defend your position with?
About a hundred years ago women weren't allowed to vote And about fifty/sixty years ago they weren't allowed into most workspaces But no, this is DEFINITELY their choice yeah you don't sound deranged at all
??????
Any video that gets Peterson in a bath tub gets a thumbs up from me!
10:14 where's the lie tho?
Lets look at petersons rules for success. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkFvVX3q69s 1. my measure of success is positive experience and a lot of it. And I got it! I go through dick after dick, I fuck and swing like crazy, and I am GOOD at it. It's paradise. Taking molly at a fetish party as having three dicks well embedded in me. That's success for me and I WANTED it. Fuck you Professor Peterson. 2. I think critically. I am an intellectual battle cruiser. And thinking makes me virulently atheist, transhumanist, progress driven, societal disruption driven. I am highly influential. Fuck you Professor Peterson. 3. I am literally on government watch lists. No shit here. I am no longer allowed to enter the US. I am far far far from harmless. I don't use violence but I sure as hell will tell you when you need to. When needed I can just as easily dismantle an assault rifle as I can the brain of a religious extremist or some reactionary conservative cunt. Fuck you professor Peterson. 4. Holy shit when I compare myself with what I was and what I become I am PURE JOY. I have succeeded. I had my penis inverted in to a vagina, I got tits, my face melted from this undesirable male-ness into a pretty darn effective femininity, and I LOVE EVERY DAY OF IT. I have completely succeeded, so fuck you Professor Peterson. Suck my dick. 5. Start Small. Hehehehe. Fuck you Professor Peterson. 6. Don't Make Excuses. I fucking don't. Fuck you Professor Peterson. 7. Change myself - I did and I am still changing. Like pure fire. Massively. I fitness sometimes seven days a week, I go to parties obsessively, I dance like someone half my age and I fuck like an angel. I wanted to BE hedonistic and free and I became, so Fuck you Professor Peterson. 8. Toughen Up - Hahahahahahahahahahaha, I did and FUCK YOU Professor Peterson. 9. My winning strategy is changing the world and contributing to the world. I am dedicated, I am a memetic octupus, and the world I and the people like me envision is reall totally not the world you envision, so fuck you Professor Peterson. If my winning strategy succeeds the world as you know and desire it, you confused dark enlightenment idiot, will be swept aside. 10. I am, fuck you professor Peterson. I am and I am NOT what you'd envision you would want a human being to be. Do not call up what you can not put down, old guy, lest you will be drowned in milk.
Beyond subbed
I mean, you totally poured out mothers milk in this video, just wasted it, that mother had to die so you could have your fancy bullshit.
Do yourself a solid and research nutrition science.
It's so hard to get on board with your channel when you still believe in murdering animals.
Good,video, but why did you have to do the animal product thing?
10:05 It's kind of funny that you critisize Peterson for comparing trans-activists to Mao, but in same time think that it's a legit argument to compare Peterson to nazi because he used simmilar words.
22:00 And that's plain false. Some people on left see hierarchy itself as a problem.
When we got to the Atari noises I almost lost my shit, lol.
Great astute video, but slow it down, girl. Too many complex ideas ideas and explanations coming rapid fire. It was hella hard to follow.
fan. tastic.
The carrot was a nice touch ! Courgettes do the job !
You're the best thing since the Big Bang.
Awesome video ! I subscribed immediately !
wow, you're really good! thx
That bit from 2:38-2:48 was fucking amazing not gonna lie.
Evergreen state college , we don't want , that's why.
I would love to see a public debate between JP and you. Yes, you are that good. By the way, Dave would be no match for you. Take on JP and let the good times roll!
I really enjoy Peterson's work. HOWEVER. This was the best, most entertaining, and valid criticism of Peterson Ive watched. Fantastic.
With all this YouTube ad revenue you would think he could get some voice training lmao
Milk cost too much money to be wasting in every video! Lol
No one has demolished Peterson and his repulsive schistosome tribe with more fucking elan! Mazel tov!!!!!!!
As a queer JP fan i think you hit the nail on the head with JP's argument at @23:00 his criticism is from the left IMO. It is a left based critique that the anarchists shifted in ideology to not wanting un-just hierarchies but the "left" has been co-opted by fascist capital forces disguised as the left,-- and now reject all hierarchy. Seriously, i was at a party and some guy was arguing against music theory-- he was not a musician-- but saying that music theory just expresses the western tradition (not true). It's arguments like that where JP is strong i but they enact fascism through a doctrine of equality-- that is not based on equality of argument but on equality of feeling. I think if you want to understand Peterson's direct criticism of Neo-marxim you were spot on with Foucault. But I think it has deeper roots. It is really the French 60's interpretation of power dynamics of Marx. In a simple way, Peterson is a rejection of Marx in the same way that Marx is a rejection of Hegel. JP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq2dQQnjN74 Zizek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY Jewish encyclopedia on Hegel: "His system has been described as "logical idealism." According to him, all that is actual or real is the manifestation of spirit or mind; metaphysics is coincident with logic, which develops the creative self-movement of spirit as a dialectic and necessary process. God is this self-unfolding spirit, and in the course of the selfrealizing, free process of unfolding, creation leaps into being. The world is a development of the principles that form the content of the divine mind." Peterson and Zizek both seem to be arguing for a self defined system that uses Chrsitianity as a symbolic way to kill man's concept of God, and step himself into the power of the super-ego and define his own reality. We cannot do that now, because we do not have the tools of art. Which Zizek and Peterson are both helping to describe. But we need to make our own symbolic meaning structures (Peterson) and not rely on a big other (Zizek.) These are essential points for us on the left. Remember, the bros that he is reaching to are the low hanging fruit we looked beyond. I studied under Coetzee--> Under Derrida. Theory: 1. Peterson has a working class background: Fact. 2. Peterson is well respected in Academia for years until he starts getting Donations from patreon-- which undermines the very funding and power structure of the academic left. 3. JP is using the tools and the language and the knowledge of the left tradition through the Logos in the traditions of: Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Jung, Freud ect. to critique the current state of the left-- to wake up to symbolic reality, and to ditch materialism. 4. The Facade-Left, is not the real left: an egalitarian platform to find the "true ways" through discourse-- yet the Facade-Left (the Vampires Castle) sets it self up to talk about egalitarianism in order to compete to be "the most egalitarian" and sell the most books-- through domination of market through capital--not conversation. 5. Identity politics in this regard is the perfect capitalistic tool against social egalitarianism as it creates the system to subsume the the subject of socialism in an ever fractional set of identities which all need to fight for their specific "equality'" and thus separation and continued otherness, and limits the effectiveness of group organization and identity. 6. Because of the threat that JP is to the fake-left, who is on the capital spectrum selling ideas, The facade left has pigeon whole'd Peterson in an argument about the nature of prescriptive language, which is protecting symbolic reality and naming things, calling him a "transphobe"-- when that is misrepresentation of his arguments in order to discredit him based on Ethos, as he is correct we must find a way to re-create grand narratives-- his point! Some narratives are useful. Mark Fisher wrote in 2013 before killing himself: http://www.thenorthstar.info/2013/11/22/exiting-the-vampire-castle/
Really awesome video. I'm a Peterson fan and this is one of the better criticisms I've seen of him on youtube. My only complaint is that you seem to be conflating Peterson's view of the radical left with his view of the left as a whole. I would agree that sometimes he doesn't make the line so clear, but he has said that the left is necessary and just, actually working to dismantle unjust hierarchies, but he sees the radical left as dangerous and their ideologies as becoming too mainstream.
Personally I am afraid of Jordan Peterson's ideas precisely because they're not new ideas. I'm afraid of the damage that it has already done and will continue to do in the U.S. I'm afraid of the damage that it will do to Ontario, where the University of Toronto is, when people like Doug Ford, who are cut from the same cloth, are elected into power.
My impression is tht Peterson is not opposed to social progress but tht he is very skeptical of ideologies tht claim to have a solution to problems like inequality. He seems to want to approach the problems with more seriousness and consideration for its complexity; to me thts actually evidence for how he *would* genuine like to see progress. And he mentions the lobsters in context to hierarchies, I believe to better explain how difficult it would be to successfully solve the problems tht arise out the hierarchies in society, like inequality, b/c potentially they are very deeply ingrained in us biologically. -a claim tht at this point cannot be proven true or untrue- it’s open question tht he clearly believes is worth asking. As far as I can tell he isn’t making a hard, mater of fact claim but is making an argument for something tht could conceivably be true.. I know it can appear differently tho b/c of the way he speaks but I could be wrong.. Also, I don’t think it is necessary to speculate about what it is he is trying to “imply” by his vagueness. I would rather like to see someone respond to what he is saying with more attention and patience, instead of immediately questioning his underlying motives or what he may be implying. Idk, but I feel like if Newman had done something like tht in her interview w/ Peterson it would have been way more productive. I mean can someone make a case for why it’s necessary to question what he is implying rather than digging deeper in other ways? I would appreciate it lol Ps I’m not a “Jordan Peterson fan “ however I have learned a lot from listening to him, and others like him. But at this point I don’t know exactly how much I agree or disagree with him, still figuring it out
As a hardcore Petersonian, you made some really really good points there.... touche amiga...why don't your bring those to Jackie Jackson's *coughDAvecough* free marketplace of ideas....sooon... Viele Grüße aus Deutschland! Prost !
But what are we to do with the damned centrists?
Bible readings ewwwwwwwwwww
I think that on a small scale, everyone is socialist. My family and I share the same house, the same food and the same money. But when you extrapolate the ideals of socialism to a much larger scale (i.e. the population of an entire country), it becomes nearly impossible to manage and creates footholds to brazen corruption. The reason why it may become hard for everyone deal with government mandated funding is because what I consider important (education), may not necessarily be the same thing for the next family and the family after that. Mean while, the people who control major industries (military, power, oil, agriculture etc.) would invariably remain at the top sort of speak, and this is where corruption would start seeping in, which would consequently foster violence, poverty and a lot of other bad stuff . There are many historical examples of this happening (even here in the US). This is why I agree with capitalism, and the federally mandated equal employment opportunity act brought on by the civil rights act of 1964. Please give this a read and let me know what you think at your earliest convenience. Sincerely.
This was so great
That white outfit at about 10 min in looks great on you! Your hair looked really good too!
"Trans activists aren't Stalin", yeah, no shit Sherlock. An egg isn't a chicken either, but give it time and it'll get there.
Fun fact: Peterson is well aware of the postmodernism/Marxism contradiction. "You don't get to be a postmodernist and a Marxist. You actually technically cannot be both of those things at the same time." - his own words from Joe Rogan Experience #1006, 1:29:50.
Intersectionality has been influenced by poststructuralism including Derrida, and Foucault but also black feminism and standpoint theory mixed with some post-colonial and yes even marxist influence.
I’m a fan of Dr. Peterson, loved his book and I think this is fantastic and I agree with so much of it. You’re brilliant. I hope JP sees this, I think he’d love it. Bravo!
I fux with this, even though I find myself aligned with Petterson and the the right. Well constructed video, with a good bit of entertainment. One thing I do have to ask: What do you attribute your source of cynicism/unhappiness? Do you find that it is your transition that is the cause, or the people that you might perceive to oppose your transition? I see a lot people who are unhappy who are turning to politics (identity or not) to fill some void and find conflict. That latter point is personal to me, because I caught myself picking sides when I was in a depressed state, and this certainly does not just manifest in the left or in the right.
As a Scotsman i am deeply offended...by how that cucumber was cut, i mean who needs cucumber sliced that thick?
Something I gather from the comments is people reeeally don't like your point that 'Post Modern Neo Marxism' or whatever vaguely left-ish ideologies they denounce, are Western. I have seen comments such as "Yes, they are western, but they're not what made the West great." Like, just admit that your defense basically amounts to 'I miss the good ol' days' and stop using words like "The West" as a vague concept of greatness to make your ideas more attractive.
Hello, I'm pretty new to your channel and wanted to make a request. Can you make a book collection? I would really like to read what you have in your collection. Because I think you are a smart person and you are doing a great job.
...I think I'm in love
That was a great point about "the West" at the end. "Postmodern Neo-Marxism" is western. It's not about deconstructing western culture, because, as pomo neo-Marxism is part of the west, it can only be an evolution. Therefore, what Peterson (and all these right-wing closet fascists) are defending is the idea that western society should not change, that it should return to when it owned the entire planet as colonial possessions. Peterson's racism exposed! Lol
I tried to pay attention but, got too distracted by how cute you are *_*
Sometimes boys just need a daddy
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE U AS OUR TRANSGENDER STALINIST!!
U R SO SMART I LOVE U
I'm a Peterson fan but this was really smart and funny with some very solid points. Excellent work, thank you.
Well said. Subbed
Can Cathy Newman just stop letting the trans community down please
Calibri Haha, I feel like now whoever opposes Jordan Peterson will be called a "leftist" by his fans. Then there'll be a video titled "Jordan Peterson DESTROYS leftist blah blah blah". I guess these people probably think that CNN is a leftist propaganda media as well...
安托万米克 when has she ever claimed to be a leftist. Flaming centrist if I've ever seen one! :p
Cathy lets all the leftists down as well. Poor Cathy.
shamelessly dishonest and manipulative, congrats you are a full blown woman now!
It was channel 4 not BBC
I hope Contra reads this. This vid got me to reflect on how I see myself as a feminist. If I’m a post modernist feminist, where even the separation of gender and the idea of womanhood is in itself oppressive, or regular modern feminism, which embrace the idea of “womanhood” in almost a post-post-modernism way to rally together women as a unified cause for change. Because I’m kinda half and half, in terms of how I wish to define myself and want to step forward with my gender identity. Because defining your gender identity as an individual outside of any collective group can feel liberating, but I don’t even know if that’s for me. And my medication, which would give me those desired physical characteristics that are associated with what society categorises as “womanhood”, is something I greatly desire as a form of feeling comfortable in my skin and how I’ve seen myself even at an early age, but then I have to wonder if those feelings about my body should be fed into through transitioning or if they’re remnants of an exclusionary way we define gender in our current patriarchy. AHHHH IT’S TOO COMPLICATED. As Contrapoints would agree: Dysphoria is a fucking bitch. I wish I had your assured voice when you conterpoint Cockbane’s post-modernist TERF rhetoric of “Is that all women are to you?” with “...yeah.”
Grand narrative vs no grand narrative. This may be one way to characterize the divide, and it may be temperamental. Like Sam Harris and Peterson seeing parallel but separate truths. You actually can figure out what Peterson is saying, but it requires significant work, not the least of which is understanding Maps of Meaning. If you are temperamentally like Sam Harris, and see the spiritual dimension of humanity as pure consciousness, then it is irreconcilable with Petersons, which is predicated on evolved Archetypes (imagistic). This is the difference, say, between the the traits of openness and orderliness (potentially, may not quite have that right). It is also the difference between Buddhism and Christianity “roughly speaking” as JBP would say. I hope you get on Rubin. I have advocated for this.
You’re missing one thing - that it is when the pronouns are enforced, required. Not that they exist or are valid, which of course,they are (within the reasonable parameter of being able to function in society without counter-oppression). Enforcement is one of the main issues. I do wish you would be on Rubin. I have advocated for this
DeoMachina If it’s int the bill, and the bill gets passed, it can be enforced. That is a problem. Having a position is one thing, having the power to force others to adopt behaviors based on an ideology is another.
"Enforcement" So, not like what's in the bill then
i don't agree with almost all of the points you've made but bITCH I WAS SCREAMING THROUGHOUT THIS VIDEO YOU'RE HILARIOUS GIRL WOw i subed
You know, the problem here is that you shame your parents with your own behavior. I'm sorry that you have a mental disability but your parents are secretly dying inside because of your behavior. The reason why everyone hates gays is because you seem to not care that your behavior hurts your parents and society in general. This is why I can't support the Left, I honor my ancestors and love society too much.
You have no concept of history, of who your ancestors were or what they did and for what reasons. There's more than 2000 years of history, my guy. But hey, since you seem to be really passionate (albeit ignorant) of history, I'll fill you in on some of the gaps in your knowledge: -People were gay 2000 years ago. We know this, because they wrote it down. -Society as a whole thinks it's shameful? Whose society? Mine doesn't seem to think that. -In ancient times, men died for many reasons. For money, to defend their country, to attack other countries, for revenge, the list goes on. Some ancient Romans and Vikings died trying to enslave my people, should I honour their sacrifice and put myself in chains? No? Should I live how my ancestors lived? By giving up things like technology or writing? Are you doing that? Some of my ancestors put their life on the line for different causes. I have ancestors who fought on different sides of WWII for example. Who do I choose to honour? Can it be both? You have considered none of this. Suffice it to say, 2000 years ago they had more pressing concerns than sodomy. You're disrespecting them to the extreme by using them as a shield for your bigotry. -You're a hypocrite, you're sitting here in complete violation of the way of life of your ancient ancestors. NONE of them sat down and made videos about stock markets, and you think it's okay for you? -As for Christianity, it was forced upon my ancestors by fire and sword. If you want me to respect my ancestors from 2000 years ago, I must necessarily discard Christianity. Of course, this is all white noise for you, you don't give a shit about any of that. You just hate gays, and you're trying to act like it's not compatible with traditionalism.
DeoMachina Go be a degenerate if you want to but don't dare shame me for pointing out that you're a disgrace to society and your family for flaunting your behavior and disrespecting your people. It doesn't matter if you think being gay is okay or not, society as a whole thinks the action is shameful, by creating waves and discarding 2000 years of history, 2000 years of men who fought and died for your right to exist today, you're making a mockery of their sacrifice and for what? To what end? Who are you to say these men's sacrifice should be tossed asside because you want to put your dyck in another man's butthole or you think "gays are oppressed"? Who are you to decide that your ancestors are wrong? Who are you to decide that society is wrong for hating gays? You are nothing but a troublemaker who hates his own people or hates the world and should feel ashamed of yourself if you truly think like this. This is why I would never support a Leftist, they are filled with hatred for their own people, why would I support such a position of misplaced malice? Does the US throw gays off of rooftops like the Muslims do? No. The US has rules though, the US has a society and a way of properly behaving like any other culture on the earth. Leftists hate rules and want to destroy the very foundation of society which keeps our people from killing each other (constantly discarding the rules which governed their ancestors). Again, for what end? To what end do leftists discard Christianity? To what end do leftists hate whites who built the modern world? To what end do leftists serve by being filled with such hatred for their ancestors?
That's the most closeted thing I've read today
I am freezing and this doesn't help me not die.
Thank you for being what the left needs right now. Nothing will upset the alt-right more than having a gender queer use arguments and not just “being offended”.
Ex-JP fan here. I was a fan until it became clear he was a really a bit loony when it came to left-wing-conspiracy stuff. Though he rightfully exposes how sexism and racism are cynically exploited by the left, he NEVER speaks about the fact that aside from that, sexism and racism are also very REAL problems. Unfortunately almost everyone on the left seems to be too scared or insecure to actually engage on the subject matter, resorting to slander in stead, and therefore they make JPs points seem even stronger. So thank god for this video that faces JP head on, on fair terms, and brilliantly calls him out on his bullshit in a hilarious way.
DeoMachina Yeah, that is precisely the reason why I wrote that you might argue with that. Moreover, you may also argue that a philosophy that is completely disinterested in politics (like Wittgetstein’s and most of Schopenhauer’s) exposes an agreement with social status quo. However, philosophy that proposes a plan of having no plan is definitely not claim for social engineering. The latter presumes achievement of certain desired outcome, while plan less philosophy claims that outcome cannot be predicted, let alone engineered.
There's a catch though: Letting society just happen instead of trying to influence it, is still a plan. Just like how free range farming is still farming.
DeoMachina You could argue otherwise, yet there are some (e.g. the whole Anglo-American analytic tradition that is mostly apolitical) and there exist even such the whole appeal of which is in proclaiming futility of social planning and opposing attempts of it. For example, Hayek’s and Mises’ whole shtick was to proclaim that societies are too complicated as entities to be planned out or engineered. See the debates between Hayek and Keynes.
Uh, don't all philosophies care about social planning or engineering?
No. None that I've listened to are quite so explicit about the fact that life isn't all sunshine and rainbows, that you aren't good enough and that most of your problems are your fault. He even attacks the notion of happiness as your motivation. A lot of the self-help and motivation I've come across is highly sugar coated. I think JBP takes a very sincere look at the shitty side of life.
Isn't that like Every motivational speaker ever
So now you are above me? But you're not being high handed or condescending at all.
You haven't challenged anything. You haven't even made a declarative statement. Other than JP isn't that smart.
John Frenette - There are basically two ways that people lower down the intellectual ladder react to those above them -- if someone above them confirms their prejudices, then they think that person is brilliant & hang on that person's every word -- &, if someone above them tells them things they don't want to hear or consider, they say that that person is an elitist, condescending, high-handed fool...
John Frenette - Oh, you were looking for a discussion? Strange, I thought we were having one -- I guess it doesn't count as a discussion if I challenge your precepts -- my bad, dude, my bad -- next time, I'll agree w/ everything you said, so that you can go away w/ your biases confirmed & a big smile on your face! :)
You're a high handed fool.
My phone's auto correct sucks. You seem very close minded and your tone is condescending.
Reuter you seem her close minded and you time is very condescending. I'm not going to copy and paste your own comment for you to point out your hypocrisy. And if your just going to call me stupid using your big fancy vocabulary then this conversation is done. I was looking for a genuine exchange of ideas.
John Frenette - Uhhh...no. Considering how the Socrates quote is consistent w/ everything else I've been saying, I don't know how you get "sarcasm" out of that -- maybe *you* think Socrates is an "authority", but I do not -- to me, Socrates was a thinker, someone who came up w/ concepts that were, for his time, very much outside the box -- many of the things he said are, from a more evolved perspective, just as ridiculous as the concepts he argued against, but that particular quote is timelessly applicable...
John Frenette -- Did you know that various types of intelligence can be arranged in a spectrum? It's true! You can have very intelligent people [geniuses] on one end, and very unintelligent people [stupid] on the other -- & saying that someone is not "all that smart" simply means that they aren't high on the "genius" end [no matter how much they may think so themselves], but it does not mean that they are way down on the "stupid" end -- do you understand now? Good! & it's just a fact that people who are closer to the "stupid" end can be [unduly] impressed w/ the "intellect" expressed by those above them, even if those above them aren't in actuality particularly smart -- especially if those "intellects" state their beliefs [substantiated or not] w/ unshakable certainty & authority -- I'm sorry that observed reality seems "dismissive' to you -- oh, & if you can point out exactly where I'm doing the same things that Peterson does, I will be very, very surprised -- good luck!
And I agree you should question everything, I'm just saying it's hard to step out of the framework you were born into. It runs deeper than most people are even aware they go.
Reuter I take it that last part was sarcasm , given that Socrates is just another authority.
You said "he is not all that smart." I was just using a shorter way of saying that. Fine, you never said stupid. That was my interpretation of what you said. But you imply something very similar. And you also imply without coming right out and saying it, that anyone who agreed with him must be less smart. A little dismissive I think. Also, you accuse JP of the same things I see in your comment. Just speak plainly.
Considering how throughout most of history, not acting like you believe in some type of deity was punishable by death, I don't think that point is as strong as you believe. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mocking him for being religious. I'm referencing the fact that this guy - a grown man - claimed that faith in god was *required* for any kind of logical, formal proof.
John Frenette - Would you please stop pleading to authority? All it does is expose your own intellectual weakness -- just because some "great minds" have believed in a deity does not mean it is reasonable or correct to do so -- & the saddest part is that you're basically arguing for willful ignorance -- just because one was raised Christian or Muslim or Jewish or what have you is a very poor reason to continue to incorporate such religious thinking into one's world-view w/out giving it close & critical scrutiny -- what you're talking about there is the unconsidered life, & you know what Socrates had to say about that...
Most of he great minds throughout history have believed in some type of deity. How can you be sure you're not the stupid one. Atheist are the minority historically speaking. And he was raised religious, plus I'm pretty sure he subscribes to the Jungian school of thought. So weird metaphors would be second nature to him. I grew up in Quebec, so most of my beliefs have a Catholic base. Just like most of yours are probably based on Christianity. Don't believe me? How do you feel about cannibalism and incest? Because those are things we are taught by our society to find distasteful. Different societies have different taboos.
John Frenette -- Hmmm -- I'm looking for the part where I said he's stupid...hmmm...not finding it -- perhaps you think that saying someone isn't all that smart is the same as saying they're stupid -- news flash, it's not -- the fact is, there are tons of tenured professors out there who have some very ill-considered, unfounded, & illogical beliefs, so your pleading to authority is a flat fallacy to me -- & the thing these people tend to have in common is that they base their beliefs on things that *they* consider to be axiomatic, when in fact the premise they're using is actually seriously flawed -- so they can be very smart in some regards [ie: extrapolating from a premise], while being not that smart at all in other regards [ie: recognizing that their premise is based on their personal biases, a not on sound reason] -- it's like math -- you can be a brilliant mathematician, & develop highly precise formulas, but if the original numbers you input are wrong, then the result is going to be incorrect, no matter how exacting the process you put it through -- &, for my money, that's just not all that smart...
Why do we think the guy who wrote that "faith in God is axiomatic to all proof" is stupid? HMM GEE I WONDER
Although you said it is the core problem with Peterson, you did not explain why a move away from progressive politics, in it’s current form, is a bad thing. You provided a good explanation why leftists are eating themselves and those on the outside see large ridiculous contradictions and confusion within it. Peterson is saying there are biological differences between men and women that can explain differences in outcomes. He disagrees that all differences in outcomes are a result of sexism and he is ok with the reality that there will be differences in outcomes. He has helped coach women to overcome the traits we tend to have due to our evolutionary development. Overcoming these traits can assist in obtaining work in non-traditional areas. You admitted that leftists are trying to tear down the hierarchies of gender, race and economics. What if their thinking is flawed? Couldn’t that lead to a fairly large amount of destruction? Isn’t a large part of “The West’s” success due to capitalism? Your opinion may be no, this would explain why you foo foo the idea that it is a problem; whereas, others like Peterson who recognize capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system, think it is destructive to try to tear it down. Are you sure he isn’t simply referring to geography when he says “The West”? Finally, neo-Marxism is mainly based on postmodernist critical theory. I don’t see the problem with stating postmodern neo-Marxism or postmodern Marxism, it makes sense. It differentiates between modernist Marxism and postmodern neo-Marxists.
Progressivism and conservatism are defined as being opposites, like up and down or left and right. You don't get to pick a mystery third option here. Everything falls into one or the other somehow. And Peterson IS a conservative catering to conservatives. You say my summation of it is bizarre, yet as we speak conservatives are killing people off, ruining lives, and usually for little or no reason. In the USA environmental regulations are being torn up to such an extent that it has rendered America incapable of combating climate change. If you don't think there's a hefty death toll attached you're a fool. Freedom of choice is an interesting thing to bring up, perhaps we should wait until that exists first though?
DeoMachina Why would conservatism be the only other option? Pretty bizarre conspiratorial view of it you hold regardless. Biological differences isn’t all it was. Don’t recall anyone saying that. The point is it is unlikely, with freedom of choice, you will get absolute conformity to population proportion. Additionally, if you want that you need to be looking at all aspects that create the difference instead of ignoring it is a variety of reasons. In terms of capitalism and economy, what system are you cheering on?
Conservatism in its current form is little more than a death cult, so abandoning progressivism is definitely a bad thing. If biological differences between the sexes was all it was, then why would so many people feel the need to enforce a difference of outcome? If it was just natrual for men and women to do different things, why were women banned from education for centuries? In regards to capitalism, it's actually pretty creepy to cheer it on because it's lifting people out of poverty...when it's the reason so many of them are in poverty in the first place. And it's the reason why poverty is increasing in first-world nations.
I've got boxes full of Pepe!
So good! Thank you! I learned a lot...and the lighting was perfect.
wow not even 2 minutes in and ya lying already
I'll bite because I hate myself. What did she lie about?
Did you have this sex doll before youtube
Wear a kinky lobster suit next time
Damn I kind of agree with some leftists and certain leftist ideas like national charity
You should take a free helicopter ride to the pacific, strings not attached
God, all of these names, terminologies, quotations. I feel like I should be taking a test on this.
Great video, except for the part implying that Stalin and Mao were mass murderers :c
This level of dishonesty is beneath you. Peterson didn't have a problem with protecting transgender people. He had a problem with a law that would give the government the power to punish people for not subjugating themselves and surrendering their freedom of speech to the demands of so called social justice. He has made his position on this very clear several times. There is no way that you didn't know this if you did your homework on this topic, and you clearly did. Peterson had the same problem with C16 that any sane person would have with civilians in Germany being legally mandated by the government to perform the heil Hitler salute. Painfully ironic how so called anti fascists have a problem with a guy fighting fascism. For the most part this video holds up as entertaining, but the level of dishonesty is just sad. You went out of your way to make an informative video about someone, only to produce misinformation.
The law was not what Peterson says it is. He lied. So everything you just said about contra, you should now be saying about Peterson. There's no way you didn't know this if you did your homework on the topic though, so maybe I'm wasting my time.
Hi, I'm a fan a JBP, and I've watched like a hundred hours of his talks, and I've also watched many videos criticizing the man, because, like you, I like hearing both parts. And let me tell you, this may be the best Jordan Peterson critic video I have seen so far. Congratulations my lady, you won a suscriber. Also, you are very funny. I laughed many times during the video :)
Holy shit is Youtube turning me into.....A LEFTIST now?
shit is weak. compared to the last 100,000 years of human history professor peterson is a veritable demigod of progressive liberalism. all these arguments, counter arguments and commentaries upon commentaries lack depth and appreciation for how enormously godlike humans have become in terms of raw power in an enormously short time. that anyone would find a serious objection to a human urging us to proceed cautiously in a world mostly of our own design, the consequences of unreflective action in which no party can credibly predict, is the idological equivalent of icarus's flight ... in fact this ancient myth is designed to teach humans exactly the limits of our intellect that every generation continuously must discover or ignores at its peril ... don't assume because you don't often see wolves on your strolls down city sidewalks that the laws of nature ... and human nature especially, no longer apply to you ... but who am i to tell you this if you understand you have no need to hear it if you don't it's the only thing that might save your wretched life from miserable pointless suffering. motte and bailey throughout the video. essentially this speaker asks us to put on equal footing the arguments of a man who has devoted his life to educating students, helping people work through their difficult and wrecked personal lives to be their fullest selves, and raising and supporting a family any one of which is miraculous in its own right if done even moderately competently ... against the arguments of a person who has decided that nature has failed her idea of herself ... as if the idea of one's self preceeded nature and must make the latter serve the former. perhaps this is a dreadfully unfair thing to say ... to draw in someone's personal life into a critique of their flaccid ideation and poorly formed projections. At least in this respect let us imitate nature and be cruelly unfair. Laughable.
l2/write
Peterson is one of those people who's nowhere near as great as his fanboys pretend while also being nowhere near as bad as his detractors think he is.
Thanks for this video, its well put together and is quite informative! I personally enjoy Peterson's rhetoric for the most part and tend to agree with him that and legislation which commands citizens to censor their speech could be a very slippery slope. He specifically sights how our thoughts play an important role in defining/evolving into our actions and by controlling our words you are destroying an important intermediary between thoughts and actions which is a recipe for disaster in the worst case scenario. Now i want to temper the paragraph above with the idea that most ideas or policies can become slippery slopes if they become rampant and its not completely unique to the space of controlled speech. Though the space of speech is so integral to the evolution of thoughts and ideas (which in turn guide and inform the development of our species) that i cant help but feel everyone on all sides of the political spectrum need to be more mindful of the power of words and exactly what purpose they serve to us all.
What I've gleamed of Petersons lectures and podcast-appearances is that the naturally occurring hierarchies inevitably produce results along the pareto distribution that will look patently unjust in observation and that we haven't (the left or the right) found a working solution to this problem that wouldn't devolve into totalitarianism once the natural occurrence reproduces the unjust result despite efforts to stop it (since we don't know how to fix it). In the case of bill c16 Peterson made the claim that LEGISLATIVE approach to the problem is the wrong step to take to protect the minorities, as this would be the first steps towards the totalitarianism we should avoid. There's a lot of other things I would like to expand upon, but it's 4 am and I do actually have to get up at some point to cook a mother's day dinner, so toodles!
Everything the video conveniently misses in one easy paragraph.
i love you and your videos with all my heart. you got me back into politics and you're such a fucking cool and hilarious person. lots of love!
You can get your information from Dr. Jordan Peterson. Or this tranny who does not know what biology is. Nuff said
You have never studied biology.
Degenerates
They want you, Natalie. They know the only way to neutralise the threat of your influence is to capture for their own. Will you resist the siren call? Also you’re cute and I liked when you said “i learnt it at the AA meetings I refuse to go to” it was really good.
I was given a link to this video from another video which attempted to criticize Peterson. The other one was too complex for my small mind. This one I could follow, with inhuman effort, for about 3 minutes.. Peterson can express things clearly. My small mind can follow hos thoughts for 20 minutes or even more..
One of the things which you sell in your package, with your video, is all your emotions about things. I do not want your emotions and every second of your video is a struggle to filter them out..
Marxism is the idea of permanent class struggle in order to destroy hierarchies, neo-marxism is this idea applied to social constructs like race, sexuality and so on. Post-modernism is the idea that words have no meaning, that there is no truth, and categories are simply play or words outside reality, so in other words, it is a delusion. It describes pretty well critical theory, and the major philosophical and political assumptions in higher education. This means science has no place, and everything is politicized to further some goals. I do agree that his concept of the "West" is lacking if not outright historically wrong. It's also true that he suggests a naturalistic fallacy with his talks about hierarchies, but falls short of actually saying it. So he let's people fool themselves. Nevertheless, those things are more than just power struggles, and in fact are the opposite of it, which is why Marxist theories are dangerous for everybody. Anything that denies science and reality is dangerous. It is the case for the individual, but even more so for a society, because at a social level, if everybody is delusional, only a few people will be left to do something constructive. So it is a slow erosion at first, and when it comes into enterprises and the body politics, it is pretty much over. Obviously you don't care, but some people do.
Wow this is fucking great! Totally agree on Strangers With Candy as well. You are my people.
I disagree with one point: Identity politics isn't just about LGBT, women, etc and equality... it also covers white supremacy and other forms of racism, nationalism, and so forth.
what's to music in the background at 5:53 i need it, i'm undergoing a deathly phase of the creative process
ContraPoints, I have a very important question for you. What do you think of peat bogs?
You're good. You kinda lost me in minute 13 when you dismissed the unconscious and its influence in the conscious mind, but besides that... great job I'll subscribe RIGHT AWAY.
get em
Dude, this video is HUGELY education to a goon like me who doesn't understand ANYTHING about postmodernism beyond hearing it demonized by the Peterson set. So basically, I sort of now think that it's a rejection of the idea that we're progressing on a line and improving all the time and instead recognizing that our progression is just movement in a direction - and a direction that often serves to reinforce the needs of those in positions of power.
I want to be your friend, Greetings from South Africa!
I disagree about your assumption that he thinks its a conspiracy by leftists to bring down the west. The problem as he lays out is that progressive politics as what the far left has subscribed to leads to basically the same place Mao and Stalin went when they killed over 100 million people in the name of equality. And hes both right and wrong. Peterson's arguments real flaw is not showing when that happens, when do we take a step too far ? It comes across to most leftists as him saying any progressive policies are evil, but thats not what hes saying. He's saying the problem is these people dont know when to stop, when they "fix" a problem they keep pushing, thats where alot of the backlash on progressiveism comes from. Feminism wants equal rights to men so they push for the right to vote which is fine, then they want the right to have a job which is also fine, then they want to be payed the same for equal work which is fine, then they want the right to not be harassed which is still fine. So at this point they are basically equal as a group but they dont stop suddenly its now we want to be givin special treatment in consideration for certian careers becasue women are under represented in theose fields, but it turns out its becasue the vast majority of women arent intrested in those fields is why women dont take those jobs, now suddenly youve unblanced the system and its not equal its weighted in favor of a minority of women over a majority of men. Bill C-16 did this for trans people in canada it unbalanced the system and gave power of law to a very small minority of a minority of people thats why Peterson objected. Marxism did the exact same thing in China and the USSR and thats why Peterson uses that as an example. It took equality and its meaning and put that in the hands of a minority of a minorty who put foreward laws that were in their best intrest becasue they figured "if im equal then everyone is equal becasue im the oppressed minority", so they killed all political foes deaming them "people who hate equality" while allowing tens of millions in rural areas to starve which lead to food shortages which caused millions more in the cities to starve. So no I dont think its Peterson saying Marxists are conspiring to destroy the west, its more givin the policies we are implementing with the mentality we are implementing them in which we give a minority the power to control the majority its far to close to the same marxist ideals that killed the tens if not hundreds of millions in the 20th century and continues to kill people in countries like North Korea and Venezuela
I really respect and like JP and enjoyed your video. I do think that its not hard to understand what Peterson means about postmodern neomarxism. First of all he has said that it is an inconsistent philosophy, because postmodernism isnt concerned with logic consistency and truth. Second, in his bigthink vid he states that his red flag with this ideology that underlies trans activism, feminism and marxism is the abhorrent idea of equality of outcome.
I knew he was a dumb fuck when i seen his face!
Pretty smart, and hardworking too. I think, however, that there are more flaws in her arguments than Peterson’s
This all seems kinda knitpicky to me, especially the part about "why do you call it the West?" Well what else are you supposed to call it? "White people?" "Europeans?" "Heirs of Rome?" Those all have even stronger implications than "the West."
Are you the only intelligent youtuber? I mean... Even just judging you on your classical music choices makes me think you are. I HATE this platform because it makes this moron seem like a scholar. Thanks for being undumb.
So what? I am a marxist and am actually scary for capitalists.
This is really great.
Hello Contrapoints. I am not a big Jordan Peterson fan, but I am a big fan of yours. You and I hold many contradicting views and I am willing to be some very similar views. I have been wanting to have a conversation with you for a while, and if you are interested I would love to set up a time. On here I am a nobody and I do not expect to get an answer but hey, it is always so if you do not try right?
why are white vegans so fucking insufferable?
As a queer JP fan i think you hit the nail on the head with JP's argument at @23:00 his criticism is from the left IMO. It is a left based critique that the anarchists shifted in ideology to not wanting un-just hierarchies but the "left" has been co-opted by fascist capital forces disguised as the left,-- and now reject all hierarchy. Seriously, i was at a party and some guy was arguing against music theory-- he was not a musician-- but saying that music theory just expresses the western tradition (not true). It's arguments like that where JP is strong-- ie against straw-man arguments that enact fascism through a false doctrine of equality ie all sounds are equal is offensive to music-- music is hard and the people making it are spending a lot of their energy on making it good every time-- so it is not just noise. I think if you want to understand Peterson's direct criticism of Neo-marxim you were spot on with Foucault. But I think it has deeper roots even. It is really the French 60's interpretation of power dynamics of Marx's dialectical Materialism. In a simple way, Peterson is a rejection of Marx in the same way that Marx is a rejection of Hegel. JP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq2dQQnjN74 Zizek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tABnznhzdIY Jewish encyclopedia on Hegel: "His system has been described as "logical idealism." According to him, all that is actual or real is the manifestation of spirit or mind; metaphysics is coincident with logic, which develops the creative self-movement of spirit as a dialectic and necessary process. God is this self-unfolding spirit, and in the course of the selfrealizing, free process of unfolding, creation leaps into being. The world is a development of the principles that form the content of the divine mind." Peterson and Zizek both seem to be arguing for a self defined system that uses Chrsitianity as a symbolic way to kill man's concept of God, and step himself into the power of the super-ego and define his own reality. We cannot do that now, because we do not have the tools of art. Which Zizek and Peterson are both helping to describe. But we need to make our own symbolic meaning structures (Peterson) and not rely on a big other (Zizek.) These are essential points for us on the left. Remember, the bros that he is reaching to are the low hanging fruit we looked beyond. I studied under Coetzee--> Under Derrida. Theory: 1. Peterson has a working class background: Fact. 2. Peterson is well respected in Academia for years until he starts getting Donations from patreon-- which undermines the very funding and power structure of the academic left. 3. JP is using the tools and the language and the knowledge of the left tradition through the Logos in the traditions of: Nietzsche, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Jung, Freud ect. to critique the current state of the left-- to wake up to symbolic reality, and to ditch materialism. 4. The Facade-Left, is not the real left: an egalitarian platform to find the "true ways" through discourse-- yet the Facade-Left (the Vampires Castle) sets it self up to talk about egalitarianism in order to compete to be "the most egalitarian" and sell the most books-- through domination of market through capital--not conversation. 5. Identity politics in this regard is the perfect capitalistic tool against social egalitarianism as it creates the system to subsume the the subject of socialism in an ever fractional set of identities which all need to fight for their specific "equality'" and thus separation and continued otherness, and limits the effectiveness of group organization and identity. 6. Because of the threat that JP is to the fake-left, who is on the capital spectrum selling ideas, The facade left has pigeon whole'd Peterson in an argument about the nature of prescriptive language, which is protecting symbolic reality and naming things, calling him a "transphobe"-- when that is misrepresentation of his arguments in order to discredit him based on Ethos, as he is correct we must find a way to re-create grand narratives-- his point! Some narratives are useful. Mark Fisher wrote in 2013 before killing himself: http://www.thenorthstar.info/2013/11/22/exiting-the-vampire-castle/
ELITERgamersUK Stalin was a massive pig, I know that. I'm not trying to defend the ussr, just giving a bit of context. And again, I can't see your predictions becoming true. There's always going to be opposition. The US has Trump as president, and that was partly due to pushback against progressivism and social justice. I honestly think we will be alright, and that our freedoms won't be taken away. It is not that easy to pull that off.
Perhaps the early Communist revolutions were justified at the time. Like you said, rich aristocrats like the Tsar treated the people like dirt and change was needed. When the job was done and the aristocrats were overthrown or killed, it all changed. The people that were left from the revolutions were people like Stalin, and they weren't satisfied enough. They turned their gaze to anyone who was remotely wealthy or capitalistic. Stalin targeted innocent prosperous farmers called Kulaks. Since the Communist ideology suggests that anyone who has any amount of wealth must have stolen it from someone else, he committed a genocide against the Kulaks. The Soviet union wasn't a result of the Tsar. If social justice policies are massively unpopular, why are they rampant all over Europe and Canada? It's only a matter of time before they make it to the US. And again, I wasn't suggesting trans activists are going to work their way up the system to enact genocidal policies. People sympathetic to the leftist cause will implement policies over many years that will curtail individual freedoms, along with disarming the populace, and overtime, as a result of these policies, the logical conclusion will be authoritarian rule. These policies are being pushed now and already exist, it's only a matter of time.
I don't know about nazi germany, but the soviet union was a result of the tsar being a massive fucking cunt and starving his people. I mean, there was a gathering of russian civilians protesting for food, and the tsar ordered the authorities to run over the people with horses. It was a blood bath. Look, social justice policies are massively unpopular right now. the idea that the trans activists are going to work their way up to the system, take complete control of the land, and enact genocidal policies is fucking nuts, my man.
Of course trans activists won't round up cis people and shoot them, I wasn't suggesting that. You really don't get it, do you? The ideology that trans activists hold, is the same ideology that gave rise to Stalin and Mao. This ideology is also becoming increasingly popular. People will run for public office who regard their ideology greater than the individual freedoms of the general public. These people will implement policies that will chip away at personal freedoms in-order to implement their ideology and to push their agenda on the public. This ideology will spread throughout the culture over many years. Those who refuse to obey these laws will be imprisoned. Those who accept it, will go on to become even more radical. Eventually, an extremely radical person will take hold of power and propose that true progress is being stifled by people who refuse to obey such laws or adhere to the ideology. By then, with a radical populace and an even more radical ruler, extreme measures are justified, for the sake of progress. Seriously, read up on history, read up on how Nazi Germany came about, how Hitler convinced the German people that all of Germany's problems were caused by the Jews. Read up on how the Soviets convinced the poor that the rich were the cause of all their problems. You think Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union happened over night? It had to start from somewhere. We're already seeing cis, white, men being blamed for all the problems minorities face in society. Doesn't that sentiment seem rather familiar?
dude, trans activists won't round up cis people and shoot them. this is just very, very silly. chill.
Tell that to the people Che Guevara lined up and shot during the Marxist revolution in Cuba in the 20th century. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people who were starved and killed in the name of "economic equality". No one thinks it'll go down that road, until it does. It seems to me you're rather ignorant of the history of Marxism/Socialism/Communism and how authoritarian regimes form. I suggest you do some research mate. I recommend you start by reading "1984" but George Orwell, if you don't have the time, watching the movie is just as effective. It's a fictional story that maps out how curtailing liberty ends up. It was rather ahead of it's time, because shortly after, George Orwell's fiction became a reality, and to believe that such things are now in the past and can't happen again is very naive. We are seeing a resurgence of Marxism in a new form today.
they will probably just shout at me a lot. i'm pretty sure they won't put me against a wall and blow my brains out with an automatic rifle.
What do you think happens if you refuse to obey these types of laws? What happens if you refuse to pay the fines? You're sent to prison. People have already been convicted of hate speech violations in Europe. People have been jailed for Holocaust denial in Germany, and most notability and recently a Scottish internet comedian was fined for an offensive joke, where the trial lasted for two years and which the context of the comment was dismissed and the intent behind it was determined by the judge. That is a scary president to set for future trials and is ridiculous that such laws even exist in supposed free, democratic countries. These types of laws are a microcosm of a larger picture. The trans activists are just one piece of the puzzle. What this all boils down to is whether you value liberty. Trans activists and the leftist types are willing to use government power to push their ideological agenda whether you like it or not and your rights be damned.
I still don't think this is comparable to Mao. I mean, come on now. That's just silly.
We are. A lot of the trans activists I've seen support Marxist doctrine, some are aware of it, most aren't through ignorance, but all do so for the sake of "social justice". Legislation has already been passed to push this agenda with the likes of bill C-16 in Canada, that forces all public officials to use a person's preferred pronouns, regardless of the person's actual gender. Now that might seem benign to some, but take it one logical step further, and the government will be expanding the legislation to include the general public next. This would be a huge violation of free speech, which trans activists seem apathetic about, if it means they get their way.
I thought we were talking about trans activists.
If you think it through step by step and take it to it's logical conclusion, it really isn't that far-fetched. It's the exact same ideology, just replace the proletariat with racial minorities and you've got yourself Neo-Marxism, and we all know where Marxism leads to.
don't you think that's a bit of a stretch, tho? I mean, come on now.
tee hee
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? 1) Some parts of the Alt-Right do talk about degeneracy, some are very accepting of Trans-women. 2) I very much doubt you're using the term "Alt-Right" correctly. You seem to be using it as a placeholder for anyone who isn't as far left as Lenin.
From what I've understood, Peterson uses the clusterfuck postmodern neo-marxism because it describes Foucaults postmodern thoughts that power is what drives everything. He then calls out identity politics as a neo-marxist application of Foucault's idea because it divides people into either those who have power and those who have none in the same way as marxism divided people into the ruling class and the working class.
i like Peterson but I think I like you more. subbed
noone has ever said that "lobster's exist in hierarchies, therefore we ought to support all hierarchies are natural". You're a fucking idiot. The lobsters are brought up to illustrate the point that hierarchies pre-date society, they pre-date consciousness for fucks sake. The point is that hierarchies will ALWAYS exist, so what kind do we want ? We CANNOT get rid of hierarchies, and should not degenerate to that.
Me @ 9:12 : God, I wish I was him.
Omg!!! Im now in your fandom!!! I hate academic shit but you make it fucking awesome!!!!! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
I was very confused by the way this video was being presented lol, but you won me over pretty quickly. Fantastic video, the best I’ve seen on Peterson
Peterson is the Dickens of our time, which is to say he criticizes about much but provides very little solutions.
Just a friendly reminder that Pordan Jeterson fucks fax machines
God save the lobster queen will be the name of my band
You're forgetting JP is a jungian, he believes (and also says it on many occasions) that what he calls post modern Marxism is not a coherent world view. He would say: "what do you know about what you believe" and that "people don't have ideas, ideas have people". He thinks that Marxism (+ the adding of identity politics on top) got mixed up with postmodernism (or sceptics) because you can't act as a believer in postmodernism - Why do anything? That gives the postmodernist something to do.
"JP" isn't a Jungian. Jung himself was barely a Jungian, and everybody who calls themselves a Jungian in the modern world only ever mentions Peterson to complain about how he's twisted Jung's ideas so they fit his Cranky Old White Dude complex. I'm...not actually a fan of Jung, personally: he basically threw any attempt at objectivity or empiricism out the window, in an ultimately failed attempt to be a bigger Freud than Freud. But the people who *are* Jung fans -- who, in fact, make being "Jungian analysts" their whole life's profession -- seem to agree that Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about.
Subscriber #109,302, here Contra, remember me. I didn't know about you until YouTube recommended your interview with Chelsea Manning. I was hooked after your "TERFs" video. I like they way you break it down, plus, you're very funny in a warm (and degenerate) way! You've quickly become one of my favorite YouTubers.
Up until the 6th century, most Christians were Syrians and most Syrians were Christians. But look at this account, written by the Syrian Christian John bar Penkaye, of the invading Muslims: "When he saw that there was no amendment, he raised a barbarian kingdom against us, a people who would not hear supplications, who knew no compromise, no peace, and disdained flattery and meanness. Its delight was in shedding blood without reason, and its pleasure laying hands on everything. Its passion was raiding and stealing, and its food hatred and anger; it was never appeased by offerings made to it. When it had prospered and done the will of Him who sent it, it had taken possession of all the kingdoms of the earth, had subjected brutally all the peoples and brought their sons and daughters into a bitter slavery, had avenged in them the opprobrium of God the Word, and the blood of the martyrs of Christ shed through no fault of their own, then our Lord was satisfied and rested, and He agreed to give grace to his people. So the Lord, to punish the sons of Hagar 9 for the ravages they had made, gave them two leaders from the beginning of their kingdom and divided them into two sections. This was so that we might understand the word that was spoken by our Saviour. But they were united until they had subjected the whole earth, but when they returned to tranquility and rested from war, they fought one another. Those in the West said: “superiority is due to us, and the king must be chosen from among us.” Those of the East contradicted them and claimed that it was to them that this was due. As a result of this contention, they came to blows. When they had settled the business according to their methods, the victory fell to the Westerners called Ummayyads 10, and this after a great slaughter that took place between them. A man among them named Mu`awiya 11, took the reins of government of the two empires: Persian and Roman. Justice flourished under his reign, and a great peace was established in the countries that were under his government, and allowed everyone to live as they wished. They had received, as I said, from the man who was their guide 12, an order in favour of the Christians and the monks. Similarly because of his guidance they held to the worship of one God, according to the customs of the old law. Firstly, they were so attached to the tradition of Muhammad who was their leader, that they inflicted the death penalty on anyone who seemed not to obey his commands. Their troops went every year into distant countries and islands, raided and brought back captives from all the nations that are under heaven. From every man they required only the tribute, and left him free to hold any belief, and there were even some Christians among them: some belonged to the heretics 13 and others to us.14 While Mu`awiya reigned there was such a great peace in the world as was never heard of, according to our fathers and our fathers' fathers. It was as if our Lord had said: “I will test you in this way, as it is written: ‘by grace and justice iniquity may be pardoned.’”" It's really not that surprising that Muslims tend to still be like this, and since they oppresed Jews and Christians since their very beginnings until only recently, it's not that surprising we're resentful against them. But pointing out this out can only be interpreted by the left as evidence of racism. As Zizek predicts, they come up with a delusional fantasy about a white "Other of the Other" who is behind the scene pulling the strings. Edward Said pulls one of these Western howlers when he suggests that David Hume (your favorite queen) articulated his empiricism in connection with his racism. But he doesn't seem to want to conduct a genealogy of how medieval Muslim commentaries from the 9th century until the modern period talk about how Allah wants to send homosexuals to hell, inflict terrible corporal punishment on them. Or, in your example, ISIS is the result of a reading of Paradise Lost. As you correctly point out, a true postmodernist *should* want to deconstruct the very idea of a monolithic "West" and demonstrate that "Western" intellectual history is a discontinuous ruptures, schisms, clashes of ideas, etc. between Roman Catholics, Albigensians, Anabaptists, and dudes who like scat porn. But those most influenced by postmodernists don't want to do this at all. This would be completely contrary to their true underlying political motives. You're right that nothing about SJW ideology is non-Western, but they want very much to obscure this, ignoring that they are parasitic on Western ideals of equality and individualism even in critiquing a monolithic 'Western' mode of thinking or set of ways of thinking. Nietzsche, one of Peterson's favorite writers, hated the leftism (both anarchism and socialism) of his day precisely because he saw it as a pseudo-modernistic inheritance of Christian ideas that were secularized. For that matter, when SJWs point out that #NotAllMuslims believe in beating women, owning sex slaves and killing homosexuals, what they really mean is that it is perfectly possible to indoctrinate Muslims into modern Western values -- to 'white-wash' them. Foucault believed that liberal democracy was a 'disciplinary society' that was no less constituted by relations of power than any other, but at the same time this is no less true of postmodernists. But this is no less true of the ethical injunctions present in Foucault's political activism. And it's no less true of Bill C-16 that Peterson became famous for protesting. As Carl Schmitt notes, there is nothing more ideological than the gesture that pretends to be post-ideological and 'neutral.' Threatening to fine or subject someone to 'anti-bias' training (ideological brainwashing) involves attempting to impose their power on those who disagree with the philosophy of linguistic idealism that underlies contemporary transgender ideology. Politics is the articulation of the difference between friend and enemy, and Bill C-16 articulates as "enemy" those who disagree with the the transgender ideology that has its roots in ideologues like Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, and it undertakes sanctions to "protect" transgender people by punishing those who think differently and attempting to gas-light them into submission through trying to force them to believe something that they know is not true on pain of violence. I believe that a "transwoman" is a man who 'feels feminine,' and that 'I identify as a woman' is nonsensical gibberish, and "I am a woman" is a lie. This is simply what I believe, and there are those who experience this as violence, and there are those who believe my beliefs make me worthy of having violence inflicted upon me through instituting Bill C-16. A man who wears a dress does not automatically begin a Stalinist, but someone who enforces Bill C-16 in order to 'protect' such people, is Stalinism at-the-gates. From Schmitt's perspective (and I think Schmitt is right here, and he is ironically close to Foucault), different political regimes must necessarily perceive others as aggressors, and each group will necessarily experience certain beliefs of incommensurable worldviews as forms of 'violence.' We're all violent aggressors -- postmodernists simply tend not to be honest about it when it's a cause they're defending.
You're right that Marxists and neo-Marxists tend to be critical of identity politics because the latter are seen as obscuring allegedly more fundamental economic conditions that alienate and enslave people of all skin colors in fundamentally the same way, but I think it's telling that both advocates of identity politics and critics of identity politics both tend to cite some of the same authors, even if they differ in their application of the ideas. The fundamental idea is that the West, whiteness, white supremacy, the patriarchy, the bourgeoisie, capitalism, blah blah blah, is resonsible for literally everything. I think this is the central connecting link between neo-Marxism and postmodernism that really matters to Peterson, and the rest, in his eyes, is just details, even if there are groups among leftists who see one another as 'traitors to the revolution.' So when Jordan Peterson says that biological differences between men and women are largely the result of differences in socioeconomic status, this is an attack on a large, homogeneous left who may disagree among themselves on how to understand a properly 'liberatory' social program, but they are all unified in their disagreement that this constitutes an example of 'neurosexism.' I think the essential expression of leftist resentment, regardless of what sort of '-ism' they pay lip service to, is that anyone who is disadvantaged socioeconomically is because they are oppressed by some 'Other of the Other.' So both neo-Marxists and postmodernists alike might see patriarchy as a relatively autonomous cultural system, unlike a classical Marxist, who would see it as an epiphenomenon of "capitalism," but the point is that both object to the idea of the 'neurosexist' belief that there are enduring neurobiological tendencies between men and women that contribute to this difference. Men tend to be more interested in STEM fields that pay much more whereas women are more likely to be more interested jobs that involve interacfting with people; men tend to be more highly represented on both ends of the IQ bell curve, and tend to perform better in the visual-spatial categories that are essential for success in these fields, etc. The point is that these differences are simply not necessarily the result of oppression at all. The minute you start saying anything about extremely heritable tendencies or abilities, the left loses their shit. Despite being one of the most validated predictors of criminality in psychology, as well as extremely heritable, IQ has all but disappeared as a reliable predictor of criminality in Western social science literature. And if you point out that schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder, and borderline personality disorder are all both highly heritable (sometimes primarily heritable), as well as very reliable predictors of criminality, the left loses their shit and blames it all on socioeconomic factors, oppression, patriarchy, etc. (these things can and do exacerbate and sometimes even produce these tendencies, but there is nonetheless a highly heritable component that produces such differences, and it's not always someone else's fault). Leftists ridicule this as "biological determinism" and Marxists will code it as "the ruling idea of the bourgeoisie", neo-Marxists will code it as "hegemony' a la Gramsci, postmodernists will ridicule it as a dominant "discourse," but it's all the same garbage -- resentment against the more fortunate and an insistence on seeing those who are less fortunate as oppressed, when this is not always the case. The point is not that Peterson is so far to the right that anyone to the left of him is one homogeneous blob of Stalinism, but that these leftists tend to commit the same kinds of errors even if they are articulated in terms of incommensurable theoretical frameworks. I don't think Peterson's reticence in the Cathy Newman interview was an attempt to be able to frame himself as being strawmanned -- that sort of obscurantism just isn't his style. Look at what he says here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Ur71ZnNVk Look at how reluctant the guy he's talking with is to accept the fact that, if you have an IQ of 83 or lower, you're pretty much nothing but a burden on society. This is primarily the result of genetics. This is how the left is in general. I agree that the "lobster argument" is goofy, but he clarifies further when he says we should expect continuity between animals and humans in the way we organize our social structures. Instead of appealing to lobsters, he should have talked about more closely related primate species. Gorillas males tend to dominate harems of females, and females exhibit sexual selection in which they seek out the physically largest and most dominant male. The female orangutan rejects sub-adult males and is only receptive to physically larger males who have undergone surges of testosterone that have made them more dominant. Female squirrel monkeys and female hamadryas baboons likewise seek out the largest males. While most of these primate species have males that tend to actively dominate harem groups, attack competitive males and unreceptive females, in some of these species where females have more power, they still actively seek out dominant males even without constraint. For example, female gelada baboons are the ones who initiate mating, and they will chase off males they don't like and can survive perfectly fine on their own, but they choose to actively seek the most dominant male (who is nonetheless at their mercy if they decide they don't like him). Even the female-dominant lemur species Verreaux's sifaka, whose females beat up males and take their food, are still attracted to males with the highest levels of testosterone, and in terms of reproductive success, are effectively harem groups even though they are not under male constraint. How shocking that our reproductive and social habits so closely approximate those of our closest primate relatives. Shocking! I think Peterson's point would have been much more cogent if he had used these examples. But leftists routinely dismiss this kind of reasoning despite its obviousness. Again, this is the case whether we're talking about a second wave neo-Marxist feminist or a third wave feminist. The only reason they like bad boys (at least while they're ovulating) is because patriarchy made them do it, and since all men are complicit in patriarchy, it's all our fault. Unlike feminists, I very much support the right of women to choose their sexual partner without having to be lambasted for allegedly responding to social conditioning. But there's hardly anything more pathetic or deluded than a feminist who gets burned by dominant guys only to turn around and shriek at #YesAllMen "You do this to me! Fix it. Make it better." I'd recommend Barbara Smuts' "The Evolutionary Origins of Patriarchy" or almost anything by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy for an account of how these hierarchies spontaneously result from sexually antagonistic co-evolution, not a purely social 'patriarchy' that comes from nowhere and unilaterally conditions and determines the subjectivity of both men and women. The important thing, of course, is to avoid the naturalistic fallacy and conclude "well, men evolved to be rape-y, so let's just accept rape" (said no evolutionary psychologist ever). We can combat these problematic tendencies without having to believe that all sexual differences between men and women are purely social. For that matter, we can accept that men tend to watch more pornography because visual indicators of sterility are the most important determinants of sexual attraction and pornography hijacks these neural mechanisms. This is most likely watch chacma baboons masturbate when they see females with sexual swellings even when the swellings are only prostheses attached to females who have undergone ovarectomies, and they will pay (in grapes) to view images of this. Or, take for example, the idea common among second wave feminists that prostitution exists because men want to rape. I think it's obvious that men who solicit prostitutes tend to have more problematic tendencies, but these tendencies are common among primates as well. Capuchin monkeys were trained to use money in the form of otherwise useless pieces of metal, and the male monkeys immediate began trading them for sex with females. The common chimpanzee, bonobo chimpanzee, rhesus monkeys, verreaux's sifaka, etc. all involve trade of resources for sex with females (this is true even though bonobo chimps and verreaux's sifaka are female dominant). They're just taking advantage of the sexual differences in behavior that tend to spontaneously result from differentials in parental investment (contrast this with the pipefish seahorse, in which it is the male who becomes pregnant instead of the female, and as a consequence, they are highly choosy and selective when confronted by several females competing with one another for a chance to mate). Not only would they see this as an attempt to 'justify' patriarchy, but they specifically see it *only* as an example of justifying "Western" patriarchy. If I were to cite Karen Bauer's "Gender Hierarchy in the Qur'ān: Medieval Interpretations, Modern Responses" on how basically all medieval Muslim commentators believed in the subordination of women to men (which usually involved divinely sanctioned beatings), I would be accused of Islamophobia.
Jordan Peterson sympathizer here -- I actually like this video. But your "Why I Quit Academia" summarizes exactly what Peterson hates about contemporary leftism. They (inconsistently, as you point out) insist on the existence of something like a monolithic "Western" hegemony that has just harbored an obsessive hatred for brown people for thousands of years, thanks to Edward Said's horrific "Orientalism" and its legacy among contemporary postcolonial critics. They take a highly local phenomenon peculiar to modern Western imperialism in the Middle East and generalize it across thousands of years, even though Western Christians have usually gotten along just fine with "Eastern" Christians (except for differences in Christology, which was a purely theological and not a racial matter), and the bad reputation Islam has, arose among Syrian and Assyrian Christians whom Arab Muslims invaded and massacred. The point isn't that being transgender automatically makes you a Stalinist or Maoist. But what Peterson was specifically protesting was the use of Bill C16, which effectively says that they will lock you in a cage with rapists and murderers if you don't vocalize your allegiance to their political agenda and force you to say things you don't actually believe. You voice agreement with Peterson's complaints against the authoritarian tendencies of the left in stifling even minor disagreements, but now the left is threatening to jail those who disagree by reading their disagreement as inherent violent. I agree that Peterson is at fault for not explaining what he means by "Postmodern Neo-Marxism," and left without definition, the concept does appear contradictory, especially if "Neo-Marxism" is conflated with classical, 'orthodox' Marxism as is done in this video. Marx takes his "oppressor / oppressed" duality from Hegel and articulates it in purely class-oriented terms, as the bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat, and structuralists and post-structuralists reject Marx's realism, materialism and economism, but they just go on to proliferate a whole bunch of other identities (some obviously real and legitimate, some more questionable) that are oppressed in social and cultural respects. It's true that post-structuralists adopt a skepticism that seems to almost take the form of a kind of linguistic idealism, but despite the epistemological and metaphysical differences you point out in your video, there is real ideological continuity between Marxists and post-structuralists. Antonio Gramsci, for example, departs from classical Marxist emphasis in rejecting exclusive emphasis on the allegedly alienating effects of the capitalist mode of production on subjectivity and emphasizes that cultural hegemony can have causal efficacy in its own right. Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer, also neo-Marxists, likewise come to emphasize the role of the "culture industry" in pacifying the masses. Louis Althusser was a teacher of both Foucault and Derrida, and following the fall of the Berlin wall, Derrida declares his allegiance to Marx and argues that deconstruction is the true heir of Marxism. Althusser helped to mediate his distinctly Marxist version of structuralism to later post-structuralists, and while they jettison Marx's primary concern with economic factors, looking at power relations and how they code our way of viewing the world becomes their major concern. Edward Said specifically cites his reliance on Gramsci's analysis of hegemony and Foucault's discourse analysis as the grid through which he analyzes Western perceptions of "the East." It's because of this reflexive hatred of the West that, despite being gay, Foucault favored the Iranian revolution. Anyone who's read any of the scores of medieval Muslim hadith or Qur'anic commentators knows that Muslims have always hated homosexuals, which makes it at first seem odd that Foucault would support them. But once we understand that cultural Marxism ("postmodern neo Marxism") is primarily by a hatred of the West, it makes more sense. I think "cultural Marxism" is actually an accurate description of what Peterson is getting at, rather than some sort of Neo-Nazi dog-whistle. Now, if Peterson started using the term "Jewish Bolshevism," then we should be worried. I hate Marxism but I don't think it's a plot deliberately formualted and perpetrated by a centralized, secrete elite whose purpose is to finance white genocide and finance international Jewry. Hitler believed this because Jews tended to be disproportionately represented in Marxist circles, but this is just one of innumerable cases of an ethnic or racial group falling in with a bad crowd, which happens to various populations all the time. The identity politics that Peterson is criticizing is fascist. Stalinism, as Mussolini pointed out, was obviously a form of Slavic fascism. Ugo Spirito said the same thing about Maoism after visiting China. What made Hitler's use of anti-Communist propaganda so bad was that he used it specifically to pin it as a discourse that was being perpetrated by a specific racial in order to justify persecuting them. But anti-Communism was not original with Hitler at all. Winston Churchill hated Communism and even noted that Jews tended to be disproportionately represented among Communists, but he noted that there are plenty of "good Jews" who are not Communists and he rejected the idea that there was some kind of unified racial conspiracy. Hitler's anti-communism was bait that led to a much darker close to which anti-Communism does not ordinarily lead. One of the main reasons Hitler even enjoyed any support is because the German populace had good reason to believe Communism was a real threat. By the time Hitler came to power in 1933, Stalin's manmade famines were just ending - they killed 7-10 million Ukrainians by stealing their food supply in the name of his collectivization campaign, and 38 percent of the Kazakh. This was a prelude to the Soviet Union's murder of 12 million Eastern Orthodox Christians and their closure of the vast majority of mosques because of the Marxist idea that religious and spiritual belief is inherently "reactionary." You argue that Marxism and postmodernism are fundamentally at odds on the grounds that Marxism is a grand narrative whereas postmodernism is a skepticism of ground narratives, but I believe (and I think Peterson would agree with thsi) that humans are so inherently predisposed to generating grand narratives that self-identifying postmodernists are no less modernistic in this respect. Matthew Sharpe articulates ZIzek's critique of the anthropological and psychoanalytic consequences of postmodernism in this respect: "On this analysis, the generalisation of reflexivity means that the Symbolic Order (the underlying socio- cultural rules) is disintegrating because it lacks a metaphysical guarantee in the ‘Other of the Other’ (such as Nature, Tradition or God). Instead of the big Other, or Symbolic Order, what we get is a multiplicity of localised fragments of the big Other with a merely regional application, together with a proliferation of ‘little brothers’ and ‘obscene neighbours’, sinister others who – in the absence of a communal Symbolic Order that might constrain their action – confront the subject as bearers of a threatening enjoyment. In the place where the Symbolic Order was, there is only the competing confusion of a multiplicity of incommensurable language games, heterogeneous discursive universes whose coexistence depends upon the suspension of warfare rather than a social pact. This situation is exemplifi ed, for Žižek, in the proliferation of specialised committees called upon to deliberate on ethical dilemmas: the lack of a Symbolic Order means that moral questions cannot be referred to a social consensus, but become the province of fragmentary and transient ‘little big Others’. For Žižek, the nonexistence of the big Other means the dissolution of the communal network of customary norms and social institutions that regulate the everyday lives of all members of a society. The consequence is that many people adopt the desperate solution of paranoid fantasies about a Real ‘Other of the Other’, a world conspiracy, new messiah or alien invasion, as a compensatory delusion. This is an analysis that, in psychoanalytic terms, indicates a diagnosis of postmodern culture as a psychotic condition." Zizek says: "The paradoxical result of the mutation in the non- existence of the big Other – of the growing collapse of symbolic efficiency – is thus the proliferation of different versions of a big Other...The typical subject today is the one who, while displaying cynical distrust of any public ideology, indulges without restraint in paranoiac fantasies about conspiracies, threats and excessive forms of enjoyment of the Other." This "Other" of the postmodern subject is "The West," "patriarchy," "white supremacy," all of the reflexive stupidity that you mentioned in your account of why you quit academy. The borderline-psychotic delusional fantasy that ISIS is the result of John Milton is exactly the kind of paranoid belief we would expect from humans in light of our tendency to spontaneously generate totalizing worldviews. Even if they *say* that they reject grand narratives, they generate them with all the consistency of a fundamentalist. lmao @ transgendered disabled drone pilots btw. But once again, your critique here presupposes that Peterson is talking about classical Marxists. But he specifies "neo-Marxist" for a reason, even if, as I've admitted before, his use of terminology is poorly elaborated and contains an inner tension due to differences in belief between neo-Marxists and postmodernists. But the neo-Marxist Antonio Gramsci's concept of the "subaltern" is readily taken up by postcolonial theorists who otherwise are highly influenced by post-structuralist writers.
Daddy knows you've been a bad bad girl ;D
"Because I feel like it." Best reason for separating Modern and Post-modern a certain way & save time. Very interesting video. :) Always love your ability to argue complex points and still remain light-hearted and fun. Also, I'm somewhat envious of your super click-y nails.
Postmodernism began as an architectural movement, a contrast to modernism. When postmodern theory really gets going in the 1980s certain Marxists hated postmodernism. How could not be aware of these differences? Leftists don’t talk about philosophy? How about Eagleton’s “Ideology of the Aesthetic”?
Prime example of a wierdo libcunt.
he is just a smarter Alex Jones. I find it funny how he identifies himself as a classic liberal. when he is clearly against all liberal ideas..
He's not even a "smarter" Alex Jones. He's a tenured Alex Jones. I think there's probably a ContraPoints video about this somewhere, but...tenure doesn't always imply intelligence. ;)
...but that wallpaper!!!
Can anyone actually agree wtf is postmodern and what isnt? Holy hell
Holy f*^k Contra your voice
Does watching 1 contrapoints video a day count for being in a committed long term relationship? :d
This is so funny, I can have hours lady Foppington.
did you literally comb through all these comments removing the negative ones? This is bizarre, like, you're on youtube saying stuff that half of north america hates but there is no abusive commentary. Not even any positive comments which cite specific ideas you've talked about. Your entire video boils down to "revealing" Peterson's ideological incongruity of his label "postmodern marxist's", ya know, because those two things can't exist together and are "fundamentally at odds". You build it up as if it would deserve your dropping the mic right after, but Peterson has literally talked about the incongruity of those two ideas, and how that chaos is a defining feature of the type of people he is trying to describe; the conceptual incongruity of marxism and postmodernism manifests as a chaotic person, obviously. BESIDES THAT though, you're doing what you always do. You're boiling the whole argument down to the specifics of labels, as if that invalidates his massive body of work of which that one label is one small part. He doesn't talk about "terms" infinitely, unlike you. He talks about IDEAS, like the IDEA that you're using language to "proove" that "it's difficult to say" he doesn't want mass murder against all non whites and women. THAT'S DANGEROUS! Don't you get it? Instead of playing language games, please have the ACTUAL CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD. You, Contra, want degeneracy, no labels, capitalism to fall apart. You are deeply skeptical of institutions. Peterson is fairly religious and conservative, he likes institutions, he doesn't want massive sudden social change, but not because he hates you. He believes that the institutions of the west are what allow you, Contra, to live the way you do in more safety than anywhere else in the world. And that's not to say that trans people don't face a struggle. But I believe that it is western institutions which are the cause of the west being out ahead of the rest of the world in terms of interest in helping trans people. What's your endgame?
ur tryna be cute but it just comes across nonsensical and avoidant. why even bother responding if you're just gonna shit out your mouth hole?
Oh, I'm sorry, I've misrepresented your position: you're not *just* too lazy to find out if anybody else hates Natalie/Contra as much as you do, you're *also*...TOO STUPID TO REALIZE YOU CAN SORT YOUTUBE COMMENTS. Bwah-ha-ha! I mean...my sincere apologies, Mr. Watt. For misrepresenting you.
Like, straight-up, though, here's basically what you're saying: "Because I'm too lazy to find out if anybody else hates you as much as I do, you're obviously SUPPRESSING LE FREEZE PEACH!!!!!11 Also, REAL INTELLECTUALS just spout whatever gibberish pops into their heads without bothering to 'define terms' or 'establish facts' so they 'know what they're talking about'. In conclusion, you're a mutant who should grovel at the feet of some random professor from Toronto, because he's DEFENDING THE FREE WORLD FROM PRIMORDIAL LOVECRAFTIAN CHAOS, you ungrateful Untermensch scum." Like, not only is that total BS? And a particular type of BS which, frankly, everybody visiting ContraPoints has seen approximately 30,187 times before? It took you over 300 words to say it! As the great Western philosopher Peter Griffin once said: "Oh my GAWD. Who. The hell. CARES?"
Oh, there's plenty of negative comments. They just aren't getting upvoted to where people can see them because -- like yours -- they're as bombastic and boring as all hell.
Some of the many many more important conversations could be : A) Do the traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity have value in and of themselves, a value which would be lessened if society were to allow people like Contra to redefine those terms for themselves, AND FOR EVERYONE ELSE TOO, as is obviously Contra's end goal. B) Would Contra be willing to have a debate about economics with someone like Thomas Sowell? Because Contra's understanding of capitalism is woefully lacking, and I suspect they would be deeply embarrassed in a conversation with ANY economist, much less one on the opposite side of the spectrum politically. C) What would Contra ideally have happen with Jordan Peterson's fanbase? Because Contra has obviously given up on any sort of debate there, they cherry picked and played language games as always in order to fill up the time in their video hit piece about Peterson. Instead of painting Peterson out to be a shitty person, and his fans to be similarly shitty, what would Contra ideally have instead of this current opposition to postmodernism? Again and again, Contra misses the important part of the conversation, in order to paint themselves as the victim and their opponent as morally lacking, instead of being moral actors with different knowledge bases. Contra seems to not know a single god damn thing about the horrors of communist russia and china, if they would "forget" to mention those 40 - 100 million deaths there, instead mischaracterizing those disasters as "successes" then what is the fucking point of taking Contra seriously on anything? There. Specific. Fuck you.
Could you get any more vague? "Stop talking about thing, instead have the conversation! No, not that conversation! The important one!"
ugh your mind
This person deliberately misconstrues and glosses over details (like post-structuralism) while using random intermissions to distract the viewer. Dismissing ol Peterson as a loony reactionary conspiracy crackpot was the sole purpose of this piece.
I was only half listening to this and it's full of holes everywhere. The most recent one was 'But then you can use the lobster argument to justify any hierarchy!' No. Jordan Peterson is saying that the radical left is anti ALL hierarchies. He flat out says that the radical left believes that all hierarchies are based on power as opposed to competence. The radical left wants to get rid of all hierarchies. The point about the lobster is that you can't do away with hierarchies because the idea of hierarchy is fundamental, hardwired into, the human mind. Again, the radical left does want to tear down all hierarchies. The furthest left you can go is the idea that society should be set up in such a way that we eliminate all positions. Let's say there is a company. Everyone that works there owns it and makes the decisions. There is no distinction between a janitor and a CEO, they are all just employees, or if there is a distinction then the janitor is equal in every way to the CEO. And you're closing your mind off if you don't think that you could present that to people on the far left and get a positive response to it. So we say, OK, let's have a janitor and a CEO. The janitor will clean and the CEO will make high level decisions that affect the direction of the company. OK, well, how do we decide on who will be what? The far left would honestly say, well, just assign it at random. In short, Jordan Peterson is defending the idea of hierarchy as being valid because he views the idea of a valid hierarchy as under attack by the left. See, your argument is essentially this : Jordan Peterson says, "Well, we have a common ancestor that first developed the gastrointestinal system that we see in ourselves today, and this means that we must eat things to survive." Contrapoints, "Jordan Peterson wants us to eat rocks." or actually I suppose I can get closer Contrapoints, "Jordan Peterson wants us to eat hemlock" So it's true that we can place constraints on what a valid hierarchy (meritocracy/nondespotic) should look like just like it's valid that we can put constraints upon what constitutes an edible to a human being. Must be Organic. Must be non-poisonous.
Space Zoo agreed!
would smash subbed
This is great. I generally like Dr. Peterson, but these things have bothered me a bit and I don't know enough about Post Modernism or Marxism to know if his concerns with some things are reasonable. This is exactly the video I needed to know to verify that I disagree with him on that end of things. He does certainly throw babies out with bathwater, and has expressed disdain for things that have to do with Marxism, even if he has no argument against the things themselves. As a Pragmatist, he views different sets of truths as toolboxes. I think it'd be better to take things tool by tool. Thanks for posting a rational and entertaining analysis of something important!
peterson says interesting stuff and has quite a bit of insight ..but a lot of stuff he says is also rubbish ...
So what are your thoughts on this recent dave rubin talk at the university of new Hampshire? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Knv7ZwIBmvs
Im a straight male but goddamn your hot
I don't think the contradiction in "Postmodern Neo-Marxist" is lost on Jordan Peterson. He sees the contradiction as imbued in the left, and that's partly what makes them so dangerous. He uses the term "philosophical slight of hand" to refer to the intellectual maneuvering that allows them to juxtapose postmodernism and Marxism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PTO4mLTxKk
Boy this is one long cringey bitchy condescending shitshow. A guy in falsetto doing the entire thing doesn't help either
Hi its my first time at this channel. Good video, but can someone tell me if its a boy or a girl?
Thanks! So he's a boy right?
Her name is Natalie; she's got several videos up regarding various aspects of her transition to the female gender. Click her user icon under this video, and look for the videos titled "Degeneracy" and "Autogynephilia", in particular. Good luck!
girl you went from 100K to 110K subs in like 10 days thats pretty amazing
Something light for a Sunday morning. Well, it might be a bit heavy for some, so maybe I should call it, lite heavy, if that's not a contradiction. Then again, it must be a contradiction. So, maybe I really mean heavy lite. Like, a couple of gallons of Coke Lite, which although it's lite in one sense of the word, it's quite heavy when it comes to lifting. Anyway, see for yourselves. It's quite pretty to look at. And the soporific North American nasal drawl helps relax after a while.
DeoMachina Maybe you are trying to say politics fall on either the left or right of the spectrum, I would agree with this but saying politics fit either Progressive or Conservative is either laziness or ignorance. There are many more options on the left and right. Oh, you don’t recognize the quote, “Unity of religion is theocracy, unity of politics is fascism”? That’s ok. I am certain the person who said it has much more experience with both than you and me. All parties are pro-capitalist? Where and to what extent? What, you think anarcho-capitalism has actually been implemented? As far as I know all Western countries have some sort of social safety net. Some more than others. Again, you seem to be taking an extreme view that doesn’t match reality. I see you didn’t answer my question regarding what system you support.
Even spectrums exist on a binary scale. Thermometers have a spectrum of temperatures, that doesn't alter the fact that there exists below freezing and above freezing. Peterson has spent his new-found career attacking progressive viewpoints, and backing conservatives ones. He literally questions if men and women can work in the same place, what more do you need? You are not getting the definitions of theocracy or politics correct, so I'm not discussing that matter with you. A plurarity of ideas is nice, however all parties are pro-capitalism, I'd say we're lacking that at the moment. Conservatives are definitely over-represented in the world today. As for women in the west, you're conflating what people are legally allowed to do, with what people will let them do. It's subtle, but those are not the same. Some sectors are still hostile to women in the workplace, and society at large questions anybody who doesn't fit the stereotype that enters those fields.
DeoMachina I don’t take this extreme view of things. Politics are on a spectrum. That is a fact. What do you have to support this extreme political binary you believe in? Peterson was part of the NDP party originally. I have not heard him say much of anything on his current political stance. How did you determine he is a conservative? Also what does that mean? He is Canadian where conservatives literally inserted Progressive into their name. We have a good mix of capitalism and socialism whether under the Progressive Conservative or Liberal government. Unity of religion is theocracy, unity of politics is fascism. You seem to be advocating for or believe there must be unity of politics as if it is a binary where only one can exist. If my assessment is correct, do you have examples from history where this worked well? Personally I believe a plurality of political ideas is beneficial for society to keep the extremes in check. Yin and yang. In Canada, the US, Britain and elsewhere women do have the freedom to chose what they study and what work they do. If you are talking about areas of the Middle East and elsewhere, I agree with you.
lmao too long didnt read
exactly, but almost noone in these comments would pick up on that. I tried myself, was criticized for not being specific enough, and then I got specific and was ignored. I would bitch slap Contra if I saw him, this channel is ignorant and gross and so are 99% of the people commenting on it.
He was a bit late then. The law that C-16 nationalized was already in effect for 4 years in the province he was teaching in. And it never hindered any of his lectures. Furthermore, the law was invoked exactly once and it ended with an demand for an apology. He ran a campaign for one and one reason only: To play the victim and get attention. His books was coming out after all.
Scientists (especially biologists) are actually on my side here. You would know this if you looked it up, which you continue to refuse to do. You don't even know what you're arguing about.
DeoMachina and I think it’s funny because I’m not having any reproductions by ignoring the study of biology(even tho I have its middle school). I actively live it out and thrive as every normal person does. But for tranny’s on the other hand almost half of them all end up putting a barrel in their mouth and pulling the trigger soo... looks like you guys have a bigger problem when it comes to consequences
DeoMachina it’s funny how you are so indoctrinated into a way of thinking you are not willing to even believe biological facts that have been proven for over 40 years and are just now re-emerging due to peoples lives being so easy in today’s time they actively try to find something to complain about. Sad sad times. And idk where you are getting this “I don’t know biology and you do thing from you have not provided any evidence either. I personally know I don’t even need to provide evidence because my point of view has been scientifically proven by every credible scientist ever. You are the outlier here. You are the one who needs to provide evidence to show I’m the one who is wrong.
And the consequences of never studying biology, are that you are unable to formulate any argument on this topic.
DeoMachina It’s ok to deny reality, but you can’t deny the consequences of denying reality.
If he thinks that then he doesn't understand postmodernism. Karl Popper, a postmodernist and science philosopher, revolutionized and help instate the current system we use in scientific discourse (I.E. formulate an inductive hypothesis and attempt to dismantle it through experiment). Postmodernism brought us closer to finding truth.
No, Anarchist see UNJUSTIFIED hierarchy as a problem. If the hierarchy serves a humanist purpose, it can remain.
2:39 is pretty awesome, if I do say so myself
That was really good!
Well, this comment section certainly is a... peculiar echo chamber for those in need of ready-mades and shine-points, from just a quick read of you folk here x] poop and cats I throw at thee, youtube suggestbot! ;D
The Cathy newman interview was on channel 4 not bbc
I took a break at 16:57 because my brain needs time to reboot
Daddy
I just found you & I Already LOVE You!!! Perterson is simply a Twatwaffle!! LOL
You have to post more videos. Please. Im a huge sargon fan and I have no problem admitting that I couldn't be more impressed.
The world needs you so badly right now ContraPoints. Please teach me your ways
I personally believe that Peterson is at his core a greatly compassionate and intelligent man, with an infectious desire to help people. I first came across him recently in the context of his podcasts with Ethan and Hila Klein and was immediately drawn to his way of thinking, particularly and perhaps exclusively in a psychological and socio-political context. Your points made in this video regarding JP's highbrow demonization of a 'postmodernist threat' to western values made me consider that in that context, Peterson could be subject to misguidance, since he draws much of his belief from preexisting theory. Perhaps some of the inflamed views he possesses come from his interpretation of values that he doesn't have as much experience in. It was really cool to see how coherent these points were, thanks for the video :)
My favorite joke in the video is still, "So much for the tolerant Jacobins."
Can you do a video on immigration?
"The very idea of people REQUESTING different pronouns" ... this statement emphasizes the way you're twisting Peterson's words and views, throughout this video... although you do make some good points (but, try not being so blatantly bias). AS YOU WELL KNOW, Peterson, NEVER had a problem with people "REQUESTING" the use of different Pronouns. He's problem IS ONLY with "Compelled Speech"... governments FORCING people to speak and/or think the way THEY think is appropriate. Governments, or any powerful group of people (and if you don't think extremist and/or activist groups don't have power, you're blind), should NEVER have the right, in ANY free society, to dictate what a person can say and/or think!!! Next thing, you're gonna advocate for Re-education Centers, for Wrong-Think... and you will have to, if you think a Marxist-Utopia is even REMOTELY possible, given that, one person's Utopia is another person's Hell :P
You and JBP on Rubin's show would be FASCINATING!
Omg the bisexual manicure!!!!!
Peterson has addressed the apparent paradox of Post-Modernist Marxism. It's his belief that while Post-Modernists claim to have no objective values or categories, this is actually impossible for humans (this comes from his psychological-mythology beliefs) thus they insert, perhaps unconsciously, Marxism as their moral worldview.
The fact that Nazis hated communists/Marxists and said they were plotting on taking over the world doesn't make it incorrect. The Nazis were also among the first that said smoking was bad for your health. Global revolution/conquest is the ultimate goal of Marxism/Communism.
hey I have an idea of costume for your next video go watch the video aerobic championship 1987
Hey contrapoints, what's your opinion on incels? I'm not sure if other people have asked but I've seen many people on the right talk about this and I'd like to see your take or other "new" left opinions on this.
I don't know how I missed ContraPoints up til now. Thank god for Current Affairs, who made a road sign that led me here (They thank god for ContraPoints). This is *exactly* what I want out of youtube, man. I'm home.
I'm a follower of Peterson's work, and I generally like what he's doing. I also really appreciated your good-faith critique. Good faith is becoming rare in today's polarized market of ideas. But I have an observation. Although you rightfully object to his framing and terminology, you also inadvertently confirmed much of what he says: "They spend four years teaching us how capitalism is bad, and then they say: 'Now you're educated. Good luck getting a job under a capitalist system.' "
I loooove this! One tiny note, the Cathy Newman interview was on Channel 4, not the BBC. :)
i haven't watched one of your videos in ages and your voice sounds so lovely!
Ok that was amazing!
oh shit son how is it that my anarcho socialist ass only found this channel today!? Some kind of crime has been committed against me I'm quite sure, now I just have to figure out who to be mad at. In any event, I love this channel now. LONG LIVE THE LOBSTER QUEEN!
:))) I disagree on several points, but i find your approach quite entertaining. And you do make valid arguments. I'm keeping an eye on this channel.
Contra Points > Trixie and Catya Show of viceland
contra don't fucking deserve your beautiful, smart, sexy, funny, cute ass. This Commie dies inside every time I remember I can't have you to myself. Lol
at 1:08 in this video "reason, power, truth; these are the kind of topics I simply don't care about" This gets substanciated in the video by the complains about the Cathy Newman intervieuw that, even though Petersons statements are correct, what he might possibly might be insinuating by them is, according to ContraPoints, is dishonest. Though at least I need to give ContraPoints credit for demonstrating the ability to distinguish between what is stated, and what might possibly be insinuated by the statement. (so far the first video I have seen of someone critisizing Peterson while actually being able to tell the difference between what is stated and what might possibly be insinuated by the statement) Without even an attempt at checking wether or not said possible insinuations were intended, this is just slander. Perhaps ContraPoints better sticks to making videos on topics ContraPoins does care about instead.
wait... are we sure we don't want to abolish lobster hierarchies?
hi nazi
Biggsy DaBoss It is a shame the climate around this topic has change in such a way. That's a good point about the condensed versions of better arguments. Do you have any examples I could watch? I'm trying to learn about Marxism now and would love a variety of perspectives.
He vocalises his issues with Marxism quite well. He often refers to the necessary control we have to have over individuals to implement Marxist policies & uses historical events, both directly (in terms of the actual practice of Marxist ideals) & more figuratively (in relation to other forms of governance that require similar types of control). He uses the end results of these to base his opinions on. When you have formulated your arguments again & again, after a while you just end up condensing them, as to retread the same ground gets tiresome. Maybe that's what you are witnessing. I myself can stand as something of an analogue. Rewind 6-7 years ago, there wasn't a YouTube video about feminism, where I didn't make long, well evidenced against feminism. In fact it is fair to say I was rather well known in the then burgeoning anti-feminist community. I critiqued feminism, not only from a evidenced based practice model perspective (something we use in healthcare), but also from an Liberal (in the British tradition) point of view. Now I don't bother. It got tiresome. I see many similarities in how JBP & myself formulate our ideas.Likely because we have both had similar academic pasts, he went far further than I did. I have only just embarked on my post-grad Psychology degree. An MSc in Neuropsychology to be exact, where he is a professor. So I suspect that he has got tired of certain aspects of it. I hasten to add I am only making a guess, no matter how well educated it may or my not be.
DeoMachina https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/LegislativeSummaries/42/1/c16-e.pdf The law, or rather amendment to the law, was to add "gender identity or gender expression" to what is essentially an anti-genocide against "identifiable groups" law. For starters, I don't think Peterson actually said that the law was intended to be used for compulsory language or anti free speech, but instead his concern was that it was possible for it to be interpreted in such a way as to be abused to such effect. Possibly the root of the entire problem stems from just how vague the concept of gender expression is, that it lends itself very poorly to something that needs to be clearly understandable, like the law of the land. Can you tell me why "sex or sexual orientation" somehow does not include people who are trans? I mean honestly how does C16 provide any sort of protection for trans people that they didn't already have? Was there going to be a legal trans genocide in Canada because they somehow, by some supposed technicality, have no humanity to the human rights commission? Were the authorities really going to just sit back and say, "sorry folks but we can't stop these open calls to genocide because vernacular reasons?" Yes, you are right, the law does not openly say what Peterson was concerned about people thinking it said, but that sure doesn't stop people from thinking that it says it. See the Lindsay Shepherd debacle for a real life practical example. Funny how some people wanted to see her as the villain in that situation just because she is white and her inquisitor is a POC, which is pretty straight forward racism as far as I'm concerned, but that's a game for another day. The point is, even if Peterson was completely wrong about the law, his problem with it, was not the protection of trans people, (tho he has stated as a side point that he thinks it might not be healthy for trans people or any people really to be treated as overly fragile and in need of special protection from everyone) but that the amendment to the law was irresponsibly vague, and could by necessity lead to abuse. Contra didn't even briefly outline this at all. I stand by my original comment.
Wtf! Bro, go back to the shower chambers pls !
God I have this fuckboy-in-his-40s cousin who worships Peterson like a DIETY. Every single conversation he brings up Jordan Peterson, he carries around his books to lend people. I've been trying to politely tell him this fucking guy SUCKS but he's way too convinced. I'll keep these in mind the next time I feel like ruining a family gathering by being The Political Gay Cousin, thank you ContraPoints
I kept thinking the Peterson stand-in was a person with a mask on their face, an then you pulled it in the bathtub
YES MOMMY IVE BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO SHIT ON THIS MAN AS ELEGANTLY AS U DID
look for this video "Atheist Debates - Thoughts on my conversation with Dr. Jordan Peterson" to see more of his bullshit debunked
So my boyfriend introduced me to your channel and I think I need to leave him now. I'm in love with you.
I'm 4 real in love
We need more Marxist professors to make the cuntry great again. Gotta speak power to truth.
This is the first of your vids I have seen. You are fucking awesome.
Recently I saw a picture of Andreja Pejic reading "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" by Lenin, and now I find this youtube channel. I mean, what's going on? Is it finally happening? Is TRUE marxism finally becoming cool among the kids? I can't believe this. (please, make a video about dialectical-materialism)
Yes, Marxism is an extension of Enlightenment philosophy. This video is a finessed critique of Peterson.
Why does philosophy have to be so hard??
JUST DISCOVERED YOUR CHANNEL I LOVE YOU AND I'VE BEEN BINGE WATCHING ALL OF UR VIDS!!!!! PLEASE MAKE MORE VIDEOS BC UR FUCKING HILARIOUS AND U MAKE AMAZING POINTS
Absolute garbage. The humor was cringey and the ideas shallower than bath-water. Please stop.
Make a video about vegetarianism, i d like to hear your opinion about that, guess also would be quite fun.
You are a good person, thank you.
Really really reaaaaallllly loved this. Have gotten a lot out of some of what Peterson talks about, mainly the tips on "getting one's shit together" and I found his take on some issues to be an interesting version of conservative commentary. He's clearly a very intelligent man, but he undeniably has a horse in the race when it comes to white, heteronormative, capitalist framings of society, and worst of all, he genuinely seems to have a dearth in his ability to be empathetic which he'll dismiss by saying "I'm a clinician". I'd love to see his take on things if his children are to come out as being gay, trans, or somewhere on the queer spectrum. Anyway, delighted to finally see a rational rebuttal of Peterson. The student activists were really becoming fish in a barrel for him!
As much as I love JP, it does have to be said he boxes in post-modernist thinkers to an extreme degree.
Oh not again. A channel that makes sense. Now I have to figure out how to describe my standing in the political spectrum again. which was hard enough before. I have to say, your videos, and especially this one, are very well made. You're the only well-versed leftist channel that I know of out there, and I usually resorted to right wing channels, which I believe you portray as a little worse than what they really are, but you do make great points very often. You've also helped me understand why Trump was worse than I thought. I didn't like him at all before, I just didn't think he couldn't be THAT bad, because he seemed really incompetent and talked about anything he was going to do, and he is easier to figure out than an actual politician, and knowing your enemy is better than not. You've greatly affected how I look at certain things, and I hope that I look at them more unbiased than before. Thanks for that.
Good vid but work o'n the voice
I'm a really big fan of JBP, and I'm also a really big fan of this video. There are a couple of points you made that i take issue with, but in more of a "I kinda wish we could chat this out and come to a better understanding" way, not so much a "go fuck yourself way." Have my sub, you've certainly earned it. I hope someday Peterson starts to appeal to you a little more. Thanks for being so respectful and thoughtful in your criticisms.
Lol. That was funny as fuck and very informative. Subscribed.
Also a bit of a Peterson follower, in a loose sense, not interested in his books but I've enjoyed his podcast apoearances. I found this video very funny and insightful.
Fan of peterson here, I don't agree with any of your qualms about the lobster king, but I found you very articulate, entertaining, funny and interesting. You didn't try to demonize him in the way I thought you might, in the way that many of his critics do. Subscribed.
love this video, Contra!!
Guess it's true that you ain't done nothin' if you ain't been called a red.
In the discussion about Pronouns, Peterson was talking about Canadian Bill C-16, which could fine people up to $250,000 for knowingly or repeatedly misgendering ... COMPELLED SPEECH. I've listened to 20 or 30 of Peterson's lectures, and can honestly say he's right about a lot of things... and NEVER tried to mislead ANYONE... unlike ContraPoints.
"He's problem IS ONLY with "Compelled Speech"... governments FORCING people to speak..." No one was ever forced to say anything or will be. Peterson is cashing in on your outrage. He's a fraud.
If you're interested in learning more about Marxism I'd recommend David Harvey https://youtu.be/qOP2V_np2c0 or Richard Wolff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P97r9Ci5Kg
Storm Bey I'm interested in whatever post modern things that led you to believe that I was flirting with it. I get the vague idea the Foucault is someone I might be interested in? Does that sound right?
Psych Ed Do you mean postmodern literature (as in the literature iteration of postmodernism that gave us amazing works like Clockwork Orange, Watchmen, and one of my faves Beloved) or what kind of postmodernism are you looking to delve into? This kinda speaks to the problem with people like Peterson and the "Skeptics" when they talk about things like postmodernism in very reductionist ways: often parroting one another or something they saw on a blog site while skimming for something bad to say about it (which is funny because there's ton of legitimate critique, tons, yet they rarely if ever zero in on those because those critiques tend to be more nuanced than "post-modernism is destroying the West" and tend to be generally non-fatalistic).
Storm Bey I actually only know a tiny bit about post modernism. Is there post modern literature that you know of that you think I'd enjoy or benefit from?
Psych Ed Judging by your last comment you sound like you're flirting with a kind post-modernism. Ironically, something Peterson rails against (yet shows he knows little about).
"fact often falls victim to what is the popular narrative" - I think about this a lot and it bothers me. There are things like the legalization of marijuana where it's all fact based and it would be nice if medical experts made the legal decisions so that the laws can actually follow reason and reality, and you can say the same about many other issues where the general population isn't going to be educated enough about an issue and the popular narrative will not align itself automatically with reality. But then who chooses the medical professionals and other experts to make those decisions and who decides which issues should be decided by experts? Is there a way to assure that laws will not follow the steady inevitable bias of the population without leaving a government susceptible to tyranny? These are the questions that keep me up at night. It's really fun for me to be learning about politics, since it's something I don't know a ton about, but the frustrating thing is that it's so much easier to see problems than solutions. I can see big problems with capitalism and the free market, but do I have any better ideas? Nope. I have ideas, but usually when I do some investigation, I find out that people have tried them or made arguments against them that I hadn't thought of and they all turn out to just be bad ideas.
Oh yeah, workplace environments can & should be able to demand their employees keep within certain parameters of speech. Also where having free speech runs in to other ethical concerns, as you rightly pointed out education, but also healthcare delivery is another. However, the problem with these two things is that what is fact often falls victim to what is the popular narrative. I cite the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, as a perfect example of this.
There are a few places I would support a compelled speech position, but they're very specific. I think in education, there should be some facts that teacher's should be compelled to mention, since there is information that everybody ought to know at any level of education. In some court or medical situations, telling the whole truth can be extremely important as well, but all of that is in favor of the truth. The extreme left seems to occasionally censor truths and that's where I personally have a problem, but I see where they're coming from. They focus on truths that some people use to justify pretty bad things, mainly facts about biological sex or race differences that have been used to justify prejudice. I do wish I better understood the trend of insisting that people are racist in casual conversations. I've studied implicit bias, and even administered IATs as an undergrad, but the information seems to be quite misrepresented in some political communities. The thing I always need to remember is that wishful thinking is pretty universal in large groups of people and wishful thinking among people with slightly different wishes than myself looks stupider than wishful thinking among people who share my wishes, even though rationally, it's on the same level.
*Psych Ed* Can we apply certain Marxist principles to the modern day western world, yeah I'd say we can. I've even heard a reasonably well put together Libertarian argument for the state meeting the basic needs of everyone. So if a Libertarian argument can be made for such thing, then I don't why it couldn't work.
Theoretically it never makes sense to support a position of "compelled speech". This isn't just about being free to express ones own views, but actually being made (under pain of some form of punishment) to make utterances that might go against ones own conscience. Simple rebuttal is. What happens when it's your views that are unpopular. Would you then be OK with such laws & practices be enforced? You are putting in to place laws that may & likely will(at some point) be used against you. I don't want that for you & I was you to not want that for me. I guess the words of Neimoller mean nothing anymore? I applaud you for the consideration you've put in to your words & how you carefully you have collated your thoughts. I always appreciate it when someone makes such efforts. However, there is a flaw. We can not restrict the rights of people, based largely on the notion that there could be a rhetorical point made to do so. Today, I stopped the police from overstepping their legal rights, by interfering (without good reason) someone who was going about their lawful business. This person was a mental health patient, who *was not* under any form of compulsory treatment order, so whilst medically it would've been in their interests to cooperate, they wanted to leave & the police acted way out of line by preventing this person from leaving. Freedom, mean being free to be an arsehole or even evil, to act outwith our own best interests. As long as we don't act upon our thoughts or ask other people to act on our behalf, there is no justification to limiting these people rights. Even if it might produce better outcomes to do so. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - CS Lewis
onarionaa Well put, I think people are taking Peterson's arguments out of context in both directions. As a college professor in a very liberal country, the problems he faces are ones unique to the extreme left, which is interfering with the spread of some facts within his specific area of discipline. That is a very unique and specific problem but for some reason, people seem to take it to mean the entire left is bad. It's very strange.
Biggsy DaBoss "He vocalises his issues with Marxism quite well." yes, but as Contra points out, does Peterson make a compelling case that Marxism = so called SJW agenda = undoing of Western society? as Contra says, the black-and-white view that the "SJW agenda" is 100% evil and wrong and stifling and oppressive to free speech, is very reductive. for the record, i don't agree with the new "have to use correct pronouns" Canadian Human Rights Act legislation either... but *protections of freedom of speech, vs. protecting people from hate speech that leads to real violence* is a conversation worth having! "free speech at all costs" can mean the cost is human life, as we've seen with Charlottesville, the Charleston Shooter, etc., influenced by neo-Nazism... when they're "allowed" to speak about murdering people and let that hate fester, then unsurprisingly, murdering actually happens! and it can be argued that platforms that let them talk to each other, online and such, are tacitly not only allowing, but COOPERATING with these evil conspiratorial groups!! notice i don't say "is," i say "can be argued." so it's not as simple as, "human rights are about freedom, including freedom of speech!"...because sometimes "freedom of speech" contributes to factions that physically and psychologically harm people, in this case gender-nonconforming people. so couldn't it theoretically make sense to at least admonish a professor, if that professor's refusal to use a student's correct pronoun contributed to said culture? i think it's a very good question, a very good debate, that cannot be overdrawn with Peterson's "SJWs are dangerous" hard stance.
Biggsy DaBoss Linguistics is awesome, I've always been a fan of Steven Pinker myself and I think linguistics answers questions that I wouldn't have thought to ask. I agree from as much as I know that Marxism in its totality doesn't work, but I'm interested in whether or not small parts of it works. I need to actually educate myself on the matter more, but I definitely think that sometimes parts of something bad can be helpful on their own and I would certainly want to make sure not to dismiss a good idea because it's associated with a bad one. But again, always happy to get more details on that.
I have to laugh, here's me going on about JBP's & my own respective academic background in Psychology. All this time failing to notice your username. Well that's the likely effects of insomnia I guess. It sounds like you've already seen his condensed arguments, there the ones you didn't think he fully supported. I admit I didn't adequately explain what I meant. Basically what I was trying to say, is that you no longer put the same level of work in to your arguments. I have found myself just replying "That's not how the world works" & very little else. Which say from the point of view of the outsider, in your case regarding JBP's views on Marxism., just isn't adequate enough. Which is fair enough. I think the most condensed argument against Marxism, is the one that has become cliched, almost a meme. It's the one that simply states "What has happened every time we've tried to implement Marxism in it's totality?" Though TBH, Marxism isn't my main focus. Ironically I've become more interested in linguistics, which as an area of critique shares some similarities with post-modernism, it's almost existentialist in its underpinnings. Existentialism, the most postmodern of postmodernist philosophies lol.
ik ben boe She is a bi(ish) woman lol
what do you mean, he just said that he started as a boy
Wow, way to be a mature guy.
i don't agree with you at all but it was a funny video! especially with the jordan batherson part
No wonder all the drugged up degenerates support you. What is wrong with this world?
Hey CP and CP viewers! Can you recommend other channels that can give counterviews to JBP? Awesome video! You got yourself another subscriber, from the "JBP side".
Faggot
you call yourself a women, but how does makeup define you as one? are you insecure without it? talk about being an advocate for capitalism....
hmmm - first off, good video, this is funny and well delivered, and a fine critique. However, I think you can't see the wood for the trees on 'post-modern neo-marxism.' I would say that the fact that the definitions are vague is because the coalition of people that he is describing is very academically loose, despite their political convergence. While they might have disagreements internally which in an academic sense seem quite large (such as the difference between marxists and SJWs), in the real world they are all very much on the same side of most issues, particularly under the shared banner of 'intersectionality' (which I note you didn't touch on in this video, despite the fact that it is key to petersons description of this coalition) and the belief that the entire system of western civilisation is oppressive and should be overturned. While these two groups have large differences *on paper* , at the street level, they attend the same events and want many of the same things... if a group acts like a coherent entity, then describing them like one is not unreasonable at all. You even said it yourself that "people with experience in leftist circles know that marxists and identity politics activists are constantly at each others throats." Built into this is the fact that they are very much in the same 'leftist circles.' I agree that post-modern neo-marxism is a clusterfuck of an idea, but I would argue that this is more a reflection of the poor state of left-wing thought than of petersons ability to identify what that thought is.
Oppressor and Oppressed dynamics are still ever present in the Postmodernists' motivation for its refutation of all hierarchies. "Post-modern neo-Marxist" is not as nonsensical as you would believe. My best guess is that you're getting caught in the Semantics of your misinterpretation of his thesis. I'm not convinced.
Look, it's a nice and fun video. Funny even at multiple points. I also appreciate the fact that you're willing to even have a dialogue about this as experiences with the rad-left (not implying you are here, just speaking from literal experience which tends to shy away most from even engaging these days with those just flat out in the left) end up turning into name-calling and eventually totally shutting off their ears. So watching someone who's not only taking an interest in JP's points but also thought about them to a certain extent is more than refreshing. However... I've gotta say you may be either misrepresenting certain intentions of his or just possibly misunderstanding them. As a for instance, you say that he justifies hierarchies existing in the context of him approving of them. However, this isn't the case as he doesn't think of them as being morally just, he simply states they exist and that by trying to go against something so ingrained within our primate brains is going to be a really fucking hard game to play. That famous line from the NBC video saying "the left should be way more pessimistic" is exactly pointing this out. It's not that "Hey you shouldn't talk about inequality" because he very well insists that inequality exists. He was stating that you can't lay inequality at the feet of JUST those same hierarchies that stemmed from the past to create modern day capitalist and western societies. It's the matter of trying to treat a symptom but not the disease itself. The disease being a society that outpaced our own biology and it's now reeling from it. In terms of the idea of postmodern neo-marxism, the idea behind this concept is the complete reductionist attitudes that postmodernists behave in which end up banding people together in those camps of the short-list of about 8 categories you posted in the video. Then, by banding them together, they proceed with the marxist idea of classes within those groups that have been slighted or wronged in some way (proletariat), shape or form and convince them that there's this broad and evil enemy (patriarchy(bourgeoisie) ) that has to be brought low in order for them to have any success. It's not a hard concept to understand when you see it in practice, but when you look simply at the origins and the conflict they had decades ago... then yeah I can see how it seems silly to put the two into the same camp. But by that same logic it doesn't make much sense for intersectionality political groups to exist when on one hand they preach freedom of women's rights but then also say that muslim cultural practices need to be included within those rights and discussions. It's this faulty idea of all the people that are under-represented are necessarily going to like or even work well together... which sort of explains the whole lot of irrationality when it comes to those same identity politics. Groups of people are flat out going to have different opinions and goals sometimes. That is what a dominance hierarchy means. It means we're all fighting either for ourselves or the group we fall into representation with. Is it morally just? Nope, not really at its most basic and brutal functions. Should we stop doing that? Yeah probably if we suddenly think we're capable of doing that with no dishonesty... but ask yourselves if you think that's even a realistic probability? I liked star-trek too and that's a great societal end-goal but we are SO far out from reaching that on a global scale right now it's putting the cart before the horse. I mean you hit the conundrum on the head yourself where we pay for university to tell us capitalism is bad but then say ok go work for capitalism now. What sort of weird and strange marriage is that? Well, it's the same kind of weird and strange marriage, that at it's foundation seems nonsensical, that postmodern neo-marxism is. All said, this isn't to deny or excuse that the fascist politics of the extreme-right are in any shape better, because extremism on both sides turns people into lunatic ideologues, focused only on helping their group and the rest be damned. In some cases they even actually mean the others will be damned in a religious sense. In the worst cases they devolve over the most basic concept of racial identity, which is such a tribalistic mindset it really is hard to believe that we even engage in it these days... but like I stated before we're simply not even close to the point of moving past the things we should have long ago, but we can all at least be made aware of them and work towards recognition and shouting down those that legitimately practice it. I think that's what JP meant in one of his lectures. That yes, the road we all have ahead of us is shit and it's suffering. But if we can move even a little bit closer to the idealization of heaven and move further from this hell we're throwing ourselves into (all of this figuratively if you wish) then so be it. That is worth the damn (he probably said bloody) effort. If we improve the world even a little bit by these engagements and can find some common ground then the walls of text at 2 AM are worth writing.
So this is the guy that's supposedly destroying the alt right? Vice is just trolling at this point lol.
So...you want to sck Peterson´s d1ck or what was this about?
"Someone has to whip the neckbeards into shape" XD
I feel like the real itch behind JP's spooky, spooky post-modern shadow monster is just the fear of deconstructionism, and the idea that we'll scrutinize all of our societal pillars so intensely that they'll crumble under the weight. Not only does that make the foundation of western civilization sound super fragile (and why would you want a society in which the fundamental principles can be eroded that easily), but that questioning and inward analysis IS "western civilization." That's what the Enlightenment was: a reconsidering of beliefs previously taken for granted. Most schools of post-modern thought are a direct outgrowth of that analytical approach to dissecting the world around us.
You know it's hard to watch a discussion about philosophy and politics and masturbate at the same time contra, this video is just too erotic
This channel is absolute garbage.
“Clock me, Amadeus.” Shit, I laughed.
Hey Contra, I love all of your videos and I think you are just great. I was wondering what your opinion was on something. How do you feel about the term pansexual? I used to call myself pansexual back in my Tumblr days but i kept being called out by people who said it was basically the same as bisexuality. I disagree but what do you think? Keep up the great videos, I hope you can answer this question somehow one day!!
I fuckin love you, please don't stop doing what you're doing!
Great video, however I have one serious gripe with it. Peterson argues that post-modern marxism is a direct evolution of classical marxism wherein the idea of oppression of workers is transmogrified into oppression of whoever is currently not in power. That is is his justification for the combination of the two labels, and given that definition, I think some of his points do make sense. Many of those obsessed individuals shutting down lectures about topics they do not like will justify it with the inherent power struggle which makes shutting down speech a morally justified tool. I'd love to see a deconstruction of this specific argument, mainly because I haven't been able to find a flaw in it myself, nor have I really read or heard anyone else really come to grips with it.
You've changed your voice. I respect your opinion, but I honestly find it hard to listen to you. I guess I'll have to get used to it, because I like what you say.
I love you
26:01 You been watching Pink Flamingos recently?
Contra looking neat!
You're absolutely right that Marxism and postmodernism are incompatible philosophies -- yet when I converse with the average leftwing person today, I often see them spouting both ideologies and trying to graft them together, such as by superimposing the intersectional grid of oppression onto Marx's original concept of the ongoing struggle between lords and serfs. And also juggling their belief in no objective reality, no such thing as race, or biological differences between men and women, with their insistence on dividing everyone into the category of oppressed or oppressor.
Yes, being vague and/or overly simplistic is a problem on both right and left. That's why I'm glad Peterson does such a great job breaking down some general biological differences and specifically explaining how they relate to many (though certainly not all) men's and women's different approaches to life and to work-life balance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54
Well, to try and blame biology in some vague way without being able to actually show any evidence other than "It's theoretically possible", when we have hard evidence of non-biological factors that are going ignored...yeah, that's kinda sexist. Because it's attempting to divert attention away from those factors and kick it into the long grass.
It depends on whom you're talking with. For example, I've encountered people who see it as sexist to state, as Peterson has stated, that there are other factors besides sexism involved in the gender pay gap. We can acknowledge huge differences in the behaviors of male and female mammals of other species -- but to suggest that because humans are also mammals, our approaches to work and family life can also be impacted by biology is just a major no-no to some people on the left.
How the fuck is the concept of oppression "postmodern"? It's existed since before civilisation. "No objective reality" - That's part of philosophy "No such thing as race" - We just call that Biology 101 now "No biological differences between men and women" - That isn't even happening
You are a men. Deal with it.
Post-modernism destroying the west is not a conspiracy, but a reality.
To paraphrase Foucault, I wish
Please explain how a few college students can destroy the west without getting into a single influential position in politics, or industry?
I'm only half way through and I already love you. I also love that weirdo Peterson. My only remaining question is are you ambidextrous?? :P
I think petersons biggest problem with the gender pronoun law is that the government would have to enforce you to use preferred pronouns, which is pretty authoritarian. He has used preferred pronouns when trans people ask him to before, he just doesn't like the idea of giving the government enough power to force people to what to say.
I get that Peterson's characterisation of "Postmodern Neo-Marxists" shouldn't really make sense. But there do seem to be a lot of people who combine Postmodern and Neo-Marxist arguments to justify their politics. And it's that contradiction which makes those people so impossible to reason with.
great video
ContraPoints is the most entertaining transgender Left academic on the Web. She clearly enjoys this YouTube gig more than lecturing at a university. Great deconstruction of Jordan Peterson, new alt-right public intellectual star, and his pernicious concept of "post-modern cultural Marxism." Well produced history of philosophy lectures, daguerreotype headshots of Western canon dead white guys, and elaborate sets and costumes. I would definitely sign up for Professor ContraPoints class!
Fags everywhere
you have issues XD
"On the left we don't really tell people what to do, we tell them what not to do" I'm a JP fan that's quickly becoming one of yours... 2nd vid & subbed. Will watch more before I criticize too much, but saying that undermines your cred as "contrapoints"/highlights your blindspots. Your prod. quality and articulation are so good! I think stuff like that should be easy to refute for your namesake.
Don't politics follow from our private (local) lives? If we can't get it right locally, should we be making national decisions? I think that's an intelligent point of Peterson's. Consider the results; rural America is far more peaceful than Urban America, despite being less educated and supporting Trump. The necessary question is which should we respect more? I'm straight, mostly, I think. But your video here is actually sexy in a kind of Rob Zombie kind of way. Fuck if I know. Anyway, love the creativity and the fact you actually gave Peterson a decent shake, considering your position politically. Your jokes and satire actually are worthy of response, which is unusual from the Left. I don't think reasoning is what you think it is. The foundation of reason is will. Where does will come from? Also, your slide at 16:45 is incorrect. SJWs, feminists, academic admin, liberal (left wing) politicians, and the SJWs populating corporate HR can all be classified under "Marxists." It's a spectrum Guess I should define "Marxist." It's not about friend or enemy. It's a conflict of ideology. Marxism leads to the adoption of a form of power politics ideology; this falls into a spectrum. The issue is time. A democratic socialist over time will adopt more and more controlling laws, eventually ending in a communist or fascist state. The people must pull against this, we have to fight for smaller government; and if we do well, we can simply hold our liberty as it is. Marxism originally was identity politics, forming lines along class. While I am sure this concept has existed since prehistory, I can only name it as Marxism because Marx truly defined it. The only difference between this and neo-Marxism is that the latter incorporates race and gender, as well as SES. Peterson doesn't justify any particular hierarchy. He simply says they are inevitable one way or the other
I find your comment quite interesting in a lot of respects, but I do want to present some information, because your arguments aren't exactly relying on a lot of factual information. Specifically this is in your first point "Rural America is more peaceful than Urban America." I found the claim fascinating, so I decided to look over the data, and it doesn't exactly line up. What is the most urban state? That would be New Jersey. 94.7% of its population lives in Urban areas as found by the 2010 United States census. So, by your hypothesis we should expect it to have the United State's highest crime rate. One way to measure the crime rate is by looking at the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, which we have publicly available data for in 2016. I have a handy article that examines each state's crime rate relative to the nation, I will link it. It informs us that: "New Jersey’s violent crime rate is 33.8 percent lower than the national median, and the property crime rate is 40.2 percent lower." https://muninetguide.com/u-s-state-crime-rates/ New Jersey throws a bit of a wrench in your hypothesis. Now, I don't share this fact to assert the opposite hypothesis. I'm not sure there's that strong a correlation between urbanization and crime. For example, our least urban state is Maine at 38.7% of people living in Urban areas (just 0.2 points behind Vermont). It's violent crime rate is 66.6% lower than the national median, while the property crime rate is 36.3% lower. What states are above the median, have more crime than not? Alaska, Louisiana, Delaware, Nevada, DC (not a state but probably should be). A lot of states are near the median. And there are a couple of other states with much lower crime rates, like Vermont, Idaho, Connecticut, Virginia, Puerto Rico (also not a state but probably should be). I don't think my study is the most comprehensive look at urban versus rural crime in the United States, but I do think a pretty fair analysis is that the statement "Rural America is more peaceful than Urban America" is not a true statement. We aren't dealing with a P value near 1 here. Urban and Rural America, White and Non-White America, and Red and Blue America: these divides are not the end all be all. --- Now, is this just a pointless response nitpicking a sliver of your argument? Well, not for me. I love spending time in pouring over data. But more importantly, it makes me concerned that you aren't looking at the data when making judgements, you say it yourself, this idea of what parts of America are "peaceful" is important enough to weigh in how you respect various parts and people of this country. This data doesn't exist to destroy your position, or for that matter, bolster mine. It just, exists, it is a measure of what human life is like in America. And if we're concerned about the lives of Americans, than we should be looking at the real picture of what's going on.
you're very funny and entertaining but there are a lot of things wrong with your analysis of Peterson's arguments and seemingly a surface level understanding of them... for one, his "backlash" is not to "target gender equality, lgbt acceptance, and civil rights"... what kind of nonsense is that? He completely advocates for equality of opportunity and for individuals to take personal responsibility and have the freedoms afforded by the West. I don't understand why you are confused about his messages if you say you've watched so much of his content... He also doesn't "tell people what to do or how to live their lives", he gives people guidelines that he has seen work for people to have a meaningful life based on his many years of experience as a clinical psychologist.. "the left doesn't tell people what to do" lol that's a good one. They absolutely attempt to shape the way others think through control of the media and demonize behavior and thought that deviates from their opinions. "The patriarchy" is a misleading concept that Peterson explains in depth in some of his lectures... Don't you understand why he compares so called "transgender activism" to the fundamental ideology that drove the Soviet Union? It's using identity politics to separate people into groups instead of as individuals and pit the groups together as "oppressor vs oppressed" which is just a slight of hand rebranding of Marxist thought, which actually is quite dangerous. Yeah your definition of identity politics is so wrong... what equality and rights are "POC, gay, transgender, and women" not afforded in Western societies? The hierarchies that exist in Western civilization are hierarchies of competence, as JP says. Most people in power are not there because they unfairly swiped it, but because they worked hard enough and had successful enough ideas to climb to the top... People requesting different pronouns to suit their "individual needs" is not at all what Peterson was fighting, it was the legislative mandating of compelled speech under penalty of law regarding using the right pronouns that he objected to which is something the left pushes. How is compelled speech in any way good? Lastly, JP advocates for Judeo Christian values because they work by giving people discipline and order in their lives so they can bear life's suffering and make something of themselves instead of blaming society for all of their shortcomings.
Not that often you come across a leftist who is not utterly toxic and full of bile, subbed
"I guess we tell people what pronouns to use for trans people, but...." Yeah if it only just STOPPED THERE... So, how many genders are there again?
Not a bad video but there are a few details you get wrong about Jordan Peterson. With regards to what Peterson calls 'Postmodern Neo-Marxists', he recognises that the two labels are (or rather should be) contradictory, as one is a grand narrative based in modernism and the other being fundamentally opposed to and wanting to deconstruct narratives. He recognises this and that is why he constantly goes on about it, for the very reason that it should be contradictory, even though so-called Neo-Marxist Postmodernists still exist, that is; people who are very much postmodernist in their view of society and the history of society but at the same time still try to push Marxism as the one legitimate way we ought to structure it if we are to attain freedom, justice and equality for all. A lot of the controversial things he says are just that; they're short, expedient, oversimplified soundbites (which I dislike) that at time may even sound inaccurate or dubious in the way he might say them in interviews, as they are designed to grab attention, but if one were to watch his own longer videos on his channel he articulates what he means much more clearly and succinctly and it starts to make sense. As for casting clearly different parts of the 'left' as a sort of postmodernist monolith (again, expedient soundbites), I think he is more referencing the large influence postmodernist thought has slowly had over time on the more recent movements on the left, whether they themselves realise it or not. All one would have to do is watch any number of MTV decoded or the more out there BuzzFeed videos to see the influence critical race theory has had on it's content (low hanging fruit I know but such channels command large audiences and therefore influence). Just my two cents anyway, other than that enjoyed the video.
I'm saddened by "Pomo Neo-Marxism" Come on, "Pomo Neo-Mo-Xo"! Or even "Pomo Neo-Marxo"! They were right there! :D
I stopped watching political crap but I'm making an exception for you. Subscribed!
The more videos I watch, doesn't matter if they're liberal, conservative, SJW or alt-right, the more I get confused about what post-modernism is.
you look exactly like jordan peterson
wew lads we found a gaylady who wants to police people's speech
A few things: Dr. Peterson doesn’t “tell you how to live.” He points out empirically derived models of how to live if you wish to have a statistically higher chance of feeling more fulfilled and being more successful. These axioms and choices tend to lead to long term happiness. That’s an important nuance that you’ve missed. Social justice is the idea that “Justice” isn’t adequate, necessitating the need for a modifier on the concept. If justice is a blind concept that indiscriminately rights wrongs, then why the need for the modifier? Social justice uses group perspectives instead of individual perspectives, placing higher values on minority groups and harsher penalties on non-minority groups because of perceived advantages in order to right perceived wrongs in wealth and status inequalities, even if these inequalities aren’t inequities. This idea stems from postmodernism and the tenets of Marxism. Google Women’s studies and read the definitions and objectives from the universities and colleges that appear under the search results. Common themes include: social justice, inequality (without the distinction of inequity), intersectionality, etc. Take the 2nd and 3rd grouping and see where the overlaps across the country in the the US exist in universities. You will find that universities across the country are teaching these fields to students, even though 80% of the underlying research sees 0 citations, meaning scientists don’t accept the research as valid. If the concepts in women’s studies, such as social justice, are compared to Post modernism and neo-Marxism, the parallels are staggering. Take a few hours and do research, not just watch a few videos and claim to have a deep understanding of the material. I’m a scientist, so as such I am an empiricist. His general claim is accurate. I think your failing in the understanding of his critique comes from certain times when he says something that isn’t hyper precise. Example: the interview with Cathy Newman when he reacted to the trans-activists question. He was comparing the ones he has had interactions with. In his personal videos his publicly added the nuance that he doesn’t believe the activists he has interacted with represent the trans community. Pay closer attention before grossly misrepresenting his content.
got to 1:30 and he's already been misrepresented, cool. Probably a fine video, but I'll never find out.
Big Audos it's obviously a joke, watch it entirely it's way less of a caricature than you might think
I think Peterson is harmless overall when he's discussing Jungian psychology, since that's his wheelhouse. It's when he starts to dip into WWII, gender roles, and even *clinical* psychology that he doesn't sound too bright. And I've seen a few of his Q&A's where he gets a blatantly anti-Semitic question and doesn't immediately denounce the person who asks it.
Your misleading when you open your talk about describing Jordan Peterson. He argued that forced speech takes away the RIGHTS of Canadians and has no place in Law. If you start your video out dishonest like this why should anyone bother listening to some Dude dressed like a Chick. Come on try and do better if you want any respect.
You're one ugly dude!
OK good points about his mislabel of "postmodernist neo-marxists". I also feel he gets too riled up with the "destruction of the west" idea, so I can easily agree with those points in the video. However. What Peterson is saying with the lobster argument is that hierarchies aren't necessarily evil and, naturally, you agree. Then you continue to say there are "gender hierarchies"? What Peterson implies is that hierarchies can often come about due to some having more affinity for "positions of power", while others are have more affinity to be "the crowd". He seems to imply that, from the data he has viewed, men are MORE LIKELY to be assertive and have the "qualities" to be at the top CEOs and women are "less likely". Whether this is true is a matter of whether or not he has read the data correct. He NEVER says women can't get to the top. He NEVER says all hierarchies are just. Now you say he never outright says a point, but leaves it hanging in the context. But this? The context is there are fewer women than men are in the top positions. His claim "women on average tend to be more agreeable which has empirically been shown to not be suitable for these jobs". If that's a controversial statement then you shouldn't find it controversial and you just have to find opposing evidence to prove it wrong. Also dropping a fact like there are biological differences in the sexes and hinting at that being a possible reason for under-representation of women a) doesn't discount possible societal disadvantages women might face, b) isn't controversial even if it's implied as the sole reason for why women are underrepresented in these areas. It's not controversial, because you can simply prove it wrong by counter evidence. It's only controversial if you think it's trying to call for unfairness... A lot of people don't outright say implications because sometimes, these might not be true; they're just throwing ideas out there and Cathy Newman would go to town on trying to call him a misogynist if he was like "women aren't suited to work in high levels". In addition, there might be other reasons behind a certain occurrence on top of the fact he is saying....
ugh
Peterson got famous by saying it was wrong for the Canadian government to compel all people by law to use whatever words one group of people decided they wanted to be used. It is surprising that his 15 minutes of fame has lasted so long.
Love to see you on the Rubin Report!
This is very well done. Of course, identity politics was very much one of the main concerns of totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. They wanted to eliminate groups which had the wrong identity - kulaks, Jews, Roma, intellectuals, people with glasses. Individualism was more an American idea, as seen in so many American films where an individual stands up for freedom and justice
The United States imprisons more people then fucking China. The notion that it's a bastion of individualism is hilarious http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/13/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-united-states-has-more-people-jail-/
This is why Jordan Peterson is scared of the Left. The Left are upfront brazen about the fact that they hate the West and want to see it destroyed and replaced with Year Zero. Of course, a 'postmodernist' would be sceptical of the idea that America was founded on enslavement - watch the video to see what postmodernism is portrayed as. But listen to Peterson to see what postmodernism really is.
Individualism is present in American rhetoric and popular imagination, but in reality the nation's history is defined by "identity politics" just as much as any other country, if not more. A nation founded on the genocide of one race and the enslavement of another can hardly claim to be a champion of individualism.
All good and well but how do you explain the shit that's happening on North American University campuses?
You mean like this? https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/30/report-koch-college-donation-came-with-teacher-firing-rights/
Your jokes aren't funny, but I encourage you to continue because I'm sure you'll get it. These things take time to perfect. I think your points against Peterson are pretty weak and I'm certain that a man like him would destroy you in debate. That said, I think you would find that more or less, he's on your side, or at least the part of you that wants the best in yourself. He's not a monster and his ideas are pretty widely applicable, even if you take them with a grain of salt.
The ONLY thing that would have made this video better was if Jordan Peterson himself played ur JP Bot
Peterson has made my life much better. I love seeing some reasonable criticism of him for once. Well made video and more power to you!
I'm obsessed with you
Well I saw someone post your video on Russell Brand's podcast with Jordan Peterson, I became curious enough to click it and got about 6 minutes into the video before I lost all interest in continuing my venture... The video is clearly thought out and put together really well but I just wasn't able to force myself through the "funny bits" to get to your points. I tried! Another time and another video, perhaps?
Chomsky loathes post modernism.
Watch the 50s video Posture Pals. Will frighten.
Contra Points, I am falling in love with your truly perfect humour and razor sharp insight. Please tear a new assholes in Rya, she is fucking horrid
Thank you for that. I am so tired of Peterson. Seriously...clean your room? If you are above 12 and need to be told to clean your room...no words...what next? Clean your ass? Change your undies?
I'm glad people are starting to take Jordan Charlatan to task
My knees get weak when you diss Derrida like that...
Why don't you show your face? Let's see those superior genes!
It's 2018. You're gonna have to learn the difference between leftists and liberals eventually.
DeoMachina You're claiming leftists.do not posess any influence in current society, but that is simply wrong. Leftist views are allowes to spread as much as they like with no serious oppression from the government. Having influence in society doesn't mean having power over society. Obviously you do not have the ultimate say in how things go, but you're allowed to push for silly liberal values as long as they do not pose an actual threat on capitalism.
DeoMachina Why would I have a problem defining lies from truth or "leftism", for that matter? The point is, even if the system is inherently capitalistic, the leftists do have lots of influence in it. Mostly because capitalistic system has, in a way, disarmed it this way and made it even profitable.
Yeah, that's not really as strong as a point you make it out to be. Free newspapers are free because nobody would ever buy enough to maintain the company. This means that the circulation of those newspapers is small enough as to be irrelevant. Also, I've never been West of the Atlantic, so..yeah. Based on your videos though, I have serious doubt that you are able to correctly define what is or isn't leftism, or even truth from lies.
You can't be serious, the whole academia (not just students) and every single type of media is plagued with leftists.
DeoMachina And you apparently are a Yank. In America the conversation without a doubt is more economics orientated and to that what you said might apply, but I was mostly talking about values, rhetoric and even to some extent social policies. Lots of big corporations seem to be more than happy to cash in with the silly uni-liberal movement.
DeoMachina Lmao we must live in a totally different world. On my way to a shop, there's a basket full of leftist newspapers free for to be taken and in politics having leftist views, no matter how radical (besides "kill the rich") aren't frowned upon at all, quite the contrary. If you're not pandering to to liberal leftist position, you're attacked from all directions. Many are openly pro-communist or even travelled to Soviet Union for marxist education.
+Gaina Dagar Corporations are lobbying governments to destroy and defeat everything that "the left" stands for The media are busy broadcasting far-right talking points and attitudes, with zero leftist channels or newspapers in general circulation. Even hinting at having left-wing views is a death sentence for any political career. So yeah, that's exactly what I'm claiming. And before you bring up CNN, remember that even though they have an anti-Trump bias, they still played his game, and continue to do so.
DeoMachina Are you claiming the corporate, media and political powers aren't pandering to the liberal left? Well, that's news.
We would all take the left more seriously if you could back up all your facts with sources, keep a calm tone and debate without making a mockery of the opposing side.
WTF did I just watch?
Yes! Trojan horse! Thank you!! Why aren't more people saying this? He's establishing cred and buttering people up in prep for his real ideas which are horrible trash-garbage
I was going along, and enjoying this video, until you said that there's no connection between postmodernism, Marxism and identity groups. UBC philosophy professor Stephen Hicks says otherwise. He says all the top postmodern philosophers leaned far left/Marxist. Foucault started out Marxist and later was a Maoist. The original postmodernists were professors in the 70's and produced a second wave of postmodernists who are still professors today. One, Lentricchia, said postmodernism is not about truth but social change (paraphrasing). Social change was needed because enlightenment was a fraud, certain groups were oppressed, the only truth is power, identity groups are oppressed or oppressors, power structure needs to be flipped etc. (around 50:00) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w
I think that he is comparing compelled speech under law to maoism and stalinism, I think that's a perfectly reasonable argument
As much as I love Armoured Skeptic, his video on Postmodernism was thoroughly debunked by Dr. Layman.
Is this a tranny?
Come on... progressive politics need to go and cultural Marxism is a thing
I used to be a huge fan of Peterson until I saw him on PragerU using Venezuela to attack democratic socialism. He cleverly transposes his war on SJWs to the true progressive left, which is irresponsible and duplicitous.
If I may give you a makeup tip, it's that your eye shadow shape doesn't compliment your eye shape. Try fanning out when you use darker colors, not a cat-eye but a similar structure. Also when highlighting the brow bone, use colors close to your skin tone, not close to the dark color you're using on your eyelids.
Disappointed. But I still love you.
Wow this is amazing! Over my head a bit, gonna have to watch this again
As a passive JP follower and admirer, I had my doubts when I started watching... but this is a great rebuttal, excellent points, I agree with most them, more JP fans should be aware of this. Keep up the good work :)
this is the greatest video abt academia ever made. i liked it so much i sent it to my libertarian dad.
You should at least try to look and sound like a real woman instead of what you're doing right now
https://areomagazine.com/2018/02/07/no-postmodernism-is-not-dead-and-other-misconceptions/ this should answer you
I would looove to hear a conversation between you and peterson.
I love your content, but your light game sucks.
Now you must be knowing how fucked up JP fans are when you did hangout with Roaming Millennial. Come on Contra! We love you and it hurts to see a comment section like that.
You're making every point why the academy sucks -- intentionally and unintentionally. Unintentionally, you (and the academy) are saying capitalism sucks and yet you have the means to make this sarcastic video, to make your droll points known to the world. What allows for that luxury? Capitalism. So flatter yourself with the idea of an academic education but you can't address Peterson's ideas head on. You talk around it, you digress, you ridicule, you circumnavigate all the insane seas of madness but can't address his ideas head on. Try something transgressive -- try to meet your sea monsters head on. Have courage.. yes, learn something from a lobster. You won't fall off the edge to the world, in fact, you might learn something. Good luck.
First of all I would like to thank you for your reply, I appreciate it and I have taken some time to read it over, digest it, and I have my own thoughts on yours Walter, hopefully they'll be of interest. I will preface that I have less to say about your third and fourth paragraph. As someone who has spent time recently in the humanities department of a major University, well, I can say my experience with various professors does not reflect this dynamics, nor did most promote Marxist attitudes, and even if they did, I think you are massively overestimating the influence of humanities departments on most human lives. Human lives are what I'm concerned with. And on that note, I'm not a Marxist. You seem to have assumed I am but I am not. As stated, I'm a utilitarian. My priority is to have the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I am not really a socialist. If a socialist idea or policy promotes more people having longer, happier lives, than I am interested. If a capitalist idea or policy promotes people having longer, happier lives, than I am interested. We are in agreement then, that Capitalism has allowed for a massive collection of wealth, and the technological advancements that have created a uniquely happy lifestyle. Previous economic systems (Notably Feudalism) have not been nearly as good at encouraging this sort of innovation. And I should note that when I refer to capitalism, I am referring to it not as some sort of thing where capitalism=US culture, but as an economic theory that has a free market, and where places that manage resources or services will mostly take corporate structures, or at the very least where "capital" is a thing that can be bought and sold by people without direct interaction with the resources that make that capital (ie, buying stock). I do that because to consider the nations that you're including in the West well, there are a lot of institutions that are socialist that helped lead to a lot happier, healthier, longer living humans. For example, you site that in many western countries, people can "send their children to schools" in a way not present before Capitalism, but that is not because of capitalism. If it was, than 18% of the United State's labor force in 1900 would not have been under the age of 16. It was a series of laws throughout the beginning of the 20th century that thankfully shrank this number. These laws however are not capitalist, they are anti-capitalist, they are exclude children from working in the free market. For good reason in my opinion; the hard industrial labor they banned lead to shorter and less happy lives, but that law is not capitalist. But I want to focus on one statements you make that I can't help but read with dismay, in that there is a failure to focus on actual practical workings of economic systems in regards to human lives, with instead a focus on some grand narrative of human civilization. The first is: "For example, the west has given more money for natural disasters like tsunamis that affect Muslims than any Muslim countries have." That statement is misleading and factually inaccurate. Let's take the tsunami you're likely citing, the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (which affected nations with large Buddhist, Hindi, and Muslim populations). The largest individual nation to contribute relative to their GDP was Australia, which most consider to be part of "The West," at $1,322,000,000. Quite a respectable sum, and one that is worthy of praise for the help it provided. Putting Qatar's $25,000,000 contribution next to it is certainly smaller, but in order to match Australia, Qatar would have had to take out ~7% of their GDP. That's because their economy is ~3% the size of Australia's economy. Australia and Liechtenstein and Qatar and Norway each gave over 0.1% of their GDP's to help rebuild from this tsunami. The US gave 0.026% of their GDP, which was $2,875,000,000 (the US of course being the largest economy in the world). It's also worth noting that Japan, a neither Western nor Muslim nation gave $580,000,000, which is more than France, Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, and Italy combined. This is not surprising of course, as Japan has the third largest economy in the world. Most of the contributions match reasonably well to the size of various economies, with Denmark, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait all roughly giving $100,000,000 and all having similarly sized economies. Here's my source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake I think it's quite praiseworthy that all of these nations and their people were eager to assist their fellow humans in this time of crisis. I do not think a single person involved in this should be criticized for their contribution. That is why I object to you using this crises as a space to say that the West gives while Muslims do not. As it turns out Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, they all seem to give roughly in line with what they have, with some variation that does not seem to be determined by religious identity, or region. And for that matter, it does not seem to be determined by how capitalist one can consider their economy. Norway gave substantially despite its economy being quite a bit socialist, perhaps more socialist than capitalist. In conclusion, I don't feel your comment is especially relevant to the topic of capitalism, and included some rather insulting language towards the billion followers of Islam. I would encourage you to look less at capitalism for capitalism's sake, and focus more on how to fix the faults that are present in our current economic systems. The world is not easily dividable into West an not West, capitalist and dictatorship. There's an amazing complexity in the way the world functions, and it may be worth spending more time to discover it.
Capitalism is not perfect, but the virtues far out weigh the vices. It has lifted billions of people out of poverty; have given rise to a lifestyle that is envied by millions of people living in dictatorships and communist countries around the world (many of who would risk their lives to come to the west); it has given rise to greater wealth than ever seen before in history of mankind -- where many people own their own property and live comfortably, send their kids to school, can freely travel and afford vacations. On top of that, capitalist counties are very generous with people suffering around the world. For example, the west has given more money for natural disasters like tsunamis that affect Muslims than any Muslim countries have. In total, capitalism works. It is certainly better than the 100 million dead in mass graves produced by communism in the last century. The revolution that Marx predicted won't happen in the west because people own too much property, have too much wealth. Marxism has constantly failed and has led to absolutely terrible living conditions. But the Marxists can't give up the unreal dreams of utopia -- perfect states of which nobody has a clue how to create. All the Marxists know is that capitalism is evil (the great Satan) and has to be destroyed in order for the perfect communist state to come into existence. So the academy continues to promote this religious, unreal dream of perfection because profs in the humanities are cultural Marxists that still think of bringing down capitalism. Students are their pawns and they have to fill their heads with insane grievances about the west. Reason and free speech are sacrificed on the altar of their radical delusions of progress. Post modernism is like a virus that infects these professors, makes them delusional so that they are biting the invisible hand of capitalism that feeds them. But now the public is finally smartening up. They don't want to send their kids to the university for this kind of fashionable nonsense, this kind of progressive Marxist indoctrination. Like I said capitalism is not perfect but these professors don't want to reform it to make it better -- all they see is one big dark, bleak, soup kitchen. Their ideology prevents them from seeing reality and gaining a real education by rationally confronting capitalism right there in the market place of ideas -- the university.
I find the assumption that luxury can only exist under a capitalist system to be very interesting, but easily refutable. Mercantilism, Feudalism, they allowed for luxury as well, quite a bit of it, to many less people than Capitalism is. So, as a utilitarian, who wants the greatest happiness for the greatest number, I would ask you why I should be satisfied with the amount of luxury allowed to people by capitalism and not seek to find a system that allows more people to live in more luxury. This is also discussed on ContraPoint's video series "What's Wrong With Capitalism," especially in part 2.
Frankfurt school admits its agenda is to destroy the west The west calls cultural marxism a 'conspiracy theory' -The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist-
*citation needed
You're funny! I enjoyed the video. I did see you slide off from solid footing in the actual, material criticism of JP a bit, but not as much as most. I think you really did well. I do want to say that Peterson has addressed the Marxist/postmodern marriage and its internal logical inconsistency along with the impossibility of a monolithic left as conceptualized and hoped for in intersectionality many, many times, with historical data underpinning the former's advent and simple common sense describing the latter's foolishness. This video doesn't successfully refute or even attempt to field in detail, his assessment there. Aaaaaand lefties definitely do argue that hierarchies are inherently unjust. They produce inequality, and activist leftists are steadily railing at any observable inequality with a blanket and uncritical presumption that any and every difference in outcome between identity groups stems from something nefarious, even when there are natural causes that don't require an 'evil actors' interpretation. Peterson's statement goes to the nature of hierarchies themselves as concept; his elucidation of which refutes the basic assumption that all inequality-producers are the result of injustice and oppression. You did ok, though. I'd enjoy seeing you talk to the guy directly.
Holy moly there was even a Pink Flamingos reference in there
R U B I N B O W L H Y P E
I find myself getting triggered when listening to Peterson critics because they typically just get angry and sling mud but this was amazing. Very fair and i look forward to watching more. I cringe when you say daddy but shit il live lol
How can you be against *relativism* while holding on to a book that says we should burn gays and a rapist only has to give 50 shekels for his crime?
Christian ideology is very "collectivist".
Hey, just want to say as a LIBERTARIAN (dramatic musical stab), thank you for making this channel and engaging on these topics with intelligence and intellectual honesty. I'm what I like to call an '80% fan' of Jordan Peterson. I like a lot of what he says, and I really like that you took the time to understand his positions before disputing them, which is a very productive way to have a conversation about him.
Well that was fucking hilarious. Big JP fan here, but enjoyed that immensely. Great arguments even if i ultimately disagree with many of your conclusions because I could agree or sympathise with elements along the way, but wonderfully comic in just the right places too - maybe the best thing I watched all week. Bravo.
I am a pretty staunch conservative libertarian, and a big fan of JBP. I find his honesty and directness, as well as his deep understanding of the human condition, very refreshing in an age of too many voices, many just repeating things they heard from others. Prior to this video, I have not felt intellectually challenged by pretty much anything anyone has said that opposes my worldview. I've seen you in live chats with Sargon, or Bearing or someone and I found you quite unpalatable. But either you've grown a lot since then, or this is just a much better medium for you to express yourself in. In either case, I really appreciate what you had to say here, and I dig the aesthetic, even though a lot of your presentation should make me uncomfortable as a conservative Christian. I guess I've transcended that identity to regard your work fairly, which is what every aspiring artist deserves.
If you think this is funny, fine. But nobody can possibly think that this is somehow on equal intellectual ground to anything jordan peterson has ever done. Very disappointed by the actual quality of the arguments.
Though I think you have good points in here and i did decide to watch/listen to the whole video but your first description of how JPB rose to power is either a dumb joke or a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. “Professor who got famous for sounding the alarm for how protecting transgender people under canadian human rights law leads to stalinism” Even if your of the many who say his interpretation of what bill C-16 does to canadian human rights laws is incorrect it is still falacious or ignorant of you to say that his intentions were to thwart civil rights for transgender people. He was only concerned about the compelled speech of the bill. He never said transgender people shouldnt be able to use the bathroom of their choice or acquire housing. (I know you didnt specify anything, these are just examples issues I’ve heard of) So the only thing I could think as to why you painted it like you did was you were maybe joking or maybe you think that his entire uproar about the matter is some sort of right wing conspiracy to thwart trans rights. I was reluctant to watch the video based off of this misleading presupposition your video started on but pressed through and I think you make legitimate points but like many, including JBP about post modernism and left wing politics, you over infer intentions at times to fit your argument. Well made video though you definitely dont phone anything in
You should be on the JRE podcast. That will be an amazing discussion,
I hear a lot of people confusing _Cultural Marxism_ with _Cultural Bolshevism._ _Cultural Bolshevism_ was indeed a Nazi pejorative. But _Cultural Marxism_ was just a neutral, alternative name for Critical Theory back when the Frankfurt School was founded. (Although them term was later appropriated by right-wing conspiracy theorists.)
Uh, there's Shaun (formerly Shaun and Jen) who tends to make reasonably worded and unabraisivly presented counterpoints (although personally I find him kind of boring. He presents his ideas like Bob Ross). I'm not that big into leftist YouTube, so no one else immediately comes to mind in regards to directly talking about JBP. If I had to recommend one leftist video essay right now, I'd recommend Eric Taxxon's "The Kunst Saga: How the Right Wing Views Modern Art," which, is kind of a misleading title, since it mostly is a response to Paul Joseph Watson (who is a very easy target) but I would say it's valuable in that it doesn't necessarily coalesce around one idea of what art is, but explores art, especially popular art, from a variety of angles that really gets one thinking on the subject, or at least for me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M5RUoNfSyI
First of all, I am not a "you people." My name, for the purposes of this site, is aronpuma, and if you are interested in my beliefs, then I will tell you. Some of my beliefs are undoubtedly shared by others, but I don't believe things to pass a leftist litmus test, and I'm not especially a socialist. I consider myself to be a utilitarian, as in, I hope for the greatest happiness of people for the greatest number of people. I don't care about socialism beyond how it is useful for helping more people live happier, longer lives. I don't care about capitalism beyond how it is useful for helping more people live happier, longer lives. And although it is a long term goal, my aim as a person and political actor on this planet is to get closer to everyone having a long and happy life. Second, I would like to extend my condolences to your Doctor's family. Having to flee ones home out of fear of persecution or death is appalling in all circumstances it happens. It happened to several members of my family, for varying reasons, and I do extend my sympathy for all those who it happened to. That of course includes you, what me worry, if the case may apply. You're my fellow person, and as I'm guessing, my fellow American. I want you to have a happy and long life as much as everyone else. So in regards to Stalin and Hitler, well, I do not either of them, because their actions deliberately murdered millions of people, which goes against my goal of people living long and happy lives. This includes members of my family, from both world leaders. The main reason I care about Stalin and Hitler is not because Hitler killed the Jews, or that Stalin starved the Ukrainians, it is because they killed and starved and gassed and imprisoned people, human lives. Their identity, be it racial or class or whatever else, is just the justification they used. I care what justification they used because I fear people in the future may continue to use it, but it doesn't change that I fundamentally care about individual human lives. In fact, the only instance where I see taking a human life as even remotely acceptable is if there is an immediate danger to another human life, and taking the life of that human who is posing a danger, should be the last resort. So third, and finally, I do not think that Syrian refuges are somehow safer right now in Syria than they would be in the United States, and it seems like you agree with me that we should be helping people who need to leave their homes to have a better life in the West. My criticisms of a lot of Western society are not condemnations meant to suggest that there is nothing to be salvaged. I don't view the world in binary right or wrong. I look at policy, I make my judgements. For example, when I look at the high prices of the United States's health care system, both to our government and to our private citizens, I compare them to other nations and notice that many of them pay less privately and publicly. My goal is for all people, in this case, people in the United States, to have longer and healthier lives, and this is pretty important to that. Because of what I have researched, I will advocate for a more socialist approach to US health care, because that socialism will serve human lives. I don't think Syrian refugees escaping war and a murderous dictator should be dismayed from the US because the US does not have the best health care system. I don't think criticizing US health care implies that the US is somehow the worst thing ever, I criticize because I want to improve it. I cannot speak for other people's beliefs; I am not other people, or part of some hive minded collective, I am only myself. And well, I do think your words are being somewhat disrespectful to myself and to Natalie, by labeling us with beliefs we don't have. I don't expect an apology or anything (this is the internet) but well, I wanted to clarify my personal opinions. I hope you have a nice day.
do you know I find you people to be the most dangerous in the world? a lot of you incorporate this idea of equality, "freedom" and anti-discrimination, it was very much the same ideas promoted by the now oppressive regimes to ever exist on this earth, and like my doctor whose family has to flee eastern Europe after the take over of the soviet union just because they had a little more money then everyone else.... I wonder if I just said the she was Jewish and had to escape nazi Germany, would you be sympathetic? she does have aristocratic heritage you know? just like you are for minorities in the racist, sexist, misogynistic western society that soooo many around the world want to flee their shit hole countries just to come here, you should warm them about the dangers of a capitalist country.... fact is everyone of you will just pave another road for us that, with all good intentions will only lead us down the path of strife, hunger and equal oppression, like Venezuela which, like all communist countries started off brilliantly after Hugo Charez took over and now is in what is most commonly associated with communism, an oppressive dictatorship... was there anything you wanted to add? maybe excuse the brutality of the soviet union? I know neo-nazis excuse the third Reich all the time, perhaps you two have more in common then you might think, different beliefs, same goals....
1. You assume that I am on a personal computer and not a public access computer in some sort of university or library. That assumption is somewhat true at the moment. I'm on a machine that would be considered my property, although it is not solely for my personal use. But that definitely isn't always true. 2. Living within a system like capitalism does not mean that I have no ground to criticize it. Like, if you are someone who lives in a nation and follows its laws, you have the ground to criticize those laws, even though you follow them. You don't exactly have a choice in the matter of following them, no more than I have a choice of well, living in a capitalist economy. I can try to live a lifestyle that deviates from those models, but there are negative consequences unless there are a change to the larger systems. 3. If I lived in a socialist system for example, hewing to Marx's ideal, a personal computer is not beyond my ability. Marx wanted collective ownership of the means of production, but he doesn't think ones clothes should be pilfered. Again, the video Contra has made discusses this, but in making our economic systems, it is best to try and make more high end products universally accessible. Champagne should not go away under a better non-capitalist economic system, it should be universal.
why are you complaining about capitalism on your PERSONAL computer?
Why should wearing make up be advocating for capitalism? While the make up industry is certainly exploitative, to use luxuries like make-up is not a blanket endorsement of capitalism, nor is their enjoyment exclusive to a capitalist system and impossible under a socialist one. She discusses this in her video "What's Wrong With Capitalism: Part 2"
Threw up in my mouth a bit.
Gay
So nazis thought that cultural Marxism is a conspiracy aimed at destroying the West, therefore cultural Marxism isn’t real? I don’t even believe in cultural Marxism being real, but this argument is invalid. Nazis also thought that smoking is bad, therefore we can conclude that it isn’t by your logic? You’re also conflating the words “should” with “must”. Peterson is proposing some (pretty retarded) things that you should do, but he doesn’t want to enforce this rules using the government. The leftist activists generally want to enforce hate speech laws, so called equal pay laws and so on, that’s fundamentally different.
Well crafted video. Beautifully made! However, the framing of Jordan Peterson ideas as comparable to Cultural Bolshevism and therefore he is a facist, is a bit naive. It's like believing that there is no left extremism that, eventhough ideology wise with good intentions, is very bad and very dangerous to all humans. Extreme believes have caused so many lives to suffer in the past, that it is ignorant to believe that more of the same extreme ideology will do better next time... I think, that believing that there is no left extremism or downplay it's danger to society is like looking away when people get hurt or injustice happens. Please don't! Look at the facts, look at the places where injustice happens and call them out - don't try to frame every person that tries to look at the places where people get hurt as right extreme where the truth is the opposite - if we all look - we can make to world a better place!
TMBS brought me here. Glad I discovered you and your channel!
You know, I don't agree with you or your ideology but seeing this video is refreshing. You are clearly intelligent, well spoken, and open to having a sincere discussion. Sure this video has humor woven within and it did come off very sarcastic but it's not the ridiculous ad hominem and broken-record-recycled-rhetoric shouted by blue haired, nose pierced, androgynously clad college students across the country . I think there are some misinterpretations of Jordan Peterson and his beliefs but this is the most rational analysis of the man from a far left leaning individual I have seen. Kudos to you. One request: when you provide definitions to different terms I would like to see the source shown perhaps at the bottom of your slide.
You are everything that Youtube needed in terms of a measured response to skeptics.
Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro are my favorite couple of zany goons.
ContraPoints, what's your take on FOSTA-SESTA?
Wow, "judeo-christian" i haven't heard that phrase in a while
Is it gay if I think you're hot ?
Most fans on both sides would benefit greatly from a conversation rather than exchange of our assumptions of one another. Looki g forward to it as a new subscriber to this channel and a subscriber to JP.
Yo homie, do you script your videos?
Natalie god damn it I have to keep rewinding because I realize at some point I stopped processing the words you were saying and had tripped into sexual daydreams based on a joke you'd made 6 minutes ago.
I'm a Peterson fan and I loved this.
Many of your premises are factually untrue, and I disagree with most of your points. But I appreciate your taking the time to challenge Jordan's perspective (bravo especially on the artistry) because contrary speech sharpens us all.
If you think it's the "neckbeards" who haven't been getting the Campbellian message of "follow your bliss" then you may want to ask yourself what message they have been hearing instead, and from whom. If it really is a question of a lack of a father-figure, then you may want to ask yourself why people need some kind of stand-in father-figure in the first place. And then you call all the ideas you say you agree with a "trojan horse for a reactionary political agenda." Aside from this claim being unclear (don't use metaphor for such an important, driving claim of an argument) it seems to be an implied argumentum ad hominem. I don't care if there is anything "reactionary" related to what he's saying or not, I would instead much rather hear about why he is actually wrong to say what he is saying. I don't even know what that word means, and I've had a thousand different people, including dictionary-writers, define it for me. The most effective definition of it that I have seen would put people like the original left, as in the people who sat on the left-hand side of the monarch, under the banner of "reactionary." Same thing for abolitionist movements. This particular video may be more geared toward your regular core audience who can more easily understand your verbal shorthand, but I don't think that's a wise approach to take if you're going to address the ideas of someone with such a massive following. I imagine you probably clarify later in the video, but you're already losing me, and that's not a good sign. To paraphrase your clarifying point, he argues it is better to focus on sorting yourself out than to focus on progressive politics. Yes, he does say that. He also says it is better to sort yourself out than to focus on the politics of white nationalism. As he has clarified repeatedly, he believes identitarianism of all kinds is nothing more than a distraction from one's own personal life journey. He's getting at a question of meaning. His argument for linking identity politics, whether it's leftist or right-winger identity politics, to the ideologies of Stalin and Mao is because they are the same thing. You do not have the right to offend and the group is more important than the individual. When the force of law is used to force people into *addressing someone in a certain way*, whether it is an autocratic monarch or a group of angry danger-hairs, that is not freedom. When the group has the rights as opposed to the individual, no individual is free. So yes, there is absolutely a comparison between trans activists and Mao...and Stalin, and King James. "I do not believe Jordan Peterson is a fascist." Well, that's good, but I invite you to question how much weight your words carry on this point given that the thing you did immediately before saying this was give a wink-and-nudge argument that he's doing the exact same thing fascists do. At that point, people could take you at your word and they'd still be justified in viciously opposing JP just as they would any other fascist, because one's intent is often unrelated to the results of one's actions. It is generally only a court of law where questions of intent come up, and even then, only in regards to culpability, usually. Once we take a more pragmatic approach, intent becomes less relevant. "My worry is that you're leading an international political backlash against what is a very localized problem, and I worry that some of society's most vulnerable people could be hurt by that backlash." There are, at bottom, two problems with what you've said here; the first is the claim that what Peterson is challenging is a "very localized problem." It's not. Postmodern philosophy and Marxism, never mind the "neo" at the front of it, are the two driving philosophies in the social sciences and the humanities in the world. I know this because that's where my academic training is, and those two philosophies, more postmodernism than Marxism, are doing all kinds of damage to those fields, and they're producing people who have an ideology that forces those around them to put "we are anti-fascist" posters in their windows so Antifa doesn't go and break them. In the academy, the places we might go to get the message of JP's that you said earlier that you agree with, the stuff you called simple, basic self-help stuff, is not being taught anymore. I have had many, many instructors over the course of my training, in the high double-digits, and I can name four who taught anything approaching what Peterson teaches about how to handle life, eschewing anything he says regarding political activism and social issues. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is happening. The second problem is the positioning of a person or class of people as "the vulnerable ones." I'm not worried, and you shouldn't be either. This is what is known as a threat narrative. Position someone as vulnerable, sound the alarm, rouse the protective instinct. It's actually what tribes the world over have used to justify going to war. 'Those bad people over there are coming to rape our women so we have to kill those bad people' has basically been the battle-cry of every army ever. People have criticized the damsel in distress bit numerous times in the past, but the fact is it draws peoples' attention for a reason. I'm not, strictly speaking, a "fan" of Jordan Peterson. I've found my own way through authors like Joseph Campbell, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Carl Jung so a lot of what JP likes to say is old hat to me, but one thing he has rightly identified, is what I like to call the lefty playbook, and threat narratives feature heavily in the lefty playbook, just as much as they feature in the right-wing playbook. In our society, vulnerability is a currency. Vulnerability is a currency because we have given preeminence to certain altruistic virtues, and you don't even have to be intelligent to recognize that you can game those virtues; you just have to be able to pick up on certain social cues and follow your instincts. All of this is expressed in the idiom, the squeakiest wheel gets the grease. That's how activist groups of all stripes and political persuasions get resources (whether we're talking money, effort, time, compassion, love, etc...) allocated to their pet cause; they convince the resource-holders that they are the ones who need those resources the most. Look at the history of female vs. male domestic violence shelters to see a mountain of supporting evidence for my point. I'd like to focus in on something; you don't really disagree with JP's points about how to live a good life, according to my understanding of your position. It seems to me, the only problem you have is with the potential threat that an unrelated ideology might hold to vulnerable people, because JP's ideas challenge the place of primacy that progressive politics holds in some peoples' lives. To me, it sounds like you're saying that you see any challenge to progressive politics, or at least strong and direct challenges to progressive politics, as bad because without those progressive politics, some people will be put in danger. Assuming my understanding of your position is true, can you see why JP compared trans activists to Mao? Anything that threatens the orthodoxy is dangerous to the people? Actually, it's worse than that, isn't it? Even if x *doesn't* threaten the orthodoxy directly, people might discard the orthodoxy in favor of x, and discarding the orthodoxy will threaten a vulnerable population. Again, your words were, "My worry is that you're leading an international political backlash against what is a very localized problem, and I worry that some of society's most vulnerable people could be hurt by that backlash." I think we need to move past falling for threat narratives, tripping over ourselves about who is or isn't the most vulnerable, and start treating people like individuals. That's all I have the energy for for now. I'm going to finish the rest of the video. Edit: Okay, got a little father in, and I agree with everything you said regarding your history lesson about modernism, postmodernism, and the problem of the rejection of meta-narratives and reconciling that with anything resembling a theory or hypothesis, including Marxist thought. However, a particular feminist academic by the name of Sandra Harding solved that problem with her work on standpoint theory and strong objectivity, out from which intersectionality (white supremacist cishetero capitalist patriarchy) was born. She sidestepped the problem of the rejection of meta-narrative by arguing that since there is no one grand narrative to construct the world, instead, individual personal narratives must be used to construct the world, which is where we get the idea that oppression comes in many forms, and only if someone experiences a specific type of oppression are they equipped to understand (and arguably even recognize the existence of) that oppression. This is how Marxists are able to deal with feminists without calling them "bougie idiots" (yes I used to read Jacobin). Generally though, feminists seem to rule the proverbial roost, with people like Marxists and anarchists playing second fiddle. I fundamentally disagree with everything you said about JP leading a backlash, or that it is "targeting" anyone, and find even your framing of his ideas in this way to be objectionable and yes, even offensive. JP is not "targeting" anyone or anything but the specific legislation that, according to the head of the OHRC, enables a governmental body to fine someone who is unwilling to use what is considered to be a proper mode of address, and, in the event of the accused failing to pay the fine, send to prison. I don't like insulting people, and I'm generally happy to address anyone how they wish to be addressed, including whatever weird pronouns any given person contrives. See part 2 for more.
Part 2 because comments don't have enough characters. Just don't complain when I don't know the new elements of the language you have devised. I.e., be civil to me, and I'll be civil to you. We don't need to enforce civility with law (why would you want someone who hates you to feign civility anyway?) and laws that tamper with speech are dangerous to *everyone*, whether they are seen as belonging to a vulnerable population or not. On the other hand, when civility is legislated, that is when I see my right to offend as transformed into a duty to offend, and I can be incredibly offensive when I put my mind to it. I'm also an equal-opportunity offender. Of course, the law in this case is not an equal-opportunity law. I can offend a cis person six ways from Sunday by calling them something like "zhe" over and over again, and Bill C-16 couldn't be used to touch me because of all the case law established on the Human Rights Code, because even and especially the government gets taken in by threat narratives. In order to change that law through subversive civil disobedience, I would *have* to go after people you consider to be vulnerable, people who I could potentially be thrown in prison for failing to address properly. What you said about his rules for life, I think was also a little unfair. They're rules for life like the laws of thermodynamics are laws. They're not prescriptions...unless you're looking to undo certain phenomena caused by not following them. They're just axioms that say little more than, "if a, then b." No one is telling you what to do, just how to accomplish certain things. If you don't want to accomplish those things, then "the rules" aren't really anything to concern yourself with. I also think your characterization of identity politics is one-sided (as in it ignores the fact that there are two warring sides engaging in identity politics in favor of looking at the one side) as well as favorably biased toward the practice of identity politics. I'm 18 minutes in though, so I've only just barely started that section. If I have more thoughts while watching this video, I will put them here. "[JP] will make a claim like 'there are biological differences between men and women, which is obviously true. But he'll say it in the context of a conversation about the underrepresentation of women in government, which implies, what, exactly?" I don't think he was implying anything. I think he was explicitly stating that in an environment that affords people a large range of choices, people will make the choices they are predisposed to make. The fact is, males and females, due to their different biology, have different psychology as well. Obviously there are more similarities than there are differences, but JP went into detail about this point; one of the examples that he uses is that women are higher in trait-agreeableness than men are, on average. What that means, is when you're looking at a small number of valuable positions that people compete for, you're less likely, on average, to see women take those positions, because they're high in trait-agreeableness, on average. For that same reason though, some men, who are also high in trait-agreeableness, will also not get those positions. The divide isn't caused by maleness of femaleness, the divide is caused by psychological traits. It's why a large part of his practice involved getting people the traits they needed to be successful in areas of life where they personally felt they were lagging behind. Don't forget, he pointed out that Cathy Newman had to work hard and fight to get that job, and she confirmed as much. He made a point of saying, on average, that trait is lower in women than it is in men. That's not a normative judgment, it's just a descriptive judgment. Go back to Hume, since you brought him up first, and consider the "aught from is" problem. JP wasn't attempting to justify anything, only explain a phenomenon. If there is an implication at all, the implication, I think, would be that we should let people do as they please, and not try to be social engineers; don't worry about whether or not a person following their bliss happens to put them under the banner of a stereotype. What's important is that people have the freedom to choose their own path. "This is such a massive strawman [on JP's point about the inevitability of hierarchy]." But JP never said "all hierarchies" either. The real question here is "how did x hierarchy happen?" Irrespective of whether or not a hierarchy is "good" or "bad" (I won't even try to answer a question I am that unequipped for) what must be understood is whether or not a hierarchy *can* be dismantled. I'm not suggesting we engage in naturalist fallacy; I don't believe something is good (or bad, for that matter) just because it is ingrained in our evolutionary psychology. In fact, the instincts I consider to be "bad" I think we should be doing our best to temper, because our culture inevitable evolves much faster than our biology, and I personally believe in the idea of flexibility in gender roles, arguably more than even staunch feminists, but we're not going to get there by pretending away the powerful biological component in these structures. Peterson said these organizational structures are inevitable. I don't. I think they're soft-wired. That doesn't make anything else he has said about them wrong though. He's not arguing for the existence of these structures, just trying to show people how to navigate them.
The perceived intent behind the civil rights acts is not what is happening group identity politics will destroy this country
I'm glad Freud was called "Daddy".
what a POS! Your summary in the last few seconds hit the nail on the head. You really dont have much to offer of any use, i respect you so much more since you admitted that.
Is that a shirtless pic of Ollie from Philosophy Tube behind you?
I mean...at the end of the day, we are all gonna eat ourselves alive regardless of what this human or that human does to shake things up for the better. I decided not to feel white guilt, a guy at my work took it upon himself to lecture me about it. He got mad when I didn't accept the lecture or white guilt...I did nothing wrong...he got mad. Eating ourselves alive bit by bit.
the finest trapery humankind has to offer
no lady! postmodernism is the deadly parasite on western philosophy.
You accuse Jordan Peterson of the is-ought fallacy, that his lobster comparison (and other similar argumants) are the same as saying "patriarchy is inevitable, therefore it should exist." This is not true: he explains in interview that patriarchies continue to exist because male traits are strategical. They maintain themselves. Your monarchy comparison is a strawman - you could only defend a monarchy if you could prove it is more naturally strategic than a republic. He brings up biological differences between men and women because he is (explicitly) observing that society reflects these innate gender differences. get rekt cuck
I'm not really a big fan of JP's work, but I've seen enough of his material (didn't take a lot) to know how poorly most of his critics have engaged with his ideas. This is a great video. Shows you can treat the actual content responsibly, be witty, and deliver an incisive criticism without having to deliberately misconstrue and misrepresent.
Found you from your Meaning of Life TV Interview. Subscribed immediately. You're a genius, and I love you.
Contra: Note this is an example of how maleable student minds react to "neo-Marxist" professor's radical teachingshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arktcsv4SKM .
This is art
It's pronounced, "Dah-di".
Lobster Foppington snatched my wig.
Gross. This dude will probably kill himself when he gets old lol
Just Subscribed: You are one cool Lady, fer sure. Peterson's primary concern about gender pronouns is that it does not become State regulated. That is an infringement on thought and speech, slowly whittled by Maoist ideology. See Laurier University/Sheheard. The intersectionality ruse by the Left is fallacious because eventually all must be regarded as individuals. Peterson does not wish to hold back anyone's self-actualization; if anything, he encourages it!
This video could have been 8 minutes in all honesty.
Conspiracy theories are a thing, yeah
Again, I'm saying the majority of businesses in the US are small business where the business man is concerned about the welfare of his employees and does have to make both his employees and the people buying from him happy. Yes, there are Amazons and others big businesses that lobby government for their interests, take advantage of loopholes, etc., but most business are run by decent people who are trying to make a living. Rules apply to regulate capitalism because (and this is not a fault of capitalism so much as human nature) there are people who are exploitative in the worse way possible. I would find it sad that if the west were to become Islamic because I don't believe in genital mutilation, killing gays, subservient women, etc. that have come about through Sharia Law, among other things. So I believe in the dignity of Man (which means women too)! I'm not a utilitarian because I would not sacrifice one man if the whole benefited. That one man has rights as much as the collective. Besides who gave the collective its rights? There is a balancing act and many times situations never produce a perfectly good outcome -- damned if you do and damned if you don't. If somebody said, "Kill this man and the world will live in perfect bliss." I couldn't do it. Thanks for listening to my music... I'm a dilettante and like a bumble bee I float around a big field of beautiful musical flowers taking and creating where I can.
Again, thank you for the reply. I'm glad we can continue this discussion. I don't have much time at the moment, so I cannot reply to all of your points, but I will say three things: 1. I do implore again that perhaps you let yourself look at more data, or otherwise truth, because it makes you sound relatively uninformed. There are multiple examples where you make some of your statements, that I assume you must assume I'll believe just because you said so. Like, asking me to think of capitalists as people pleasers because they "have to please their employees and the people they are selling to." I find it hard to take that statement seriously when one of the most successful companies in the world, Amazon, has frequent complaints of unsafe, and certainly unpleasurable working conditions throughout the world. You can read reports of these many places, for example, this article in that bastion of socialist thought: Marketwatch https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-warehouse-workers-fearful-of-wasting-time-relieved-themselves-in-bottles-undercover-investigator-2018-04-16 Like, this kind of thing is my concern, because again, I'm a utilitarian, I want the great happiness for the greatest number of people. If Amazon can still be so profitable while treating its employees with such shit, then there is clearly an issue. 2. My goal is that the most people possible have happy and healthy lives. I also believe Democracy is often an important component to happy and healthy lives. So therefore, why should I be opposed to people gaining the right to vote? Because those people follow the Islamic religion (or well, come from nations that are majority Islam)? That feels very odd to me. My goal is not supported by making the lives of other people shittier, in fact, that goes directly against my goal. If you are presenting ideas that are going to make other people's lives shittier, than why should I be interested? 3. Good luck with your music!
Thank you for your remarks. The post modern ethos/ethic started in comparative literature departments and then spread. The humanities and social sciences are where many students pick up these, speaking broadly, leftist ideas and take them to all areas of their lives and careers: the arts, media, entertainment, government, law, education, etc. The hard sciences do not promote modern ideas. And the reason for this is that the sciences still believe in the idea of truth. What makes these post modern ideas Marxist is that many of the post modern thinkers were French Marxists or communists, e.g., Derrida, Lyotard, Foucault, etc. Post modern Marxism is unlike the original Marxism (vulgar Marxism) in that it is not an economic theory but deals with culture instead. It is called Cultural Marxism and the point of it is to destabilize the language or narrative of capitalism (the west). It does this by adopting the Marxist idea of class struggle but this time it is along the lines of the powerful hegemonic forces (e.g., most traditional religions) verses under privileged minorities (based on race, sex, gender, etc). The point is not just to give minorities a greater voice in society but to overthrow repressive capitalism -- not by revolution in the streets -- but through the long march through the institutions, starting with the university. And they have greatly succeeded though most of their activists would be hard pressed to know who Marx was and what he had to say. I agree there is room in socialism from what we see in Europe today to the Gulags of Russia, however, socialism tends to grow more toward the repressive side (big government, authoritarianism, atheism, etc.) and we can see how socialism has ruined Venezuela. Though socialists in Europe can flatter themselves for their compassion in having border-less society and their openness to the world's people it has brought a lot of misery to its own people with radical Islam. And now the more moderate Muslims are politically organizing and demanding a vote. Europe's tolerant society is leading to the downfall of the west by a declining birthrate and the Muslim population growing to the point of demanding a vote for Islamic workers. In the past Islam has tried to conquer the west by coming up through the Balkans and through Spain. Now it might actually succeed by the west welcoming it in... to the point where the surface of European might look western or Christian but underneath it will be Islam. For example, a North American visitor could travel to see Notre Dame in Paris but inside there will be an Islamic service and this has already come about in many of the cathedrals and monasteries in Turkey. I agree that capitalism is not perfect and that we should work towards reforming it -- rather than tearing it down for some pie-in-the-sky ideal that nobody knows how to implement. There are good intentions but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, as we can see with the history of communism in the last century. One of the beautiful and clear headed points of capitalism is that it allows for freedom of religion. Communism can't tolerate another view to its absolutist view of the world -- communist countries were atheistic and religion was the opiate of the masses. But a lot of the beneficial changes that moderated capitalism came about through Christianity, e.g., Puritans started the organization against slavery that led to the Civil War, Christians rallied for women suffrage, in allowing women to have the vote, etc. Again, capitalism is not perfect, but it has been very generous to many people around the world, e.g., in forgiving debt to Africa, starting initiatives that prevent starvation and disease, offering care and relief to less fortunate countries as in offering aid to Haiti for earthquakes, etc. We can dispute certain points: I've read that it's estimated that the US give 33.2 billion dollars in foreign aid that out of the top six US aid recipient countries five were Muslim. Also this link claims that the Muslim countries were "stingy" in giving aid to the tsunami victims: http://www.balaams-ass.com/alhaj/stingymuslimsnations.htm In general, if you really want to simplify things, think about capitalists as people pleasers. The boss of a company has to please his employees and he has to please the people he is selling to. If he can't please these people then he is out of business and has to suffer financially. And it is these people who are in the majority capitalistic countries. So when leftist profs mercilessly attack capitalism for being part of an evil blight on society they are, in fact, attacking this people pleasing person. This is the same person who gives many people their jobs to be able to buy a house, send their kids to school, go on a vacation, etc. And many of these people pleasers do care about their employees. So the moral of this story is -- and I think we can agree on this -- don't change a thing that is pretty damn GOOD! Yes, reform where you have to, but don't try to tear down the whole thing because, if it doesn't match somebody's pipe dream of perfection, it is EVIL! Look to where we have come compared to Medieval society: a society where you only owned your stomach and you travel about five miles radius from your village throughout your whole life and died some horrible death like the Black Plague. With capitalism people eat well, many own property, fly anywhere in the world they want, have the benefits of drugs that prolong life more than any other time in human history. This is because we live in a capitalist society. I think the west should be proud of its accomplishments rather than suffer white guilt or male guilt any or the crap the left wants you to suffer when it looks at everything through the grievance lens. The left wants to tear capitalism down because of perceived injustices. By comparison, the western countries are the most just and tolerant in the world -- I would argue in some cases too tolerant. Nothing stands close to the accomplishments that have come about through capitalism which is part of the Enlightenment of the West. We should be singing its praises for all that we have, and take for granted under capitalism. And if you don't believe that... immigrate to North Korea or Cuba. Good Luck!
The devil literally does not exist tho
Nice reply
lovely
I'd consider myself a supporter of Peterson (somewhat). I do, however, agree with some of your points. Great video!
"Someone who favors individual choice should be in favor of individual gender expression." Sure, but not in the form of state enforced speech codes.
Nice Pink Flamingos reference!! Great vid!
Peterson fan boi here, like your work. Not convinced, you glossed over many of his finer points more humorously than disingenuously which is refreshing. I agree with the clip at the end from Rubin, you're the closest I've found to contending with Peterson's ideas. He'd probably interview with you if you asked. Just saying
Holy shit you’re really fucking pretty.
I respect Peterson and think he is providing an important voice when it comes to defending some social norms, but it bothers me that so many of his detractors put their foot in their mouth before they ever get a legitimate criticism out, either by misrepresentations or using ad hominems, which then allows his fans to devolve into the usual circejerks. This does nobody any favours. Peterson is operating in a grey area but he's clearly doing some things right. It's a legitimate issue to question where he draws the line on multiple issues, but flagrant attempts at character assassination by painting him as alt-right, misogynistic, racist, etc etc are going to be nothing but counter-productive. A voice like yours is important in winning the battle of hearts and minds. You don't take yourself too seriously and that allows you to actually get a point across without giving his uncritical fans an excuse to reduce you to an identity politician / sjw. I think you are definitely one of the more valuable voices in this ecosystem. Keep it up.
My phone froze right when the video ended. I guess you could say it was SHOOKETH
Actually Peterson never says that it's a 'unified philosophical force' but makes the argument that it's an aggregate force made of many competing and cooperating wills (those arguments in the left you talk about) which results in a general push that includes both post modernist idealogy and marxist viewpoints (despite their contradictions). For easy digestion and understandability, he sacrifices precision, so he says 'Neo marxist post modern'. And that thickness and impenetrability of communication that he avoids that most philosophers fall victim to, is something that you have occasionally complained about (in your video about what why you left academia). the one thing classic liberals and libertarians tend to do is boil down their points (while sacrificing precision) to come up with something easy to unify, for effect. Order is just a core aspect of right philosophy, so it makes sense that precision (which is something left people chase to the ends of the earth resulting in only becoming more confusing with constant term redefinition) would be sacrificed. Once again, thank you so much for being you and making videos of this caliber. It's nice to finally hear someone that represents these viewpoints who isn't weaponized, is patient and understanding, and ultimately has the best intentions. Please don't stop making videos, you're wonderful.
14:15 every eyeball in that photo is pointing a different direction
love jordan and you are a beautiful girl, it reminds me of the riddle; what's the sexiest organ in the body? The brain.
My main issue with this video is how you portray peterson as someone who is against trans rights and against using personal pronouns. He fought compelled speech legislation because it infringed on free speech. He didn't refuse to call anyone by personal pronouns. He refused to be forced to say specific words by the government. This is the basis of his whole philosophy and why he's popular. He spent decades studying authoritarianism and sees it peeking up its head in the government and universities in the form of compelled speech legislation. The road to totalitarianism is made one step at a time and is supported by a complicit population. He was standing up for what he believes was the first step towards a totalitarian state. This is the whole basis of why he's popular and his reason for speaking out in the first place. Please try to get the basics right before you move on to further criticism
It seems like both sides just hear someone that can speak intellectually and tells them what they want to hear, and then instantly latch onto it without the least bit of skepticism. Lets them feel confident in their beliefs without thinking for themselves. Sad. Great video though.
Can you do an ASMR video for us?
"please don't watch it" up next: Why I Quit Academia
I'm a straight guy but I'm actually attracted to you. Wish you have vegana and bobs not
Jai Thang she is bi(ish) woman, so
" IS THAT ALL WOMANHOOD MEANS TO YOU? " .... " mh! "
Postmodernism is riding off into the sunset anyway. I'm a transmodernist.
So, Peterson is absolutely alt-right https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/851464151708950528
Channel 4 interview m'lady, not BBC interview. Entirely different entities.
2:02 Channel4, not BBC.
i kind of like JP but you made many good points girl so i want to watch more of your videos now
People don't discuss Aristotle on the left? Huh? K. I'm just gonna say you're wrong there.
this is pretty amazing
At 2:00 min re the Cathy Newman interview - it was from Channel 4 news, not the BBC. It's a small detail, but, if you're going to critique things, you've got to be accurate.
Great video! I read this interesting post by a college professor talking about how Peterson's followers have been f-ing up his classes https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/86tnz7/im_a_college_philosophy_professor_jordan_peterson/
i thoroughly enjoyed the video but think we're taking the ayn rand/tomi lehran/joseph mccarthy wannabe JP's ideology/intellectualism too seriously. he just made up the term "post modern marxist" because it sounds scary to conservative "white male and the females who proft by pretending to empathize with their struggle" christians.
You should have a dialogue with him, I am sure he would like to talk about it with you. He just doesn't have time with his tour going on, so maybe in a few months you may get the chance. Seriously, reach out to him.
Blackface is fun.
Patched 87 well I don’t think that Peterson is far right (I do think that he’s an idiot though), but I’ll grant you that the cultural Marxism conspiracy is popular among the far right types. I myself find it silly and unsubstantiated despite being on the right.
Wooksley it's not so much that it's Hitler, it the entire contemporary far right has also adopted this. Like, if it was a relic of the old ideology I would totally agree. But it's still very much part of the far right discourse today...
Patched 87 What I meant is that cultural Marxism as Peterson understands it is nonsense, because it’s a conspiracy theory with little to no evidence behind it. But the argument “Hitler believed in X, you believe in X, therefore you’re kinda like Hitler, therefore you’re wrong” is also nonsense. A claim is valid or invalid regardless of what Hitler thought.
Wooksley Cultural Marxism is real, it's a legitimate thing. But it's been used as a name for a vast Marxist (or jewish) conspiracy to erase "white cultural identity" or the "Western values" etc. Cultural Marxism is essentially a critique of consumer society.
First, I really enjoyed this video. It was quite entertaining. Secondly, it seems to do a pretty good job of exposing some serious weaknesses in JP's political philosophizing. I say 'seems' because I am not very familar with his writings or talks. The events that originally brought him into the limelight, and the arguments he made at the time, left me singularly unimpressed, and you could say that has prejudiced me against him. But based on the comments section here I have to say that either his political theories and arguments are very weak, or his supporters here that are defending them don't actually understand them well enough to do a decent job of defending or even explaining them.
“...Who got famous for sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender people under Canadian human rights law shall surely lead to Stalinism.” Right off the bat you start off with a straw man argument in order to fit a narrative. Pathetic.
He's said often he's happy to use the pronouns people want. But he wont be forced by the state to do so.
"I'm a white hetero male genius and I feel oppressed." = Jordan Peterson=the west has forgotten how to celebrate male 'genius' which is a natural elite that is being drowned in all the talk about equality. Mediocrity does not equal genius but in post modernism it does=Jordan Peterson.
Post modernism is where its at since "nothing really matters"-Albert Camus....only way to explain Trump lol
I'm hardly qualified to rebut either you or JP (my field of study is comedic loafing) but you are feckin' hilarious.
A thinker to say the least. Aware of facts... Not quite. Entertaining value, Three and a half out of five. Convincing for under achievers though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2W-5J1vl8o an alternative assessment.
You can try your best to challenge and inform people in the most entertaining way possible and yet no matter how much they like what you're saying they cannot change their minds. Their beliefs are not rooted in reason but in emotion. They won't change their minds or suddenly change their reasoning without something more personal to change the way they feel. Until then, they'll find new ways to rationalize their stance. But at least you've opened a door.
This is one of the best things I have seen in a year. Thank you so much Natalie.
Contra, I have the impression that your voice is a little bit higher than usual. What's going on?
https://imgflip.com/i/2aixl5
Can you maga dipshits just get ONE decent graphic designer?
This is so funny.
Hey there! I'm really really big Jordan Peterson fan, and I can say with some degree of self assuredness that this is the most credibility I've ever seen somebody on the left give JP. I understand your confusion about his definition of postmodern-neomarxism. I think his definition of it is a little confused. Stephen Pinker (I think) defined postmodernism as (at its base) the denial of objective reality. I think this fits, and I think that the definition you supply is both informed and one I can use to talk about this confusion. So essentially Jordan Peterson believes that as a philosophy postmodernism is defunct, due to the fact that we must frame our interpretations of the world around something objective. Biological evolution has chosen to do this around the existence of pain, which we can agree for all intensive purposes occurs universally enough across experiences to be objective. So in his opinion postmodernism as a philosophy has failed. He believes that postmodernists have begun to recognize the holes and inconsistencies that he sees in postmodernism, and he believes they've begun to fill those holes with Marxism. So the rule of thumb generally is: you take a common leftist claim you don't believe is based in your objective interpretation of reality, and then you divide it across oppressed/oppressor lines that marxism clings to. "Women have not achieved equality due to a functioning oppressive patriarchy" "Minorities do not get equal opportunities because they are oppressed by an institutionally racist system" Of course he's not exactly clear on all of this, and I really am putting words in his mouth here, so don't quote me on it. But I think I'm close to the mark....bucko.
I'm not sure I'd agree that we (either as individual humans or as a society) must frame our world around something objective. I say not sure because, I don't know. Nor do I care too much whether we treat life as having an objective reality, or it each truly being subjective experience and that it is impossible to gain like, a full understanding into the lives of others. I don't know. I do know that pain is not a universal human experience. Pain, like everything else, is a series of chemical reactions happening in your body's nervous system, and not everyone's nervous system functions properly so, some people can't feel physical pain: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170426-the-people-who-never-feel-any-pain I don't think that really disproves your comment or anything, or undermines your argument in any serious way. I'm not convinced by the worldview anyways, so make of tat what you will. But it's a really interesting fact, so I felt like sharing it.
I do not agree with all that you said, BUT I fucking love you!!!!
Regardless o the credits to him regarding those issues many of the points made in the arguments still hold. That Jordan Peterson attempts to conflate two relatively contradictory schools of thoughts into a homogenous straw man is not any less true because he fought for free speech.
This really doesn't get at all at the issue of whether such hierarchies should exist. Is it equitable if your line of thinking is correct for such hierarchies to perpetuate themselves indefinitely?
Kathy Newman is NOT a leftist.
I've listened to Peterson talk for upwards of 75 hrs now. I've had his ideas on my mind at least once a day for over a year. I can say that you don't make enough of an effort to understand his thoughts or you stop once you have a rational sounding argument for each point that will persuade the majority of people not listening closely. But my opinion is such: You are being intellectually dishonest or simply negligent in your desire to learn what he is saying. Still the closest i have heard to someone having an argument against Peterson, but not quite convinced. Good job though
I never thought Peterson thought there was a conspiracy to intentionally destroy the west but that the post modernist will end up destabilizing the culture through their babbling and bickering. I personally think he is right but in the sense that every culture and nation falls eventually as progression naturally deconstructs entities formed in the past. Protestant America will and is declining and perhaps America will as well. Why are we so special? Why would we last forever in our current state? Our own constitution doesnt account for the rapid growth in tech. Is meta deta personal property? Should every citizen be allowed to own a tank?
Great points. Now off to the pertinent matters: would it be gay to suck her dick?
please do a video on Peter Singer I'll give you like $10
In all my time online I have met many who hate Peterson and I failed to understand why. While I cannot say much for them you have an actual argument against him that I can agree and rationalize. It seems like since he dropped his book and started getting interviews the man changed into the ideologically possessed man he hates. Now maybe this is because of the environment he is from, where students attack him for having opposing views and the negative press so loud to him he cannot see the moderates who are idle and silent. At the very least, thank you for helping me see him from a new angle
Peterson's label of "Postmodern neo-Marxism" is just as stupid as the labels "Alt-Right," "Democrats/Republicans," "The West," etc. These labels when given more than 2 seconds of thought show that they do not make sense and are used so broadly that it is almost impossible to figure out who is 'supposedly' covered under each label. If we use these broad-brush labels, our arguments mean little because no one can be certain who our arguments pertain to, so the issue cannot be solved.
It's a good comedy bit. She would have been a better debate opponent than the silly columnist that joined the baptist preacher.
Seems weird that the drive in technology and modern culture is simplification - we dumb-down exams for the sake of cultural differences, we replace words with ease-recognition symbols, 'less is more' is being pushed as the corporate meme from optional extras in cars to the way people talk about movies. Yet the Progressive Left has been busy making gender descriptions - I think we're up to 37 officially recognized ones now (?) - but also makes demands to enforce recognition of these new descriptions as a matter of human rights law. 'Misprouning' people might seem important to the ultra-minority that demand it, but it's just not feasible in a country where the average IQ is 100. These are demands that do not recognize the limitations of human intelligence - usually because the people demanding them are of higher than average intelligence. It's a form of Elitism - i.e. intolerance - masked as a call for tolerance enforcement. ...and how should we feel about 'Tolerance Enforcement'? It does sound very Demolition Man.
"I think to people watching this it comes off as if leftists are like, afraid of his actual ideas." Yeah. To me, it looks like almost no one in the world can manage to criticize him, but maybe that's the trick. Kudos to you for actually engaging with him, its not like I believe everything he says is true. Unlike him, I actually believe in the validity of transness and dysphoria. Its also embarrassing that an old man trying to get people to self-actualize gets treated as if he's another Goebbels. Or that a relatively unknown (gotta be honest with you) youtuber does a better job explaining his positions to the layman than paid journalists do (who often can't help strawmanning him). Its not a good look to anyone who's on the fence, and it just increases his popularity amongst the audience that already distrusts journalists. And its not really true that "the left only appears unified to people who are far on the right". The philosophical squabbling you identify is something only those really deep in academia would know about. Not even the general student population in universities would know it, either. The rest of us out here don't really have awareness of those philosophical debates.
You're a deviant, a degenerate, and my new favorite person. I found this researching Jordan Peterson (cause Youtube reeeaally wants me to watch more of him) and you make so much more sense than anybody else I've heard. I love the points you make in a couple of your videos about the Left being weakened by only arguing with itself about small points instead of developing fuller arguments for their basic worldview. It's really scary to see Fascism gaining ground while the Left is spending so much energy infighting and whining.
Looking sexy contra!
amazing
you have man hands. How dat your feel ?
this mentally ill faggot should kill himself.
If JP is gonna argue "Nature does it so its all good." Then he cannot be against homosexuality since its in nature's natural roles too.
You are my new favorite person!!!
Great vid!
What the fuck, this guy sounds awful. I hope he drops out of public spotlight and people wake up.
Awesome. Subscribed.
If you’re not wearing nails, you’re not doing WOMANHOOD
Why do you look like a guy. what kind of perversion is this? Hopefully jesus christ comes back soon and sends all of you abominations to hell.
jude untermensch!Seize!du bist eing seize!
"Not Youtube scepticism" SAVAGE
I would love to see you have a chat with him. Might be....fun:)
All hail the lobster queen!
Really appreciated this. I generally like Peterson a lot, but there have always been things I don't like about him that I could never put to the right words. I've read some criticism of him, but most of it's been straw man. Your video's the first critical take I've seen that got it right, and boy did you get lots of it right. Particularly appreciated your takedown of postmodernism vs. marxism, and your analysis of how vague and over-generalizing his "postmodernist neo-marxist" term really is. Thank you, you've added a lot to the discussion.
Excellent video. Peterson has expressed that he never had a problem with calling whoever by their preferred pronoun. He had a problem with there being a law forcing professors in Canadian colleges to use the preferred pronoun. He had a problem with “compelled speech”.
I don't necessarily agree with the assessment, but I appreciate a less reactionary analysis
I came into this video a somewhat fan of Jordan Peterson and still am i do like some of his points and overall like how he talks and argues even if sometimes its shady I still like seeing people debate like that and sometimes manipulate an argument in their favor like the lobster thing. I figured you would just go after him with no real strong points of your own and I'm glad i was wrong. Came out of this video really looking at Jordan differently respecting him less as a person but still hold respect for his speaking ability's.
I don't think it's meant to be a perfectly coherent concept, but a very loose label for the simultaneous focus on radical constructivism and cultural identity power dynamics on some extreme pockets of the left.
His voice sounds really annoying now, made it hard to watch.
Contra, Relating to your video about violence, I’d love to see you do a video about the politics of AI ethics in Westworld. Personally, I disagree with most of your points, but you’re one of the only content producers who actually deals with intelligent issues. Love your work m please keep it up!
Mad well done. The deadpan tone combined with awesome costumes is spot-on. I love love love the campy edu-tainment philosophy stuff. Mad good.
but you really wouldn't be happy watching strangers with candy for the rest of your life. that is a FUCKIN' LIE! it's a lie taken metaphorically as well.
"So much for the tolerant Jacobins" - I spat out coffee
Beautifully articulated and well presented. Not only did you provide the most accurate definition of postmodernism (an antithesis to modernistic values) that I have seen on youtube, but you put them in context to its influence on modern society. You also exposed that Marxism and postmodernism are fundamentally differently, which is of course is obvious to anyone without a political agenda to satisfy. I would like to point out that one of the reasons why its hard to debate against Peterson is that his views encompass distorted, reductionist views across a large spectrum of fields: sociological, philosophical, ideological, religious, and even biological concepts. In order to prove them wrong, you need to fact check everything he says, which is challenging for a person to do so on the spot. When you do catch him in a lie or fallacy, he starts with his mental gymnastics which can be hard to escape if you are not aware. Thank you for your service to this young, impressionable, desperate generation.
Wish there was a version of this that didn't have the random nonsense on it. I'd have bothered finishing it.
Well, I'll gladly call her that!
Frank Cierpial As far as I'm aware (I think), she thought at first she was just a man who enjoyed crossdressing, then later came out as genderqueer, before finding that she's a trans woman/trans femme. Most places I see, she goes by she/her.
That's fine. I'm just asking, because in a prior video she said that her pronouns were "he" or "she" and I am curious if that changed so I don't call her by the wrong one.
Frank Cierpial She's probably going through her transition, starting to make her normal voice more feminine. Voice changing is rather common in trans people, with trans women sometimes heightening their voices and trans men sometimes deepening theirs.
"in which then he can accuse you of misrepresenting him" I've seen him do this so much...
Just seeing that cucumber get cut in the context it was used made me cringe in pain...
I'm an anqrchosyndicalist and I agree and disagree with some of your points.
that was kind of ridiculously watchable
How to tell if a transgender persona is lying to you: Are their lips moving?
Thank you very much, added to playlist. I sometimes agree with JP, sometimes not. I think he confuses his associations, too. Purely through reasoning, I'm nowhere near as widely read as you. Sometimes, as I follow him, I think "Where on earth are we going now?" I don't think any state should tell people what to say, that way clearly lies evil, and there is no need. But I'm more than happy to use whichever pronoun you think suits you. Even if it's a completely new one. Unless it sounds really silly. My opinion is that such a pronoun should a single syllable. And include object and possessive forms in its design. For obvious reasons of frequency of use, together with articles, these words must have evolved to flow freely among all other words. Just tried a few, it's not that easy, is it? It would be even harder in French, of Italian, say, due to apostrophised abbreviated forms. Language seems to evolve like the huffmann code used to compress it, the shortest codes being used for the most frequently used words. And when you try to introduce a new pronoun, you find all the most economical viable slots are taken.
26:04 the wisdom of divine cannot be beat
Goodbye Lenin nice
Bravo
Brilliant. You are a fantastic teacher. And my new hero. In a non-worshipping, respecting the effort that went into this, kind of way,
I found out about this video after seeing a video on YouTube referencing the recent Munk debate with Dr. Jordan Peterson, the topic of this video. The video is called "Curb your Jordan Peterson Quote" and is a edit of Michelle Goldberg's statrment where she paraphrase Jordan Peterson saying, "Maybe if women don't want to be the workplace to be sexualized, they shouldn't be allowed to where makeup." To where Peterson immediately says that he didn't say that. To which she responds by telling the audience to Google the vice interview. So of course the video cuts to the vice interview where not only her statement was found to be dishonest, but he clearly stated that he was not saying her statement likely due to the fact that he for saw bring misquoted in the future which is exactly what happened. Why did this happen? I wasn't sure. Maybe she didn't actually watch the video and saw a biased review online where the writer misquoted him due to their agenda. Maybe she did watch it and misquoted him due to her agenda (which it wasn't smart to tell the audience to Google it only to discredit her claim and be denounced publicly online as a liar) and to assume higher intelligence I'll go with the assumption that she didn't actually watch the vice interview. Now I went to her twitter and of course what I predicted was true. People were mentioning her with assume link to the video assumed what was funny was that her (status? I don't have twitter and rarely go to its site, so I'll compare it to facebook, apologies for my ignorance) states that she doesn't read @mentions so maybe she really doesn't. That's unfortunate since she won't learn from her mistake then. Anyway that situation reminds me of this video. Now this video was a bit difficult for me to sit through as to be honest, and this is my opinion and I'm sticking with it regardless of feelings hurt and outrage, that the setup was creepy and cringy. I believe that's for the comedy but it's not for me so I won't continue these videos. But that's also not the point. The point is that as Michelle Goldbloom had done, Jordan Peterson's ideals were misrepresented here. Although this case was different. I don't think this was due to maliciousness. I think this was a case of skimming through material about him, not understanding what he's saying or selective listening which the later is common across all humans so certainly nothing to get at arms about especially if you're going in knowing the person you're listening to is against your ideals, you're going to tend towards selective listening and combativeness. Many people do not realize this as this is not commonly told to people so bare that in mind people. Also I understand that many interviews give Peterson limited time to speak his position and usually cut him short because he goes on too long for the alloted time the interview has with him and they need to get across certain conversation points on their list in reasonable time. My best advice is to check out his Q&A and maps of meaning lectures where he has the ability to get his ideals out there fully and without interupption and of course without the meme "So you're saying..." and you'll get a clearer picture of what's going on and will definitely understand that he doesn't really care about what is happening among the post modernists and their divisions and only cares about being told to speak words which is an orwellian nightmare and scares him because of the belief that the acceptance of compelled speech in law will lead to a slightly worse law then worse than, that then worse than that, until we have that Orwellian nightmare I wrote about earlier. That line is why he makes the comparison to the "20th century killers" because history is indeed repeating itself and he wants to stop it before it's too late. Now many people completely miss that agenda of his and think that he's against Trans people and feminists and such which he states across several videos that he doesn't care about that though the way they're going about their goals is unhealthy and dangerous in itself, he cares about where the acceptance compelled speech laws will lead western societies (hence against orwellian). If you do not know what I mean by orwellian, I'm specifically referring to George Orwell ' s novel 1984. If you have the time, read the novel fully, if not go to spark notes or something similar and get an overview though I again strongly suggest you actually read the novel. I assume many of you know about it anyway as it was required reading in many primary schools back when I was in school.
As far as the comments of listening to his advice for straightening your life out. I'm not going to comment on it. If you don't want to follow his advice, don't. In my opinion it's solidly sound advice but you're the master of your own life so do what you want as long as you do not threaten the lives of others or own life.
I first found out about this guy from an interview with him in Time magazine. He came off as a former nobody who realized he could get a lot more attention by validating the insecurities of status quo lovers.
How is it that i like this video a lot with its high quality, but still doesn't get anything. This is too hard for me.
That's the best SIGH on youtube, and I've seen a couple.
As a student of Andy Warhol and (briefly) a fan of Peterson, I'm fairly confident Warhol is exactly who Peterson thinks he's describing with the word postmodernism. Peterson thinks postmodernism means a denial that any event or work of art has any intrinsic or objective meaning. Warhol's whole deal was the subversion of art as a concept by demonstrating that he could captivate millions with pieces which were as close to objectively meaningless as possible. Warhol took the philosophical question of meaning as pertains to art and answered it -- empirically -- in the negative, doing an end run around everyone's theories of meaning ever. This kind of thing clearly makes Peterson shit his pants. It's like when you're a teenager and you get some good weed in conjunction with Carl Sagan videos and it suddenly hits you that there is no up or down in the universe, all location is relative, no orientation is correct, and none of it ever ends. I know I'm not the only one who's had that click and gotten literal vertigo paired with the impossible fear that I could fall off the planet. I'm pretty sure that's how Peterson feels when someone points out Christian ethics might be just one more arbitrary social construct, just like whatever it is Siberian dirt herders believe. For Peterson, postmodernism is to philosophy what relativity was to physics. And Peterson reeeally wishes we could all go back to pre-Gallilean times. He can't handle the idea that there is no one privileged perspective which defines Truth and Virtue and whatever other sterile Platonic ideals pedants feel like bickering about. For the record, the reason I stopped listening to Peterson is because every additional hour of his content made it increasingly clear that whatever else can be said of the man, he is perpetually upset. He is visibly unhappy 100% of the time and I dunno maybe this is just me but I don't think that's the sign of a person whose outlook on life is worth emulating.
Thank you for making this video
I wish trans people had the political clarity and drive of stalin and mao
My goodness your hair is glorious!
Forcing people to do things makes people want to do the opposite. It’s pretty basic psychology.
JBP reminds me of famed behaviourist Temple Grandlin in the respective reluctance in regards to emotion and also if Jordan was a she he would look alot like Grandin
22:00 As an Anarchist, thank you thank you thank you. I want hierarchy in society, with the reservation that no one should have unjust, unsolicited power over me.
you sound like jiminy cricket. at long last i have found my conscience.
Hey I was linked here by Cracked and I'm not sure if the main focus of this video was supposed to be educational or entertaining, but I feel as though the parts of the video aimed at entertaining the audience really detract from the analytical and informative pieces. The ideas you talk about just get lost inside your jokes about attending AA meetings and whatnot and make the video unwatchable for people not interested in the same sense of humor, as the video just feels really drawn out and irrelevant.
Starts with a lie and gets worse from there.
I am not nearly as leftist as you, but I really appreciate your channel. It is refreshing to see someone who is (far?)left actually articulate the problems they have with our society/culture, even if I don't fully agree. It seems like most young people now-a-days conflate their entire personalities with their political leanings, and as such, they take differences in opinions very personality. Meanwhile, many people on the right seem to enjoy being "correct" more than they enjoy meaningful conversation. Thank you for actually engaging in a dialogue that is informative, productive, and funny, without being mean-spirited.
Ya know this actually changed my mind a bit. Good job girl, i think.
10 minutes in and this is some creepy af shit you have going on. That is why you deserve my subscription!
Enlightened bitchery
I love stepping outside of my echo chamber! New subscriber :)
First, I really enjoyed this video. It was quite entertaining. Secondly, it seems to do a pretty good job of exposing some serious weaknesses in JP's political philosophizing. I say 'seems' because I am not very familiar with his writings or talks. The events that originally brought him into the limelight, and the arguments he made at the time, left me singularly unimpressed, and you could say that has prejudiced me against him. But based on the comments section here I have to say that either his political theories and arguments are very weak, or his supporters here that are defending them don't actually understand them well enough to do a decent job of defending or even explaining them. But there are also people saying that they like JP for some reason but do acknowledge that he is not above criticism, which is positive.
If a person has a penis he's a man
Since when are you into guys?!
You. Are. My. Inspiration!
You have shown me that I am, in fact, a sapiosexual, because I am in love.
I like some of your video's ContraPoints, but there are many things you get wrong in this one. You say (I'm paraphrasing) “all his life coaching is basically just a trojan horse for a reactionary political agenda, and he's against Progressivism, but, instead of using the word Progressivism he's come up with Postmodern/ Neo-Marxist." This is a strawman. You're claiming that Peterson is against Progressivist politics, but, I've seen no indication that he's against using science and reason to improve the human condition through reform. (He's a scientist, he's in the top 1% or thereabouts of cited scientific publications) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan_Peterson2 Furthermore ContraPoints, you have no evidence for that claim, you cut to the Cathy Newman interview where Peterson is referring to trans activists who, unscientifically, believe that gender is only a social construct. So that doesn't seem like progressivism to me. Now, I don't know your position on the status of gender identity (And I mean no offence, btw, I’m sure you’re pretty filthy just like everyone else). But the biological, evolutionary, and genetic sciences indicate an objective difference between the sexes. Sex isn't a spectrum, it's a bimodal distribution, there are obviously socially constructed elements, but to deny the material nature of sex difference is, anti-science and not progressive. Also your critique of Peterson's "Postmodern/ Neo-Marxism is wrong. You make the point that you can't have Postmodernism and Marxism together because Postmodernism rejects grand narratives and Marxism is a grand narrative etc, so Peterson doesn't know what he's talking about. What you don't get is that Petersons term, he states, is a "strange pastiche". So for him it's kind of a religious, often illogical, impulse to flatten hierarchies for the sake of toppling over the power structure. 'Compassion for the downtrodden' is often used as a mask to cover up the deeper motivation which is a resentment for those who have more than you or, in other words, resentment for those who are higher up on the hierarchy. The deeper psychoanalytic point is that it offers a kind of meaning or telos to ones trajectory in life, but, it’s ultimately a destructive one because a new hierarchy always gets erected and the new power structure faces the same threat as the one before from some newly “oppressed” minority group. You go on to say "basically it's the entirety of the modern left" (16:50). But that's just not true at all. Peterson is clearly in support of the part of "the left" that's aligned with empirical science and is focused on lifting up and protecting the working class. For example he supports the birth control pill, as it allowed the competency of woman to enter the workforce. He does have his concerns over some broader implications, but, he's “eminently” happy to have woman contributing to the progress in the world. I don't think this has been enough to call Peterson a reactionary or to say he hates the entire modern left, or that Postmodern/ Neo-Marxism is (((code))) for Progressivism. You are making the conflation, probably due to your own political biases, which is fine. Moving forward you say: "Underrepresentation of Woman in government?” Where did Peterson talk about woman in government? Not in the Cathy Newman interview. They were talking about woman in FTSE 500 companies. Furthermore the argument he was making was crystal clear, he wasn’t leaving anyone to make assumptions. Woman aren’t as highly represented in those top positions because of many reasons. One of them is that there is gender discrimination. Another one is that Woman are more Agreeable than men and won’t fight as hard for those competitive positions. Another reason is that woman, on average, opt for more of a work/life balance and don’t work as many hours as men. Another reason is that Woman who are successful and make lots of money tend to marry men who are also successful ( wealthy woman tend not to marry poor men) and they realize that they’d rather focus on a family instead of spending 80 hours a week working to have a dual income, when their husbands are already making good money. The point is there are lots of reasons, you don't have to assume anything, you just have to look at the data on the subject, and there is good, clear, data on the subject I'm not making this up. Now, this whole thing about “unjust hierarchies”. That IS the point, to many resentful angry young college kids, every hierarchy is unjust. It’s more of a symptom of being uneducated, thats why this problem is so prevalent on college campuses and social media as opposed to anywhere else. The production of this video was top shelf and I did learn some new things. I even think there were some nuggets of fair criticism of Peterson, but on the whole, I think you missed the mark.
The Judith Butler quote points to the idea of intersectionalism and JBP I think uses this to collapse groups down to individuals. Individuals assert rights and are held responsible for their actions. Groups cannot assert such rights as group responsibility is a taboo. Everyone complains about collective punishment. The class struggle of Marx asserts collective rights and boy have they delved out the collective punishments. Note to self: lets not do that anymore. Try something, anything else. I happen to like Liberty but then again It is implied that I enjoy some privilege. My wish is to promote liberty for everyone.
Jordan Peterson's arguments are riddled with fallacies and nonsense. No one should be taking him seriously.
What was gray is now technicolor. By the way, excellent job of dismantling the tactics JP used during the Cathy Newman interview. I’d be curious of your thoughts on the whole “women wearing make up in the workplace.”
This "response" sums up, what Libertards perceive as argumentation.
Its not an argument and right wings may very well be wrong. My point is that this shit is not an argumentation. Its full of ad hominem, strawmans, unscientific theories and anecdote wisdom.
Not an argument.
See, this business of LAW is a sober thing indeed. Law is a blunt instrument of state coercion, no laughing matter. Consider the following witty absurdity:- The person of Mrs Windsor shall be called by her preferred pronoun of "Her Majesty" , not just as a matter of courtesy but as a compulsion backed up by jail time. Sounds good? As a matter of principle? Do you see why JBP might be on to something MORE than an issue of good manners here? Respectfully. Peace. Out.
Um, have you read the law? Here's the text, have at it: http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent You'll notice that the law is actually just an amendment, which adds gender identity to categories like race and disability. This has many positive things like, people can not be denied a bank account because they are transgendered. How does this interfere with hate speech? Is using the wrong pronoun going to lead to jail time? Well, the only 100% true answer is that neither you nor Dr. Peterson nor anyone know. It's not in the text of the bill, it's going to come down to individual cases and whatever case law is built up. Is jailtime likely? Well, I'm not an expert on Canadian courts, so why not look at some of the supporters of the bill. What are there intentions for the law? This is a good place to start, it suggests 1. If there will be damaged sought for this issue and 2. What damages will be sought by them for the law. According to The Ontario Human Rights Commission in their Policy on Preventing Discrimination Because of Gender Identity and Expression, they do include that discrimination should include: "Refusing to refer to a person by their self-identified name and proper personal pronoun." Well, that answers question 1. Question 2, what action do they recommend taken? "Monetary damages, non-financial remedies (for example, ceasing the discriminatory practice or reinstatement to job) and public interest remedies (for example, changing hiring practices or developing non-discriminatory policies and procedures)." They notably do not include jail time. This is not surprising. These kinds of human rights abuses that have been covered under the previous versions of the law for race, gender, disability, ect., well, they don't resulted in jail time for verbal abuses like insulting people with racial slurs. I'll grant you that was gleaned from a google search, where such interactions only affected jail time if the perpetrator had already done something to get them jail like, robbery or assault. But I have my doubts there are such cases, or this bill probably wouldn't have passed by the margin it did. And again, there is no certainty that intentional misgendering will even bring fines. Again, that will come down to case law. In conclusion? I don't quite agree with Canadian legal policy. I think it's disappointingly vague and that speech itself should not have such legal ramifications, or at the very least it be more clearly defined. That said, Jordan Peterson's scaremongering about jailtime for pronoun usage is not really based in reality.
can u maybe make a video about the israeli-palestinian conflict? im confused.
I'm not contra, I don't make her videos. But I can give you like a five paragraph condescend summary version to hopefully clear up some confusion: People who were Jewish lived in the Isreal/Palestine area for a while, but like, significant populations existed around 2000 years ago, when the Roman empire ruled it. Jewish religion places a lot of importance on the region. Jewish people have continued to live there, though with a lot less people until the 20th century. Then people who were Jewish (many from Europe) began moving into the area while it was ruled by Britain, for varying reasons (part of it being that living in Europe meant being shipped off to a Nazi death camp where 6 million people who were Jewish died). The area of Palestine also had a lot of people who were not Jewish. Mostly people who were Muslim (and would call themselves Arabic, mostly) and some Christians. Britain in 1948 ceded rule to the people and basically said "Go work this out" The day after that, the people who were Jewish (who had superior military power) kicked out a bunch of people who were arabic and Muslim from some of the lands they were in, and the entire area became divided into Israel and Palestine. There have been many wars since then. After Palestine and Egypt attempted to eradicate Israel in the 60s and failed, Israel began sending not legal by the United Nations colonies/villages in land that was technically Palestine. Since then war has flared up from time to time, but people are pretty much constantly killing each other. Palestinian hardliners want Israel pretty much gone, and its people either gone or well, greatly reduced in power. Isreal's hardliners want Palestine pretty much gone, with its people either gone or well, greatly reduced in power. Greatly reduced in power involves not being able to vote and being second class citizens, in both cases. And there are plenty of killings both sides can cite to say they deserve revenge. And I'll leave one more note for Hamas. They were elected in the Gaza Strip (part of Palestine) in 2006 and are kind of a terrible government that is really not working in the best interests of the people and have not allowed free elections. The people there are more screwed then others in Palestine because both Hamas is shitty to them, but Israel isn't exactly dying to give them aid. It is also in general worth noting that Israel has a much higher standard of living than Palestine and that is not accidental. But to me, what's important is that 13 million people live in the region. Most of them were born there and have spent their entire lives there. And there isn't much political will on either side to actually make a solution that isn't revenge. This kind of thing can be solved. Sri Lanka did it. I don't know when, but I can hope.
Unironic thanks, contra points, for an effort to respond to Dr Peterson at the level of ideas. Your civility and sobriety and kindness...are GOOD things. The flame war with whatsoever personality, Mr Y, etc, etc is, well, okay I guess, ..a chacun son gout...artful exercises in rhetoric, disputatious youth being virile...does not interfere with my right to be old and sad and quietist and fun squashing and grey and dull. But, y'know, here's a thing....a dull grey mum and dad 18th century bore kind of idea..it feels more and more urgent the older you get...expressed better by JBP than by me...we might..y'know, wisely, from time to time, make a conscious effort to abstract ourselves and each other....to our words. Choose some words carefully and stand by them. Speak some good words, bigger and better and simpler than our frail selves. We could call those words....oh I dunno...prayers? And we could unironically share them with everybody. We could call the key words "universal values" ( in case "western culture" sounds alarming). Just a marketing or branding issue really. Then, more carefully still, we might wonder which of those words are SO safe that we might , with appropriate dread and reverence, make them LAW.
You know you've done a good video when Peterson's only response is "No comment".
I will probably regret watching this, but i guess its important to listen to the other side. Peterson does not enforce his rules with law or bullying that is the difference. And people like Dyson reveal the many people on your side who quite happily abuse identity politics turning it into a weapon to attack white people etc for self gain. I think Peterson making a point that people aren't just clay to be molded, (as post modernists seem to think ) is a valid point that you just strawmanned. Personally in my opinion i think you're helping destroy the west, incouraging destructive colonization, fascism in the form of "hate speech", helping hucksters like Dyson and the Labour party, degeneracy and are just generally poison. I think you will only care and understand when your selfish pampered ass gets effected, do you even have doubts?.
No the real tragedy is for the remaining family i will just miss him in future games we could of played. Appreciate the friendly attitude if it isn't sarcasm, but i must go now.
It seems you've suffered a real tragedy there. I myself am disabled, but I'm currently studying for Medical Coding.
I'm upset about people being arrested for jokes and song lyrics in the uk, not to mention my gaming buddy just blew his brains out and it breaks my heart when his younger brother comes on discord. You?.
....OK, you know what? I think we got off on the wrong foot here. Let's try having a conversation here, since that's what Contra would want us to do. How are you doing?
Utter nonsense, you mean that stuff the far left says all the time?. But you missed your opportunity to shoot down my points then.
No, I understood everything you wrote. It was just utter nonsense from a deranged mind.
Sorry you cannot understand my words, perhaps i should of spent more time simplifying it for you. How can you not understand comments like "Peterson does not enforce his rules with law or bullying that is the difference", where as leftwing activists use the law to enforce their beliefs such as pronouns or hate speech. The Dyson bit you won't understand unless you watched the debate. Is it also hard to understand i'm accusing Contra of taking things out of context and strawmanning?. And that i believe his politics are destroying the west?. There i go again, making it too hard for you to follow.
That was utterly nonsensical.
Insta-sub.
So glad I happened upon this channel! Keep up the good work!
I'm confused about one part, around the 11 minute mark, where you say that zero percent of corporate HR departments believe in Marxism. How can you make that blanket statement?
Just because they are individuals within a corporate/capitalism system does not mean they don't have Marxist views. That's what I mean
They are CORPORATE! Marxism and capitalism doesn't mix by definition! It's like saying that zero percent of shark attacks happen on Jupiter.
You are a man
I doubt this is welcome news, but hierarchies are inevitable, the people who determine what is true get to sit at the top, right now it's your silly preachy beliefs who determine what is acceptable, so be careful, nobody gets to be king or queen forever.
Subscribed. I mostly disagree but it's really nice to see intelligent criticism of JP rather than emotional stuff. Also, I love the theatrics. LOVE THEM!! You're awesome!
I'd like to thank Cracked.com for the introduction to this interesting channel.
Splendid! I kind of got myself into a twist over JoPet and the "incels" at a certain site called Fetlife ... which can be annoying even on an otherwise quite good day ... so to save time and consternation, I'm simply going to let this video speak for me. You're pretty much saying all the things I would have said anyway, plus you don't have the disadvantage of being, well, me. (I'm way too easy to hate on.) Plus you're much better looking than me, which is always an advantage.
https://fetlife.com/groups/3650/group_posts/12536956?page=2
Great video, very well reasoned.
Fuck me you're funny.
Excellent video. It's great to see such an intelligent response to Peerson. I'm amazed that I've never come across your videos before, but you've earned a new subscriber!
You're trying too hard.
But enough of Peterson's book, let's watch the video
Those first few sentences are scary man. Really, fucking scary. That's cult behaviour.
Real life is just more chaotic than a movie. The mechanics are about the same.
Again, that's a movie. This is real life.
Tolerance Enforcement is a form of oppression, which naturally creates resistance... you'd know this if you watch The Last Jedi.
Then you obviously have never watched all of Demolition Man.
Wasn't a BBC interview. It was channel 4 news
Strangers With Candy was awesome. You're funny. I like you.
There's more to women than just nails. Shoes are important too, as is finding a boyfriend who matches your purse.
Good shit. I love how the smartest women are males that identify as women or females that identify as men (paglia). haha misogyny.
You made your first mistake when you launched into an analysis of what Peterson is trying to push politically, this it a transparent attempt to pigeon hole him into some category you've defined and then straw man his arguments to death. His messages have been quite reliably apolitical, I've seen about 200 hours of his UofT lectures and speeches, and saw the guy live in London a few weeks ago. And to say that he's Trojan horsing politics is to basically attack motives, which you can't know. You can only accuse. All the evidence shows that he's against authoritarianism across the board both on the left and the right, that people tend vote their temperament and that's in part biological and hence discussion between both sides is required, society is a dialogue. Which is why he's against mandated speech laws like the interpretation of Bill C-16 that was confirmed by the Canadian human rights committee. The main reason he appears to have any kind of political motivation is because he's observed the facts about the state of the universities and society in general. So he'll say something reasonable like the left and the right should have an open discussion about ideas, but you'll note the left wing shows up to beat drums, smash windows and interrupt his speaking events on campus and other places. That the left is attempting to control language through amendments to law like C16 and is constantly no platforming conservative speakers on college campuses. When you have a society that's divided politically in large part due to their temperament then each side needs to be represented otherwise they're just being suppressed and that fosters discontent and then that results in backlash, and it's what the left has done and has been doing for decades now. Trump was that backlash in America because guess what, people were sick of the PC police and so voted in someone who wasn't afraid to just say what is on his mind. In UK we voted to leave EU as a backlash because here we have the same thing, the left beat the drum of multicultralism and accuse anyone remotely concerned about borders and immigration as racist and for decades those people were quiet, until suddenly the silent majority wasn't silent anymore. Proving that silencing people through these means doesn't actually work, it just appears to work, you just drive the problem underground where it fosters and then bites you on the ass. Either way the point is a neutral message of "people on the left and right should talk" turns into one which looks skewed when one side of political landscape is doing absolutely everything in its power to prevent that. This is the reality the left wont face up to, in this endless tirade for rights for everyone, this "me me me" culture where everyone deserves everything because - reasons - the left has lost all perspective about how tilted the current system is. We have conservatives in power in both the UK and the US and we're still tilted to the left because the whole overton window has been moved so far left that even saying there should be discussion between the 2 groups as seen as extreme. We're in the period of the backswing and the pendulum will go the other way and what the left doesn't understand is that 1) It's inevitable and no amount Orwellian control will stop it. 2) The backswing will proportional to how far you've taken things. So if you continue on this path of extremism that's what you'll get in return and that's why we've seen the rise of the far right in Europe, it's reactionary and it's proportional. Just in the same way that people fed bottomless pit of rights and entitlements are now starved of a message about responsibility and picking up a heavy load and carrying it best you can, Peterson is providing that and people are lapping it up. And it's NOT political, it's a personal message to the individual about how they can better their own lives, WITHOUT mucking about the political structure at all, and that in fact if you can't even get the things local to your life sorted out, you'd probably make a mess of something vastly more complex like the political system. And yes labels are messy and people often label themselves and something like a post-modernist or marxist and it means different things to different people. Peterson actually spends a lot of time identifying the people he's critiquing so instead of taking a word like post-modern neo marxism and defining it how you see fit and then straw manning his position. Because semantic arguments are boring as fuck. *edit* Oh and the "west" that Peterson is referring to is the observable fact that when you consider all of human advancement over the biological history of humans as a species, that there's no better place on the planet at any time than the west right now, that we've done something right to get to the top, and that we have a stable functioning society that not only takes care of basically everyone but is also still rapidly improving basically across the board. And that critique of that should be done carefully because right now the only place you can make comparisons to are HYPOTHETICAL perfect societies which we have no idea if they'd actually work and mountains of evidence that when they've been tried before using the same presuppositions and ideology lead to untold suffering and death. Facts that aren't even taught to most students at school, instead they're taught the current structure is oppressive and bad, a position that can only seriously be held by people who are literally the most entitled generation of people in the entire history of civilization. You only get such people when you've fed them their entire lives and endless string of rights and free things.
I had to subscribe within the first 5 minutes, this is awesome :D
Jordan Peterson is faux intellectual version of Donald Trump.All the way to the bank.
Great vid
Marxism and Post Modernism are actually doing the same thing underneath the surface of narrative. Yes, both are opposed in that one presented a clear narrative of power and class struggles where the other simply broke apart narratives. This being said both need to assume that the power to shape "narratives" or organize the world lies in the waking or conscious awareness of man. Therefor, Marx presumed we made the power structures and thus can change them and Post Modernisms believes there are no narrative since we made them. The opposite thus comes in those who suggest there are "narratives" or ways in which the world gets organized that are not conscious to us because they are either subconscious (Freud and Jung) or innate/natural (Nietzsche and Sartre). This is why he would say the patriarchy does not exist, not because women don't have hardships, but because they are not designed by men. They simply are part of nature. Thus the question that cleaves these two side apart is not left or right, it's not feminist or sexist, its at it's core the question of do we shape our own reality consciously? Peterson and those on his side would argue no, you do not and they Post Modernist Neomarxists (as he puts it) are in the vain of that we do construct it and thus can alter it.
Also, it's not a good argument to say because people don't get along they must have different beliefs, the underlined assumption is that people understand their beliefs and motivations. I am with Peterson in that I don't believe most people know why they do most of what they do. That said, they likely don't understand why they believe thing.
Sorry, after 3:59 i tired of your sneering superciliousness and your “seen it all before” take on everything. JP is something new - he brings to a whole new generation old wisdom that got thrown out with the bathwater when our loss of faith became institutionalised.
I've been wondering when the Times was going to try to correct their error in calling Chomsky the most important public intellectual.
Was that a Lost Highway reference
you know what i want ('(
please show ass
You should show your ass
what a fucking bitch
at least u didnt misgender her +1
I don't like Peterson, but I like you even less. Disliked!
As a Peterson fan, I would love it if you were able to debate him. Would you be open to something like that?
It seems like you completely misunderstood his points, or you understood them and decided to make a video contesting them anyway for the views. Yes Marxism and Post Modernism are conflicting ideologies in some sense, but the Neo Marxist Post Modernism that Peterson describes is something else entirely. It takes the goals of Marxism (equality) and seeks to achieve them through the destabilisation of our systems and our hierarchies. Peterson hates this as it undermines the natural hierarchies of competence in a misguided pursuit of equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity (which is what we should all be striving for).
Not a BBC Interview It Was Channel 4.
One minor issue that I'm positive others have mentioned, but the infamous interview he was in was with Channel 4, not BBC. Apologies if you've seen this many times before
Videos like this are what make YouTube special.
Love it. Also, thank you for the good subtitles :)
Instead of debating to your gay boyfriend with a mask on why not pay Petersen directly that would make for a much more entertaining video. Then you state he is warning against marxist fascism, which it is and which he is, and is justified, and you dont talk about it. So you wast 30 minutes of peoples lives to beat around the bush of truth. This is dumbest shit I've ever seen. Also youre a confused cross dressing man who has no clue what the fuck youre talking about.
So what's your reddit name.
Damn, I didn't know philosophy could be this sexy. Great video! I've been struggling, since JP became (in)famous, to figure out why I disagree with him. I think you explained fantastically why I can't agree with him. Well, more that he isn't really making a great argument in the first place. I think you did a great job of showing how vapid his rhetoric really is.
Don't be so certain about him not being a fascist. That still remains to be seen. He uses ideological and rhetorical tactics straight out of political authoritarianism which coupled with his history is already pretty damning. I'm glad to see that his old colleagues, who previously supported him, are starting to denounce him. Case in point: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html
This is too shallow mate
What a smart cookie you are. I thoroughly enjoyed this exposition as well as the set design.
This is fabulous. Subscribed.
i think ur a contra
25:04 - "The very idea of people requesting different pronouns to suit their individual needs is exactly the kind of thing a person who values individual liberty over dogma should be on board with." I wholeheartedly agree, enforcing those values or pronouns onto others is a completely different matter however. As a Peterson fan, this was a very interesting video to watch, and it's healthy to see criticism of him. Great video, quality explanations of the issues at hand and production by the way, you have a real talent. Regarding his use of Post-modernism and Marxism, I inferred that he was projecting the class struggle of oppressor and victim onto race and gender, which is more straightforward. In regards to Post-modernism, I see it as a criticism of... I'm not even entirely sure, something along the lines of those he targets on the left being hypercritical of the 'oppressive structures' in society being negative, as it derides everything that could be positive of our society as negative, I think that's where the two go hand in hand. He's said on several occasions how he thinks people should feel lucky to be in the position they're in, relative to how horrific the past has been.
Peterson is mostly known for his biology based psychology, and to some extent for his existentialism (which is deeply steeped/based in/on his experience as a clinical psychologist). His pragmatism, on the other hand, has often been downplayed - or rather completely unnoticed - by his critics, and the same is the case here. Peterson's characterisation of "postmodern neo-marxism" is one that has to be understood in the light of his pragmatism. It is only through this (his pragmatism) that one can hope to understand his conflation of Postmodernism with that of (neo) Marxism. He knows very well that conceptually/theoretically postmodernism (has to) reject Marxism, as it is just another "metanarrative". He mentioned this so himself in one of his lectures (if memory serves me right, I believe he specifically mentioned this in the lecture in which he made that joke about 'postmodernist not believing (in) biology but acting like they do...because they all die!'. Hahaha, cracks me up every time. I could be wrong though - My memory could serve me wrong! PS - Let's assume that she [Contrapoints] missed this particular video/lecture). It is, I believe, imperative to understand and identify someone's epistemological and ethical stance if we are to critique or criticise their beliefs and theories, otherwise, the whole endeavour could amount to nothing, or even worse to a straw man and a red herring even if that endeavour has the most honest of intentions. And I believe that this criticism has an honest intention, and that is why I am making this rather long comment. When it comes to epistemology and ethics the postmodernists are all about hermeneutics. Peterson's hermeneutics is pragmatism - His epistemology is based on it and his ethics or rather his ethical judgments too, I believe, are based on the same as well, and his criticism of "postmodern neo-marxism" should also be understood in this light. In any case this is still a pretty good response. I had been convinced for a while that leftists (like Current Affairs ;-)) are only capable of straw-man-ish, red herring ad hominem attacks. But you've changed my mind, at least to some extent! I mean with all the efforts you've put in with your gimmicks this is a really decent video! Keep it up.
*Channel 4 interview
The whole individual liberty in relation to non binary pronouns idea is that you should deal with it at the individual level and not the group level. It's about treating those you respect (i.e the trans and non binary people in your own life who are in your life because you do respect them to some degree) with respect by changing your language (something very fundamental) at their individual request, not just generally changing your language because some coalition of people who happen to share some aspects of their identity tells you, or in the case of Bill C-16 forces you, to do so.
Great video. This is the first I’ve seen of yours and I’m glad I stumbled across it. I’ve been so interested in JP and so confused about him. This is the best commentary I’ve seen or read on the topic.
You know, not that I think this would happen, but it really might be interesting if CP contacted Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin (or someone similar) about getting on their respective shows. Those guys put so much of their credibility on "we're free thinkers who just want to hear people out" but tend to focus much more on speaking to conservative commentators rather than "left" voices such as Contra. An outright rejection would sort of underscore that they themselves have prejudices and agendas as to who they talk to, and if she were to be featured on either program, I imagine it would be very compelling if probably sometimes uncomfortable. Food for thought.
Gawd this is hilarious and great.
This was absolutely horrible, but sadly one of the better counter point videos to Jordan Peterson. Identity politics being a divisive idea that puts your group identity over your individual identity is toxic plain and simple. It does nothing but divide people and pit them against each other. Post modernism puts feels over reals, which combined with identity politics adds further fuel to the fire of giving people more reason to fight amongst our groups despite the fact that things have improved dramatically for all groups. You skip over critical theory, which is the source of a lot of Jordan's issues with the modern left. Critical theory breaks everything down into power structures of the oppressed and oppressor, rather than viewing them as competence hierarchies which is how Jordan Peterson views them. He even says multiple times that they can become tyrannical and can develop issues but these are structures that have gotten us to where we are and throwing them away without truly understanding them could and probably would be our undoing. Critical theory is very similar to Marxism, and you can see it's influence on modern Feminism and how they are more concerned with equality of outcome than equality of opportunity. The more people embrace socialism the worse things get and the slower our progress because it works against human nature. We are inherently unequal and the West succeeds by embracing that inequality to the benefits of everyone. One final thought, if Capitalism is the monetization of helping others then Socialism is the demonetization of helping others. When you view it through this lens you see why the more capitalistic a nation is, the more wealthy it is and the better off all citizens are despite financial inequalities between the people at the top and bottom.
Right about education and capitalism
The cut scenes make me uncomfortable hahahaha
came here from Reddit AMA. Hilarious loved it. And I still love Peterson. His teachings on self-help saved my life.
This video is so cringey unwatchable. Too much snark
I think Jordan Peterson is using the term postmodernism and Marxism loosely to describe the power-oriented ideologies that have manifested themselves in the radical left. He is fearful of a society that perceives all hierarchies as being motivated by power because they tend to devolve into tribalism. Marx defined what he saw as a historical dialectical power-play between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and post-modernists basically say that objective reality/objective truths are unintelligible so all interpretations of reality are exercises in power. Sure, the technical definitions of Marxism and Postmodernism diverge, but if we are going to talk about the collectivist beliefs that have sprung from them then it is appropriate to place them within the same category.
The one thing that underlies left-wing thought is resentful emotion and unconscious motivation, or, the Cain and Abel mentality. I don't think you gave the lobster analogy its full due. If we took it seriously, we'd realize that our constant critiques of capitalism, masculinity, or anything that reminds us of power, are not effective or helpful. There comes a point where there is not much more to be meaningfully done about the stigmatization of certain groups, and any attempts to further empower those people, will at some point (currently) come at the expense of other people's liberty. Finally, I would say in my own opinion that right-wing thinking is a combination of power and competence, whereas many left-wing ideologies are only motivated by power, with no competence to supply as a balance.
if you have the mind of a woman....why do you wish to have the body? isn't a body simply outside baggage of the mind? This is why I wonder if trans is a cultural illness...this is why people that identify as women always tend to identify as "cultural representations of woman" ....such is why they dress as the cultural woman and/or change their voice, cut off their weenie and attach boobs as a fashion statement.
Heh, this is pretty desperate.
.... Eh, six minute mark, I'm tapping out. The cringe is too strong with this one. You're not funny, stop trying to be.
This is Just fantastic! Now I really don't like the man my self, but you drive home the points against his BS epicly! More of this pleas :)
Amazing! ....I've been following JP for some time now, went thru all the biblical lectures and many public debates. Although super interesting - many things have been bothering me for a long time... frustrating as everyone seems to think that everything he says is 110% accurate objective scientific truth's - not a world-view. Then I found you! Such a relief! You addressed almost all of my concerns - and many things I didn't even think about - with great style, in an extremely intelligent and funny manner! I'm very, very thankful! ...And happy! :) /D (swedish person)
do ben shapiroooo
He's not upset, you're misreading him; he's mostly just merely serious. > He can't handle the idea that there is no one privileged perspective which defines Truth and Virtue and whatever other sterile Platonic ideals pedants feel like bickering about. No, he's arguing that society can't handle the idea and that what's "true" literally isn't necessarily what people need to believe. He clearly himself can grapple with the idea just fine; keep in mind he's seen thousands of people in clinical practice and gotten into their heads, so his views need to be understood from that context. He's nearly always talking about what works for people, not for himself.
"This is pure social justice" Oh no, not social justice. That is absolutely horrible °д°
Yea, JP is overrated and annoying.
"Trojan horse" - perfect encapsulation. He's a slippery weasel. Oh, and your comic timing is impeccable (this is my first vid of yours. Sub'd), and paired with such a clear explanation of issues - this was so enjoyable. Also, closed caption starting at the bath scene = [Sultry sax music . . . beeps and boops . . . summer crickets]
I don’t like the term “Marxist” I prefer “Diet Communist”
This. https://youtu.be/R5OZnQ6YwjM
"Nails?! IS THAT ALL WOMANHOOD MEANS TO YOU?!" "...Mmhmm!"
"Do not let your children do anything that makes you dislike them"...wat? So you want to make your kid into a carbon-copy of you?
Lasted eight minutes and six seconds before Contra implied that needing a positive purpose to endure suffering in life is the result of not being able to complain about the patriarchy.
* pauses at 12:13 * *mmm indeed*
They havent engaged with him much because he has nothing to engage and a bunch of well versed noise isnt an exception. Sure he started strong hes an insanely good debater and hes well versed in, self help, demagogy, and its methods of influence, but we live in the information age and hes now been seen enough to have been deconstructed. The dust has settled, heres pretty much all you need to know at this point this is his stock and trade, it can be seen especially every time he responds to a question by questioning. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Motte_and_bailey
i mean, he is a fascist
Great video! I'm a fan of yours and JP's so I was excited to finally get a chance to sit down and watch it. I think you may have misinterpreted three things though. I'll list them in order, but I also think it's from most debatable to least. JP's criticism of transactivism is always in the context of C17, i.e. compelled speech. As I'm sure you've seen elsewhere, he doesn't take any umbrage with transgender folks or their rights. Neo-Marxism is not just "Marxism, again" It's the assumption that Marx missed the mark when he put the class struggle in capitalistic terms, but everything else he described is true. That is to say, a Neo-Marxist will identify the powerful and the powerless not by their wealth/means of production, but by 'new' denominations. So the idea that white folks oppress PoC, men oppress women, cis oppress trans, etc... That's Neo-Marxism. Marxists assume the rich oppress the poor, by virtue of being rich and poor. Neo-Marxists assume the majority demographic oppresses the minority demographic, just by virtue of being those demographics. Lastly... identity politics has nothing to do with advocacy. Identity politics is the assumption that those with like-identities will have like-politics. So when white people assume that every Hispanic American's chief political concern is immigration (which is a common assumption and a patently false one) they are practicing 'identity politics.' I will say, contrary to JP's assertions, that identity politics are not confined to the left. The right does it about immigrants, Muslims, and "true" Americans all the time.
What the fuck is wrong with you
This was so entertaining! I also like that she didn't demonize JBP, even though I don't think she captured his views adequately. Just one example: When activists shout, "Down with the patriarchy!" - what do they mean? I don't think it is that easy to dismiss the idea that there are forces trying to tear down Western cultural structures.
"Youfthsss"
Please don't die of alcoholism or become right wing. I don't think my life would be complete without you
I am a fan of your content and respect your ability to voice your opinions as eloquently as you do, even if I do not agree with most of them. However, I feel as though your defense of this wave of "neo-Marxism" is coming from a place of not understanding how governments like the USSR, Maoist China, or even Venezuela come about because you have been privileged enough to be born and raised in a Western society that grants you fundamental human rights and freedoms. Take the USSR for example, my family lived through and died in it, my mother is the only one who survived and escaped to the west, and this is why I know as much about the realities of it as I do. How do you think the Soviets gained power? By starving farmers and forcing their enemies into labor camps from the beginning? Of course not. Let's look at the beginnings of Marxism in Russia by taking a look at the RSDLP. They started by doing what all good Marxists do, by defining an oppressor and the oppressed, in this case the bourgeoisie and the industrial working class. Not too different from the tactics of the modern regressive left to promote "the white man" as an oppressor to all minorities (even more specifically, it's "the conservative white man with wealth"). Once an oppressor had been defined, they had to establish and ensure loyalty to the ideas of the "revolution" in order to overthrow this oppressor (read: ensure people have the correct opinion). This usually takes the form of intersectionality. The RSDLP eventually split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks due to disagreements over organizing the the party democratically and whether or not to use violence as a means of promoting their message. Despite the Bolsheviks being a smaller fraction of the RSDLP, they are the group that gained the most recognition, and SURPRISE, were the ones who didn't have any hesitation over using violence. Then look at the origin of the Gulags, Stalin's Great Purge, and of the political messiness that existed in Russia in the 20th century. If anyone even hinted at not having "the correct opinion," they were killed off. Now look at the left as it exists. You are"obviously" against liberal values if you have no issues with Trump. In Kanye's case, you don't even get to be considered as a member of your own race. Look at any radical feminist who is quick to dismiss the opinions of pro-life of pro-trump women because they do not agree with their narrative. Look at someone like Bret Weinstein, who despite being very left wing, can be considered a racist, and fascist, a "threat" because he does not act in line with the "established" rules set by the "oppressed." Ok, so after defining an oppressor, conducting purity tests and assassinating the character (or actual body) of any notable or influential figures who are against the tenants of the "revolution," now one must ensure the loyalty of the common people. How is this achieved? By inserting propaganda into every medium conceivable. By using the postmodernist ideas that anything can be art and morality is ambiguous. And if everything is ambiguous and nothing really matters, then the people an power are more likely to be able to determine what is and isn't ethical in a society, or what is and isn't art. Peterson is not saying that the next step in this whole transgender rights game is that people are going to be lined up and murdered and cities are going to be starved into submission. What he is saying is that the tactics being used by the left currently are so eerily similar to those of every communist regime in existence that it would be stupid not to question them.
GAHAHA YOU CALLED FREUD DADDY HAHAHA YES
I love that whole unsubtle yandere thing hahaha
I only like JBP from the evolutionary aspect of his hypothesis that these archetypes keep repeating in different stories. I don't care much for his attempt to link it to an higher power, and care much less about him trying to tie it to Christianity specifically. I cringe everytime but I got to admit it is the best argument for religion I have seen in a long while. He straight up methophor-rized the entire thing.
Except his thing about archetypes is a lie. Mythology was never static in any religion.
I think you've explained this better than anyone I've heard so far, simply because you're able to speak in terms a philosophobe like me can enjoy and understand. Thanks, you have a new fan!
To be fair I don't think that's the definition of identity politics that Peterson is using (and others e.g Sam Harris, not a fan of JP honestly)
"the overton window has been moved so far to the left" Holy shit, when was the last time the UK even had a left-wing government? The 1970's? About forty fuckin' years ago? It's been a constant march to the right-wing since then. You absolutely cannot deny this, and it's completely jaw-dropping that somebody could write so much and not even get some of it correct on accident. The only way you can say what you just said is either by being under 20 and knowing absolutely nothing about the past, or you're just so far right that you think anybody who disagrees with you is a communist. Either way..dude..sort yourself out.
But society got wiser when it lost faith? I don't understand what you mean.
The one thing that underlies left-wing thought is resentful emotion and unconscious motivation, or, the Cain and Abel mentality. I don't think you gave the lobster analogy its full due. If we took it seriously, we'd realize that our constant critiques of capitalism, masculinity, or anything that reminds us of power, are not effective or helpful. There comes a point where there is not much more to be meaningfully done about the stigmatization of certain groups, and any attempts to further empower those people, will at some point (currently) come at the expense of other people's liberty. Finally, I would say in my own opinion that, when idealized (in its better forms) right-wing thinking is a combination of power and competence, whereas many left-wing ideologies are only motivated by power, with no competence to supply as a balance.
>right wing >competent I would love to see which right-wing administrations you're thinking of when you wrote this. Go on, make my day. Please.
I originally said "this WAS desperate" in the first one but amended it since I didn't finish. And the second one I added in the part about not being funny after a minute or two, because it really bore saying, I thought.
The fact both of these nothings are (edited) makes them so much funnier
Thanks for the comparatively reasonable critique. I think you dismiss Peterson's analysis of postmodern neo-Marxism too glibly, without really engaging the arguments or evidence. If you are really intereted in these issues, you might find a couple of other people's thoughts on the matter useful. Stephen Hicks is a philosopher who studies postmodernism. His analysis seems to line up with Peterson's quite well: https://youtu.be/-BGbHG63x8w Bret Weinstein is a far-left Progressive (he and his wife were run out of Evergreen by the radical left). His analysis of what is going on also seems consistent with Peterson's analysis. For example: https://youtu.be/bz0oxIZ3xIg
False premise; bill c16 is about protecting trans rights. No it isn't, it is about curtailing the rights of everyone else. Straw man; that bill c16 will lead to Stalinism. JBP has never said that or anything like that.
LOL.I want to have a beer with you.
I love your videos. But heads up, I randomly just ran into a tidbit that might explain some of JP's weird Marxism ---> social justice conflations. I ran into the Wikipedia page on "conflict theory" that is basically an area of thought (in sociology?) that explicitely delves into power struggles with society, and brushes up against post modernism in talking about social constructs. I checked 3 intro sources (including a Khan academy video from 2014) and they all credit Marx with kicking the theory off with identifying class struggle as a social conflict with society. Anyway, just thought it might be something you might want to be aware of when debating JP's ideas.
Unfortunately this generation is not well informed about history and the multitude of ways governments have tried to take over. Therefore any statement about government oppression becomes a conspiracy. Governments have been trying to take over the people for centuries upon centuries, and with the modern age along with the development of psychology and sociology, there will be new devious yet silent ways to take over a society. With the indoctrination of universities, takeover of media, introduction of political correctness, social justice, hollywood, etc it is easy to tell what governments are trying to do. In fact there are very similar ties between maoists (and their "cultural revolution")and the radical left.
Whenever I hear you say something along the lines of “This is such a crazy strawman” and “The left clearly does not believe x and y”, I always think : Uhm... some sjws told me that exact thing on tumblr or reddit 2 days ago.
I know the whole "omg this is the only cuck leftist i can bare to listen to" trope is kind've annoying, but Natalie legitimately keeps me amused and interested despite me not agreeing with some of her ideas. Although Jordon Peterson's basic take on "world is western civilization vs. post-modern neomarxists" being childishly simple is absolutely something I can agree on. Also, bougie cosplay and lighting a e s t h e t i c.
I think I'm in love
Well that was super funny
You misspelled Michel Foucault's name at 14:34
This is some real intellectual shit
Thanks to Aron Puma for a lengthy and well considered reply to my remark below. I am mildly incompetent with navigating betwixt email and YouTube ...so..apologies for not responding earlier..apologies also for not responding at such generous length. So....neither JBP nor anyone else knows for sure that the dodgy matter of principle might lead to jail time, so JBP is scaremongering. First reply to that is ....the legal dept of JBP's University cautioned him otherwise. Longer account of the legally real (albeit protracted and subject to refinement via case law) path to jail more competently argued by JBP than myself. Second thing..let's say for sake of argument that C16 is NOT really backed up by the dread might of the Canadian government. In which case...it is what? Just a convenient vehicle by which Canadian govt. can express some very proper and decent sentiments? Is LAW really the best place to advertise this very proper sentiment? Does not LAW already recognise the concept of bullying and harassment? My feeling would be..." Beware folk offering to sell you stuff that you already own cos they are likely wrong uns up to no good"? I would welcome no addition to law that attempted to specifically protect any particular identity politics characteristic of my ( despised by many) identity. I expect protection qua human being already explicit in law. The issue of good manners IS very important. There are horrible hateful people out there. Left leaning people have no monopoly on a responsibility to stand up to them. Right leaning people can ( we have all seen comments sections) be very unpleasant, for which I offer no apology. But I also counsel earnestly against assuming they must be some ill conceived word ending in IST...as does contrapoints. Fair play to contrapoints.
ContraPoints: “[Peterson] uses the term “postmodern neomarxism” to characterize the left as a unified philosophical force bent on destroying Western civilization […]” Nope. He doesn’t. Far from talking about a unified left, he describes only the far left this way.
Fantastic point being made at 20:30 . subbed!
Peterson isn't just trying to protect western values. Hes trying to defend the enormous advantages and wealth we have all gotten from capitalism and industiral revolution. While Marxist countries in their attempt to get rid of inequaity and the bourgeosie, killed and and used force to try and make people equal and fit into the mold they wanted. One of the famous results were how millions of ukrainians starved because a bunch of left wing intellectuals told the poor that the successful farmers were successful in spite of the poor. So they killed them and took their land and everyone starved because the people who killed the farmers werent succesful farmers because they couldnt farm. Which is why capitalism is effecient and effective. Those rich farmers did well because they did a good job. ANd they fed alot of people. People in communist countries were still struggling to eat while western countries and capitalism had virtually eliminated famine and starvation for the poor. Which had never been done before.
The invocation of power dynamics is either explicitly or implicitly used by all the different "types" of liberals and is why jordan bunches them under post-modernism. The identity politics today that are used by the left are all based on power. Just because all these liberals disagree, doesn't mean they don't have some base presuppositions and ideals among them.
peterson has gotten letters from trans people opposing bill c 16. And tbh its pretty presumptous for the people who made that bill who were largley not even trans to say they know what the trans "community" wants. And then lie saying Trans people arent already protected under those laws.
Peterson is so harsh because a couple years ago he suddenly realized that an institution that he loved and worked in and for most of his life and worked so hard to improve has been taken over by virtually all leftwing, progressives/marxists. And that they were affecting science and spilling into the real world. And basically turned the humanities and arts into an indoctrination camp. With no representation of other political views.
ContraPoints, I love you. That is all. Thank you.
LOL peterson is scared of mixed racial identities. White is a mixed racial identity in that of itself.
14:27 That guy on the left has a big nose. It's hooked as well EW! >
Excellent video. Us rightists should be focusing our sights on corporate HR departments and ignorant people disguised as leftists and feminists, rather than attacking the philosophies themselves. At their core, the philosophies of your average leftists are harmless, but their interpretation (and application) of the philosophies can be really harmful to society. It's a waste of effort to try and debunk marxism and post-modernism anyway. Hopefully one day people on the left and the right will become smart enough to work together and create an effective classless libertarian paradise.
Hey. JP homedog here. I can say proudly I have my room in order. My house is still in the great battle between order and chaos, though. Yes, I am speaking figuratively. Thanks for articulating things I sort of knew, but could not place in such logical lines as yourself. Thanks for making me think more deeply and logically about these issues. I still have ten minutes to go, but I am really glad to have found your channel. My intellectual side is stimulated and you made me laugh quite a bit. New subscriber, who will be pondering on all this for a long time, possibly.
17:17 you are explaining his Idea of neo Marxism wrong. The point is Marx said that the class system will overtime ultimatetly shrink down to 2 classes. And there comes the reference to modern day. The modern left call everything Nazi or Racist right of them, so the variety of public opinions shrink down only to 2 classes in their view. So its non-sensical if you put up a strawmen about his definitions without using his definition and instead using your own. 21:20 No he is not suggesting that, he is suggesting that women make different decissions on average than men, and there comes the result. 22:10 again you misrepresented a point. The point was made, if there is something sexist or racist in govermental structures, the people should pin point that, and the common answer of the left was, these things are social constructs, where peterson says hierachical structures come already from within the nature. 22:24 Now you re using broad terms, and which gender hierachical or race hierachical structure is in place? You re doing the very thing, you say Peterson does, Saying something which sounds fine for most people but not being too accurat when it comes down to it. 23:44 What ? Peterson says the west is build around individuality and those leftist type are standing to oppose it by making politics based on gender and race. The the very opposide what you claim here. You are saying things here Peterson never said and just assume everybody takes it. I stop here. I came from the reddit AMA hoped for some good criticism , which had some really good critical questions, as he offers enough room for criticism as his religious definition, but this is a let down :(
As a 39 year old woman born a female, I can say that I do not think Peterson wants to silence woman and put them back in the home, for example. I resonate with some of what he says, minus all the speculation on postmodern neo-Marxism. I can't say where this all fits in but I can speak from anecdotal experience. I grew up not feeling oppressed. I always had this mentality that, I can do anything you can do better, I can do anything better than you!"
It is insanely frustrating to see an intelligent person construct such an bad argument, and to then not be called out in the comments. I hope someone else has deconstructed the non-consequential argument given by the speaker. I will add another argument here. First of all, the speaker seems to agree with most of Peterson's personal advice, but dismisses it as unimportant. The speaker seems to save most ammunition for a supposed take-down of the term Postmodern neo marxism. The speaker applies a well worn leftist rhetoric to attempt this. 1. Define the terms - NOT as Peterson says them, applies them or means them, but define the terms in narrow ways which the speaker insists by fiat are the correct succinct definitions. It is pretty clear the speaker looks closely at the terms Postmodern Neo Marxism not to understand Peterson or get what he is saying, but in an attempt to discredit him. 2. Argue against the terms as defined by self - Once the speaker has defined Peterson's message not as Peterson intends it, but as the speaker insists by fiat it must mean, present an argument that the terms as the speaker has defined them have an internal contradiction. 3. Appeal to the audience - The Speaker then appeals to everyone to side with the speaker to recognize the solidness of the speaker's argument, forgetting that the speaker was NOT arguing against the words as defined by Peterson, but as the words defined by the Speaker. This is a particularly ignorant way of arguing. I repeat, the speaker attacks this phrase, Postmodern Neo Marxism, NOT to try to understand Peterson - but to discredit. So following some logic and rhetorical honesty here: 1. Peterson did not say , Marxism. The speaker made a grotesque rhetorical mistake(which given the Speaker's obvious intelligence, one could construe as a deliberate lie ) when the speaker substituted a succinct definition of Marxism for the term Neo Marxism. Neo Marxism does not have the constrained definition of Marxism and is much broader term referring to much beyond class struggle and economics. 2. The Speaker tries to narrow as much as possible the broad term Postmodern for the express purpose of presenting a NULL Venn diagram which really does not exist. 3. The Speaker's argument seems to rest upon the Speaker's wrong perception that the Speaker's narrow definition allow no overlap of these terms. As if people who subscribe to Postmodernism CANNOT be Neo Marxists. 4. In reality all the Speaker has shown is that the two narrow (and because of the substitution of Marxism for Neo marxism) ultimately incorrect definitions for Postmodernism and Neo Marxism have very little overlap. 5. It is obvious that Peterson DOES NOT think Postmodernism is the SAME THING as NeoMarxism, otherwise there is no reason to pair the two together to make a new term. 6. If the Speaker has ever heard Peterson talk for any length, the intelligence of the Speaker should lead the speaker to realize that Peterson is highlighting the nihilism of Postmodernism and combining it with the emphasis of the collective over the individual of marxism. 7. It is this really disturbing philosophy --- a philosophy which uses the idea from Neo Marxism to undercut the value of the individual by only looking at the value of the group ---- combined with the skepticism of postmodernism to undercut the idea of the divine worth of the individual --- that Peterson finds pernicious and destructive. Peterson is all about reclaiming the idea of the IMPORTANCE and DIGNITY of the individual. The term Postmodern neomarxist does a good job of defining Peterson's opponents who are putting forth the idea that tries to destroy the value of the individual. QED.
musicisAGFG I can see that you thought your post quite a bit and I appreciate that. I didn't notice the point you just made, and while my post was partly my honest feelings, it was a bad attempt at humor, too. Thanks for replying and for making me think.
I deliberately used the term "the Speaker" because I did not want to use either pronoun "he" or "she". I did not want to confuse the issue of what I consider a bad rhetorical argument, with the other personal argument about what pronoun the speaker would want me to use. See how difficult, not knowing what pronoun to use in order to not be offensive or provocative somewhat hampers communication.
musicisAGFG Nice points. Your use of the term «the Speaker» though, disturbed me slightly.
Contra, I love you!! Keep up the great work!!
I wonder what this person actually sounds like
didn't agree with everything here, but great video! Well thought out, argued, and presented. I always appreciate another perspective, you got a new sub today.
Youthsththtsthts
The way Jordan Peterson addresses criticism and claims to be misrepresented sounds a lot like the "mental gymnastics" that the left gets accused of sometimes.
Renée Lucero Not really. He is basically saying that you should raise your child trying to avoid behaviors that (truly) bother you, the ones that might make you resent them. It's called education, I believe, and it doesn't sound like a terrible idea. But I can't lay out all the terms, recommendations and limitations here, so feel free to straw man again.
+Ugo Spadafora Nah you're just a douche.
Marina's Garden And I'm Santa Claus.
+Ugo Spadafora She is a beautiful transwoman.
There's only 2 genders and a man can't be a woman and vice versa. Also, the entire video is OP strawmanning Jordan Peterson because he can't admit that he is just acting like that for attention.
Ugo Spadafora Ha. I believe it is! Man I do feel sorry for you. You don't have to like it to be tolerant you know? Hatred is a terrible feeling.
DO I HAVE TO? just look at the screen. Is that a human?
Ugo Spadafora Care to elaborate?
Frosty lol, you're going to claim that Jordan Peterson is apolitical when he literally made his name by getting involved in politics?
thats not the point, the whole point is that the government should not be involved because someone called you something you didn't like/identify as
Dude, he has Abby Martin and Jimmy Dore in the recent past. I will listen to them because I know at the end of the day they are both reasonable and that all things being equal, we know who the real bad guys are.The reason the Jordans and Rubins and others get more of the attention is because of YEARS of getting one side of the story.That and a lot of the left are still trying to get their shit down and filter out the bullshit parts they have been let to get away with, because it no longer is taken seriously.If you come on and start going on about the gender gap, Rogan himself will slap you down.
you're amazing.
Holy shit. Wtf did I just watch.
Can you please make a video about how people say that school shooters are “crazy,” and debunk the claim that the increase in school shootings is a mental health problem instead of a gun control and culture problem? I would pay for it. I’ve had too many bad arguments on twitter about it for me to keep ignoring it.
I have some observations.
Lady Foppington is so freaking well dressed im gagging! I’m so interested to see the costuming for your next videos Natalie hhhhhhh
1) "The problem is that no one has said that every hierarchy is the product of western patriarchy." Maybe, but one's that are considered "western patriarchal" seem to make as much sense as those that aren't. 2) Marxism isn't concerned with human progress. It is concerned with social progress.
I find it's weird that you never talked about his point of freedom of speech, it is essential to his arguments, and that was the main reason he rejected the Canadian pronounce legislation. The “”west” topic is a bit weird, JP never stated it's something to contrast with the east, there is nothing to do with geographic boundary in his argument, in fact he was saying it's a problem the west created by itself, he did say something like the west is always trying to examine and challenge its own traditions and hierarchies, it's the advantage of the west because it's creative and renew old structures, but sometimes it can become extreme hence "undermine itself".
I cannot speak for why Contra (Natalie) didn't include it, except that she kind of already made a video about it. It's a two part series "Does The Left Hate Free Speech" which I imagine you would find interesting, and explorers her views on free speech more thoroughly, although if you don't care to see it, tldr, she doesn't think people should be legally barred from saying things, but she does see important complexity in how individual groups and institutions implement speech on their platforms. Although in regards to the law at hand, it isn't really satisfying, especially because it does not mention pronouns at all The actual change to law was very short, it just added "gender identity" to a list that already included "race" and "physical disability" under the heading "Discrimination is barred against these people." What this actually does to speech, and what happens in practice will come to case law. Will misgendering someone by accident lead to fines or jailtime? I highly doubt it. Would a government official who intentionally misgenders people with the intent of making them feel unwelcome in city council or using some other government service be fined? Well probably; that is discrimination. It's saying "here is a class of people, I am going to make it more stressful and unpleasant for them to do this thing as compared to other people that are not this thing." Now, where will the line fall in between? I don't know, again, that will be case law. And I'm not that familiar with the Canadian court system. All I can really do is recommend the contrapoints video and well, I'm sure in like a year or so we'll have solid case law to talk about.
This is a really well produced video.
Why is fem-MFDOOM wearing a XIX century outfit
Because this is contrapoints, and that's the kind of thing that goes on around here.
Mao wasn't a murderer.
Sadly way too short.
"So who's Jordan Peterson?" "[long, hopeless, exhasperated sigh]" same
Great video! I also think it's funny that JP would refer to these yout's with their identity politics as being "postmodern." Postmodernism is more something that influenced people in my generation (Gen X) and when I converse with some of the yout's I'm surprised how unfamiliar they are with these (postmodern) ideas, how much their sensibilities differ from mine, and how what they are saying really speaks to grand narratives (either learned from outdated education or newly constructed)... bearing similarity to modernism. My generations sought to dissolve borders and, maybe in rebellion to their parents, the current generation keeps constructing new ones... and its in that sense that their philosophy appears "regressive" to us. A simple way to characterize JP is that he's a dilettante. He's a Psyche professor, which is his expertise. The dude needs to stay in his expertise. Because somewhere along the line, he started giving these monologues about stuff he doesn't know about. And by "doesn't know" I mean he hasn't put in the time, as scholar-experts do, to go through a systematic review of literature combined with discoursing with OTHERS who have conversations about a topic. Maybe it was because YT came along, and though most of the people doing it were much younger and unestablished in teaching positions, he decided to try out the whole "vlog" thing. So he starts doing this whole amateur. dilettante shit, falling into the trap of applying his Psych perspective to fields where it has no business and where the people in those fields have debunked it (or at least have been having a conversation for a very long time about the limitations of that perspective).
Cringe is unreal.
Contra you're awesome!!! Your videos are totally crazy I love it ... so refreshing and funny :)
Peterson is the intellectual for those who did not go to university because the conservatives deleted ' education for all. So they do not have a clue what Jung and Marx actually said. That is where Peterson steps in to explain how the left is to blame for their ignorance...
this is hard.
I can't believe how awesome you are
I would take issue with the idea that there is no continuity between so-called postmodern (or post-structuralist) philosophy and neo-Marxist critical theory, which many reviewers point out. but this this fracture line, which has an empirical basis, is actually very good 17:13
this is because much of identity politics is actually based on an extension of liberal ideals of 'equality'
OK I GET IT whenever Jordan speaks of post modern marxist... he's really speaking about humanists. however, he doesn't want to attack humanists head on so he creates the word salad post modern Marxists. it all makes sense now. I'd also add that jordan does not want to attack civil rights head on. so, he attacks whatever faults that appeals to his neandrathal followers he could find inherent when civil rights is applied such as suppression of hate speech and protection of minority groups. therefore, he lumps people who support civil rights into the post modern marxist group.
yes peterson is literally trying to fuck humanists that's why he attracts so many incels.
he is a fucking humanist tho As the wildists grew, we changed our discourse in places where we disagreed with the indomitistas, such as the ubiquitous use of the ill-defined term, "leftism. " Instead, we used the terms "progressivism;' " opportunism, " and "humanism." ecoextremists got the best critique of humanists and are also clear what they mean with it instead of peterson who is pretty vague
post modern is not a term that is classically attributed to ones self unless you're a post modern new wave band. ponte, hussrl when they were around certainly didn't think of themselves as post modern. but, what they did was quite reactionary from what was modern. hence, let's define what modern is. modern was when western scientific method took shape. hume's skepticism was paramount at the time (funny how peterson keeps bring up skepticism) however, western philosophy or should i say epistemology became stuck as no one could overcome hume's skepticism until kant. hence, whatever happened after hume and kant is what is considered post modern in a philosophical and epistemological sense. and what post modern did was do away with rigid skepticism and accept human-ness as central theme as jung and might i say freud did. another facet, who are the post modern artists? did matisse and picasso consider themselves post modern when they were alive? no. but, they are certainly thrown in the group due to their common theme of acting against modernity in their style, technique and most importantly their message. And, it is this message that peterson is ranting against. the message that human is paramount. keep in mind, while the post modern movement was gaining steam, they were reacting against modernism. and, the leader of modernism were the ones who use IQ test to determine who were better, who use skin color to determine who is more "pure", who mechanized social order and heirarchy. pretty much, post modern was reacting against nazi facism.
why JPB is bullshitter, part one: at 8:59... he says "communitarian" communitarianism is an anti-liberal CONSERVATIVE position adopted by Catholics and neo-Aristoteleans like A. MacIntyre. what JBP means is collectivist, which is left wing. communitarians are actually pro-family, tend to be socially conservative, and tend to uphold 'traditional values.'
she suggests that people on the Left do talk about the meaning of life. but this is not necessarily true. Charlies Taylor takes meaning seriously, and he is on the Canadian left.
I think you generalized a bit on Peterson's beliefs, and assumed implications in his words that often the whole reason why interviews like the Newman interview. She put words in his mouth, and you assumed insinuations that he does not himself indicate towards. For the hierarchy portion, the whole point is that they were talking about the patriarchy, and it's tyrannical ruling and basis for so much supposed suffering. Jordan's view is that that painting of history, of thousands of years of men v. women, only damages society. Because, like it or not, many on the left do conflate hierarchy and patriarchy. It's a distinction that needs to be made only because he's so often pitted against people who actively want to bring him down instead of listen to his arguments. Having said that, if you happen to read this, I do enjoy the extent of your research into the topic. I will admit that the term he uses, postmodern neo-marxist, has become harmful to his overall goal, and is probably steeped in the unfortunate crap he had to go through at his university; it's no longer doing him any favors. I'm no expert on this, of course. Jordan himself wound up in a position where he was fighting against regulation that could affect his career, and the fallout did in fact do so (negatively at first, and now positively). I don't believe he ever really wanted to spend his whole time constantly debating gender identity and similar issues, it's just all he's asked about now in some sort of continuous cycle of edited interviews, misinformation, and antagonism. I believe he really wants to do good ultimately. But we need more of this type of video, and less of the automatic assumption of malevolence. Anyway, a well made video. I'd be happy to discuss this more.
Where did you get that kick ass wig!?!
I praised Peterson's works when they helped me improve myself (slightly personal note: I was really close to just giving up before I read his book) but yeah I zoned out of his political side when I realized it's the same spiel, given I agree with a lot of his points. (specifically about how the RADICAL, not common leftists just use oppression, victimhood and all those other stuff as a weapon and not as problems that need to be stomped flat) More power to the man in regards to his self help stuff and his psychology stuff (those are actually cool to watch when you have time to spend) but he may wanna ease off on the political spinning
brainlet
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think you dismiss Peterson's analysis of postmodern neo-Marxism too glibly, without really engaging the arguments or evidence. If you are really intereted in these issues, you might find a couple of other people's thoughts on the matter enlightening. Stephen Hicks is a philosopher who studies postmodernism. His analysis seems to line up with Peterson's quite well: https://youtu.be/-BGbHG63x8w Bret Weinstein is a far-left Progressive (he and his wife were run out of Evergreen by the radical left). His analysis of what is going on also seems consistent with Peterson's analysis. For example: https://youtu.be/bz0oxIZ3xIg Also, I think you are mistaken in how widespread this is. It doesn't seem to be contained to a small backwater of academia. Here Bret Weinstein argues the problem is worse than people think, and spreading into the larger society: https://youtu.be/Q9mkA1GBY2k
Lmao. Trying to dismiss the claims of a conspiracy theory being a conspiracy theory by spewing more conspiracy.
That was a load of rubbish.
he is the new rick and morty
whatever you say, pepe
how is he a fascist? i dont like the guy but he is not a fascist just a liberal
sure thing, pepe icon
he is not
Nothing tbh
+Frosty And you think censorship is inherently left-wing? Because I can rattle off a list of right-wing authoritarians if you really want me to. You don't know what left and right are. "Arrest of media for reporting on muslim rape gangs" That's fake news, Lennon was arrested for putting the trial at risk, and jailed because he was already on a suspended sentence. You can't be allowed to attempt to influence what goes on inside a courtroom like that. If this judicial integrity is compromised, the judge has to say "mistrial" and *the criminals walk free.* That's what he was trying to accomplish here. To call the current administration "left-leaning" is batfuck insane. The Tories of today are currently: -Starving the poor -Bombing foreigners for no reason -Wiping other foreigners from existence -Deporting people for no reason -Selling off public assets for their own profit It does not get any more right-wing without it becoming a full-on fascist dictatorship. I'm really sorry you're upset at people pulling fire alarms, but the right-wing is literally killing people in the street now. Say what you want about the left, they aren't assassinating politicians, executing children, planting bombs, driving cars into crowds or randomly murdering minorities. That's all on you guys.
+DeoMachina The overton window is not about who is in government, it's about what is generally considered to be acceptable discourse. We have been moving towards censorship all over the west, with the introduction of hate speech laws, blackouts and bans on media, blackout on what some people consider "offensive", and even this weekend we've seen protests outside downing street in London because of the arrest of media for reporting on muslim rape gangs. We've seen marches on free speech in London which have thousands in attendance because people are sick and tired that there's certain things we cannot even say in what is rapidly becoming an Orwellian society. Our "right wing" government has never been so left leaning and that's the overall problem. We're still seeing right wing speakers no platformed in the universities, we're seeing left wing radicals silence speakers by pulling fire alarms, illegally disruptinging talks, smashing windows, chanting and banging to drown out people. Anyway this is all going to snap back, the further the left push things the bigger the snap back will be, people aren't going to tolerate this and we know there's a silent majority of people fed up of this. they spoke up with the Brexit vote, they spoke up with voting for Trump and the more the left.
What politics precisely?
Right, I don't see a counter argument, so not sure what you want.
proving me right i see
???
DeoMachina, faith is important for individuals, to cope with seemingly hopeless situations. The modern world discourages the cultivation of faith, for the reasons you describe (“god is dead”), but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an important human virtue.
DeoMachina, there was much more to life than that though
I mean most of us have agreed that genocide, slavery and imperialism are wrong now And the secular countries take the best care of their people I don't know how faith isn't a negative factor here
DeoMachina, i think some faith is a good thing, and i think the jury is still out on whether we are any wiser as a result of the enlightenment and the social changes of the last century. We are certainly more materially capable, but only history will say whether we are wiser.
THE END HAS ME SCREAMING
Don't lobsters fight each other for status? This is the point people like Peterson would like to obscure, there is concrete physical violence that goes into the establishing and maintenance of hierarchies. If you accept that then you have no reason to bemoan people who seek to violently overthrow existing hierarchies. There is no magical "natural hierarchy" that asserts itself without force and I find it odd that "might is right" comes with a lot of unstated expectations of fair play and exceptions. The ants ganging up on the frog is no less "natural" than when the frog eats an ant. According to "might is right" the violence of the weak is right if it succeeds. People like Peterson bemoan violence, but not the violence needed to maintain the current order, because they imagine a pre-ordained natural order, and furthermore assume the current state of things to be an expression of that. On a less serious note: When women suffer discrimination its cuz on natural hierarchy and not sexism, but when incels cant get laid its cuz of feminism and not natural hierarchy. Also, I would love to ask anyone who extols the virtues of "natural hierarchies" where in that hierarchy they see themselves, and laugh loudly when the soft, timid middle class boy responds with something else than rock bottom.
I see hardly any problems with not caring about the contradictory idiotic factions inside leftism. Criticising JBP while using the silly leftist categories as the patriarchy isn't gonna do either as he not only does he refuse to accept those ideas, but does a pretty stellar job debunking them.
Your point at the end about transpeople being individualist and wanting to be called by pronouns of their choosing; You are looking at the issue through tunnel vision. You make sound as though only the transpeople have right to be individualist and not the other people. The other people too are individuals who want the right the accept or deny the request from transpeople about their preferred pronouns. What irritates me and other is the some transpeople only see themselves as individuals and want to cast all others together(collectivism) into agreeing with their terms. They then subsequently paints themselves as victims and get the govt involved. Again, that's just shitty behaviour. At the end of the day, both sides are acting like cunts. Trannies get people fired for not calling them xe and people call them it or he on purpose to hurt their feelings.
I'd hate fuck her
This is irrelevant but what pronouns does contra go by? I remember the video where he came out as gender queer and in it he said he'll go by either he or she, but in it he also said he's not planning on taking any hormones and wants to keep his masculine traits, and clearly things have changed, so idk
She/They, as most recently stated on her twitter. She's the best bet. She also did put out publicly for her name. That she's going to brand the show as contrapoints, the host as contra, but the creator as herself, Natalie. Not that like, you got something wrong, but you sounded like you might be interesting.
This is the best and most enjoyable JP critique I've heard, thank you. So many wonderful lines too...great writing.
I really like this video, but there are some objective mistruths that have been put forward in it.
You're amazing. Loved this.
This lady really doesn't know what the left says... she has a really biased view of the goals and actual depth of demands.
The weirdest part about your comment is that I can't tell if you're criticizing her from the left or from the right.
Well Natalie, I think you dont see the danger of the PM-Neomarxism, which is alarming JBP. I think his analysation is correct, it is like a cancer, cause it destroys the foundations of our societies : self responsability, honor for work and achivements, the canon of good goals, expression of uniqueness, striving for the best, seeing yourself as a needed contribution for society. Equity is a process to level down, not up. The PM's offer a poisenous remedy : nihilism, relativism, equity on a very low level, we already know from kommunism, identity nonsense, victimhood, which is the most destructive aspect, but all of them are very attractive sweet, poisons, people are eagerly drinking all though they are destroing their self respect, their dignity, their ability to deliver and at the end, society itself. Sounds a bit dark, but is'nt.
Why is Jordans head so small?
Funny as hell!!! XD Grate job (y) PS: Stalin did nothing ring and the kulaks deserved it ;)
Does it ever occured to someone maybe Nazis were right on the cultural bolchevism stuff or are we using the "Nazis said it so it's wrong" aproach.
Only 300k views for such high-quality content ? Jesus. I'm sold. Subbed !
Brilliant! Keep up the good work!
I owe you an apology! When the progressive YouTube left started to smear Jordan Peterson. I couldn't believe how viciously they were misrepresenting his arguments. The same counts for the IDW. The coverage has often been too simplistic and intellectually dishonest. So there I was. Responding dismissive towards you when our beloved music guru Anthony Fantano linked to this video. And honestly? Shame on me. Because I didn't even watch the video until now. My (simplistic) response was based on your talk with Michael of the Majority Report. Now. Don't get me wrong. I have learned a lot from Sam & Michael over the years. But when it comes to Peterson & the IDW. They smear to often without nuance. I felt that you were just going along with Michael his talking points. Then I saw your talk with Roaming Millenial. A high-quality conversation between two who might not agree on many things, but are exchanging ideas. (Which, if we keep it real, is kind of what the intellectual dark web is all about.) I just don't see progressives actually debating their viewpoints with people they do not agree with. Except for the occasional Daddy Rogan appearance. In your conversation with roaming millennial, you were making well put together, balanced, intellectually honest points. And so I decided to watch this video. And look and behold. I completely agree with you! I have personally never been a fan of Peterson his constant marxism/postmodernist complaining. And he talks about it too much and with an annoying frustration, anger, and little nuance. I just love his lectures on psychology, Jung, the shadow self, archetypes/hierarchies, psilocybin/psychedelic, introverts vs extraverts and so on. But most of all I am a fan of his (self-authoring) writing program. It is really well put together and is the foundation of what made me respect him about a year ago. With all of that being said. I apologize
@2:06 Channel 4 actually, not BBC. But close enough.
First of all, brilliant video. Hilarious and insightful (and the first of yours I've watched). So I really wanted to pick up on your point about JPs motivations. You point out that, due to his rhetorical style, it's really hard to determine exactly what his beliefs are. And, therefore, people often extrapolate as they please and put him at whatever point on whatever political line they fancy, Now, I've watched a decent amount of his stuff (~30 hours or more), and I've read a bit of 12 Rules. And, as far as I can determine, he may not actually have a grand active political agenda (at least not one he wants to push forward and be associated with). The main issue he seems to have, in political terms, is that certain mainstream, or at least powerful, stances are blocking our ability to have real discussions about how to proceed. It feels like he's worried that certain ideas have become accepted by default without a lot of discussion of validity, e.g. the 70+ alternative-gender descriptors (or whatever you'd call it), their purpose, and long term consequences. And it seems to be a good thing to discuss. The discussions might lead back to the same conclusion, but how do you know if something is valid without engaging in discussions around it that bring in many different points of view? The funny thing is that his style, i.e. not being forthcoming about what exactly his political agenda is, means that people are assuming that he definitely must have one and, since he's not being forthcoming, he must be some crypto-fascist trying to subliminally plant ideas into peoples' minds. But it could be the case that he simply sees an issue with an idea and is trying to use his understanding of people and history to break the idea apart and modify the course of discussion. Again, this seems like a very valid thing to do, considering what's at stake. ------- Lastly, I'd really like to take issue with your closing points, and it's something that I think is misinterpreted and perhaps misunderstood widely within this whole "What the fuck does Jordan Peterson believe?" conversation. The issue JP had with the alternative pronoun law in Canada wasn't that he was completely against the pronouns, it was that he believes that a citizen should never be forced by law to use any specific word in any specific occasion. And doesn't that seem completely reasonable? Take the logic of that law and extend it really really far and you get to the kind of conclusions (e.g. the gender pronoun law leads to totalitarianism) that JP brought up. And sure, it's taking things to really extreme levels to make a point, but that's the point. The point of liberty is that any attack against it may have long term, far off consequences that are really hard to foresee, and for which the magnitude is hard to determine. Forcing people to use a very specific word, deemed necessary by a minority of human beings is definitely against the idea of individual liberty. Asking someone to use your personal pronoun and then them telling you to fuck off is no attack against your individual liberty. When we start granting special rights to a minority of people, where does it stop? How do we determine what the limits and boundaries are? How do we work out the effects in the long term? When do we have the discussions to understand how we got to this point in the first place and if there are better solutions than an alternative use of language? And this is why I think it's important to have JP around. I don't fully agree with his probable stances, but I'm very glad that someone is stirring up a very toxic and ridiculous pot that's been left to brew alone for far too long. ----- Thank you again for this video. I think the discussion is important and necessary and we need all sides to have input. Especially from people who actually understand the human and historical context. Xx
Rightists are angry and unhappy people.
I find that question interesting, because it implies something of a unanimity, that all activists who shout "Down with the Patriarchy!" are trying to accomplish the same goals, and that's not really true, because of divides among leftists and because just repeating the phrase strips it of context. If someone was tweeting about Harvey Weinsteen's arrest with a #downwiththepatriarchy, than the meaning is referring to a specific atrocity, where a film producer advanced or killed women's careers based on whether or not they would give him sexual gratification, and in a broader sense suggesting that these sorts of predatory situations (which most often, though by no means exclusively affect women) should not be a cultural structure we have. If a crowd was protesting Amazon and shouted the phrase, it might specifically refer to the fact that only 2/38 of Amazon's executives are female: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/amazon-2-female-executives/, but it also refers to a broader, mostly male dominated capitalist system, where one man is allowed to have enough money to end worldwide starvation for three years. One could also argue that is a cultural structure we should not have. And I don't think there's any value in denoting these cultural structures as "Western." The cultural structures that these leftists may want to replace the existent ones with, one where the workplace is not ruled by sexual assault, and one where one man cannot have so much while so many are starving; these structures aren't any less western than the existing ones. It's safe for you to assume that I do want to tear down some cultural structures, but more important to me is replacing them with better ones that in my analysis should make more people live happier and longer lives. Feel free to question that analysis, it's important to try and get this right, but I don't think our current cultural structures are the best we can have.
This was absolutely brilliant! Best response to Peterson I have seen - cool headed, witty and informing. thank you!!
Excellent video. Very informative and entertaining. I must admit that I like Jordan Peterson a lot. But for me there are two sides of him. One side is his work as a professor and clinical psychologist. And then there is the side of his kinda crusade against left and what he calls the postmodernist neo-marxism ideology. I enjoy very much watching his lectures about psychology, philosophy, mythology and things like that. I resonate with his perspective and point of view when his is focus talking about those topics. But the time I've watched him in interviews and debates about his view about the left and posmodern ideology and identity politics I really feel disappointment. When he goes that route I realize that he's just another turd in the punch bowl. That's why I rather keep watching the videos and reading whatever he writes about the topics a mentioned I liked his point of view. At the end it doesn't matter. To be honest and without any intention to offend anybody, for me the right and the left (and everything labels stand for) is the same shit. Maybe they're not the same in their core ideas but in attitude and the way people overreact to any stupid issue both sides are the same. The alt-right, the SJW, conservatives, liberals, progressives, klingons, vulcans... all is the same shit. Monkeys throwing crap to each other, no more and no less... Nice video as I said.
Technically speaking, the closest alternative to "Western" philosophy would be basically anything deriving from Abu Hamid Al-Aghazali, who is probably the most significant philosopher in history to formulate a counterargument directly against Western philosophy, and given how deeply intertwined his thought has become with modern orthodox Islam, Peterson and his compatriots DO kind of end up arguing in specific defense of "the West" when they confront things like Islamic Theocracy and what has been termed "Sharia Law." That bit is specifically and explicitly anti-Western. It's not the only thing that split the world of Islamic academia from the European one (the Crusades kind of had a lot to do with that - turns out that when a bunch of dudes with swords and hard-ons for violence fuck up your home for a hundred years, it becomes difficult to maintain scholarly traditions like you would see in early Islamic Arabia), it sure didn't help. Legitimately Eastern philosophy tends to be more orthogonal to Western Philosophy than strictly opposed. The biggest difference there is that it construes things in less of a dialectical, opposed, winner-take-all structure. When it comes down to the actual arguments, there's not THAT much difference once you get to the conclusions. Ironically, possibly the most significant difference is a deeply ingrained notion of social hierarchy that encourages what critics like Peterson would refer to as "collectivism." The sort of hierarchy that a postmodern critic would want to reject. That said, Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, and Jean Baudrillard can all suck every fart out of my asshole. They have been directly responsible for more stupidity than fetal alcohol syndrome and the world would have been better off if all three had been born mute and limbless. Their rejection of fundamental logic and objective reality as some sort of "grand narrative" is the foundation that the very worst, most damaging elements "the left" can contribute to discourse uses as its bedrock. They are, collectively speaking, a gigantic duodenum that extrudes science denial In that same vein, Richard Rorty is worse than Hitler. He's not cited quite as often when it comes to science denial as the Frenchmen, but it's mostly because they have better brand recognition. He's just as bad as them, if not worse. The "vocabulary" of science IS closer to reality, you ironist knob, and any argument you ever made in the vague direction of "pragmatism" only filches the word to misapply it and completely misunderstand its meaning. Like the worst postmodern theorists do with all those science words. For chrissakes, even Chomsky agrees with Sokal and Bricmont when it comes to your idiotic misappropriation of scientific and mathematical terminology - I'm looking at you, Lacan. I should probably stop yelling at dead people. Doesn't seem healthy. Anyway, yeah - fundamentally bad philosopher in a lot of ways. You should find ones that don't explicitly endorse science denial. It's fluffed up idiots like him that present the greatest threats to the broader left in trying to divorce it from the very notion of objective reality or functional epistemology.
this video is fucking amazing
Right so. You're asking why corporations are into the whole "diversity" thing, and all about immigration, which makes them seem left wing. The answer being, that while marxist professors tend to genuinely believe in what they're saying, coporporations, unsurprisingly, are all about the profit. The more people you bring over to your country, the higher the supply, the more you can lower the price of labour, therefore reducing their labour costs and ALSO it increases the amount of consumers that can buy their products. Companies are always to expand, and earn more and more money - not necessarily a bad thing - but in their minds, if they are diverse enough and represent the public, they are presenting an image that is more accesible to a larger group of people that will therefore want to buy the product. So yeah, they all fall under the same category of progressive thought.
Every joke in this video is the same, and it's "haha wouldn't it be funny if people had secks"
I don't know if anyone cares, but J.P. goes over a lot of your criticisms of the concept "postmodern neo-marxism" in his video *Modern Times: Camille Paglia & Jordan B Peterson*. He even points out the fact that postmodern philosophy contradicts the basic principles of Marxism, yet he observes that these modes of thought are somehow tied together. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, it's very informative as to what the hell he's talking about.
This is gold. Can’t wait to dig into more of your videos.
You seem like a whole bunch of fun to hang out with purely based on the opening sketch
I liked the video; you have a great sense of humour and timing. I do want to go over some points you've made though. First off, I would like to say I am not a Jordan Peterson "fan" but I have listened to many of his talks, as I have listened to many talks from many perspectives and people. This is long af so I’ll leave a TL;DR here: TL;DR: Jordan Peterson stood against the Canadian bill c-16 because it involved compelled speech as law not because he hates trans people or thinks they shouldn’t have protection under the law (which they already have in Canada without this bill). Second, Peterson helps people as a counsellor and life coach; it is not a “Trojan horse” to his political agenda. Peterson claims that identity politics is neo –Marxist (which it is) and that the far left intend to deconstruct our current society (which they do). That is why he claims “trans-activists” are similar to Mao, because the same philosophy guiding them is the same: Marxist. I disagree with your implied accusation of intellectual dishonesty from Peterson in the construction of his arguments, but I do agree that Peterson’s “lobster” point was under developed and explained poorly, lacking context to what he meant by it exactly. Yes, the “West” is a real thing, it is the world’s experiment of capitalism and freedom. It was founded on specific principals that have since been deemed “Western” principals of diversity, freedom, and individualism. The founders came from Judeo-Christian cultures, upbringings, and beliefs, even if they themselves were not of those faiths, and they used many values they had learned to establish a foundation of law for the new country. The ideological leftists are Postmodernists, and they do use neo-Marxism to accomplish it through identity politics, which includes intersectionality and the victim class predicated on oppressor and oppressed. Finally, Peterson is not a Conservative, he is a liberal, he has stated so many times. He does not use the bible as a support to his arguments. His idea is that the bible and its old stories contain knowledge and information about being human. He then takes these scriptures and examines them through philosophy and psychology to uncover universal truths about purpose and self-fulfillment in life. He then uses these in a modern and secular way, to help people find purpose and self-fulfillment in their lives.
This really starts to become Marxists as they introduce victimhood. Their claim is that people are victims of oppression based on their traits and because there a victim of oppression exists, there has to be an oppressor. In their perspective, men oppress women, straights oppress gays/bi, “cis” genders oppress transgenders, “whites” oppress “non-whites”, and so the logical conclusion is that white “cis” straight men are the global oppressors and they oppress everyone else in some way. From there, intersectionality takes hold and people are now oppressed on multiple different dimension, that they have decided are important, and some people are more oppressed than others and are therefore more valuable and important. This coincides with Marxism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but here the oppressed victim is the proletariat and the oppressors are the bourgeoisie and so the ultimate goal is to overthrow the “oppressors” and instate their own rule where the previously oppressed have all the power and the previous oppressors are punished. This idea of a shift in power is where the post-modernism chimes in. They believe the old ways pre power shift, in this case capitalism and meritocracy, are outdated and what these oppressors use as a weapon against the oppressed and is therefore evil and oppressive in itself, and must therefore be dismantled. These ideas of meritocracy and capitalism are the identifying characteristics of the U.S.A as a free nation and by destroying them; you would be intern destroying the U.S.A. Source: https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/postmodernism.htm. Finally, all this can be boiled down to the term identity politics, the idea that one’s identity is political and that your identity groups are important than your individual identity. This is what Peterson opposes. He does not oppose equal rights nor equality of opportunity. My next point focuses around how you perceive Peterson’s arguments. You state that Peterson uses a “rhetorical strategy of saying something more or less uncontroversially true while at the same time implying something controversial.” You use an example of Peterson’s claim of biological differences between men and women and how he uses it within a context of women and underrepresentation in government, leaving it open to interpretation and making it difficult to make a response. First, I would say, that if anyone is ever unsure of what someone means by a statement it is best to ask them to clarify and let them speak to clarify it for you. Second, I don’t think he is being intellectually dishonest in these discussions as you imply he is by making his arguments “unarguable” so you have to argue against the obviously true statement or guessing at the implication he made which lets him respond with claims of misrepresenting his argument. In this specific context about women in government, his claim is that there are different biological factors between men and women, and because of that, women are less likely to have certain traits that excel in such positions or just have different interests all together and not as many women have interest in being in politics. (This is, of course, on average. Women are just as potentially capable of any job a man can do and vice-versa depending entirely on the individual.) And just because there is disparity between men and women in certain job fields, doesn’t necessarily mean that the disparity is caused by sexism and discrimination. While it is possible that discrimination exists in that situation, it is by no means the only possible variable and by concluding it is the primary cause without evidence will reach an incorrect solution. This is the point Newman was unable to understand and the point Peterson kept trying to re-explain, which lead to his lobster case. He says that the idea that “hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the western patriarchy” and he points out that idea as untrue. He explains that lobsters have hierarchy too, as do many animals, and hierarchies are inevitable to humans due to how our brains function. Very similarly to lobsters in their reaction to serotonin. So, to say that our “hierarchical organization is a consequence of the capitalist patriarchy is wrong” because we naturally put ourselves into hierarchies and the idea of hierarchy has “absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction.” Meaning that hierarchies are not a social construct, invented by people to control others or have power over them, but are inevitable due to how our brains function in group/social environments. Source: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-psychologist-jordan-peterson-lobsters-human.html. I think you make a strong point in this video on his argument about hierarchies; he did not explain the point very well nor put it in any kind of context. I don’t know if I agree with this perspective either, since how people interact is complicated and while hierarchies may be inevitable, we as humans can ensure the fairness of it through meritocracy where the people who work the hardest and accomplish the most, deserve what they earn. On top of that there is no evidence of any Patriarchy in North American society, as evidenced by women being found anywhere within any occupation. Maybe the numbers aren’t the same amount (as mentioned earlier on some possibilities other than sexism to why this may be) , but if one can do it, then anyone else can with enough hard work and drive to get there. I truly believe that in North America anyone can be what they want, just some things will be harder for others due to individuals being different with different skills. I will never be an athlete for example, and maybe I could be if that’s what I wanted. Training day in and day out, but I pursue other things that interest me more. No one can be everything, but everyone can be something. My final point rests on how you present “Postmodern Neo-Marxism vs. The West”. Btw, yes, the west is a thing, it has different values and culture than many other places in the world and it is considered an experiment of capitalist ideals and freedom. “The West” was founded on certain things; specifically it’s recession from Europe and the American ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They set out to make a new country where people were free to be who they are and practice whichever religion they wanted, they focused on the individuals rights to live how they choose and pursue what makes them happiest in life. They valued the individual and put responsibility on the individual for their own wellbeing, happiness, and success. As well, many that came to found the west were of Judeo-Christian faith, and while they wanted to practice religion freely, the culture they had known all their life stemmed from such beliefs, and because of that, many American laws and cultural expectations and beliefs stem from Judeo-Christianity. That isn’t to say it required citizens to be Judeo-Christian, but the ideas of good and bad, not murdering, and what behaviour was acceptable came from them and the founders felt many were fundamental truths that all should hold and would make a strong moral foundation for their new free country. You then claim a “true” postmodernist would want to “deconstruct the whole concept of the west and show how the very idea is racist, and exclusionary, and supremacist, and justifies imperialism.” Which the ideological or regressive left have been doing with their identity politics. The very ideas of democracy came under attack when Donald Trump won, and leftists wanted a revolt to overthrow him because the democratic system didn’t produce what they wanted and more people voted against them. We’ve seen the likes of affirmative action where leftists have claimed the system is racist and exclusionary and need a shift because not enough “People of Colour” (I hate this term, it is racist af) are hired while not providing any evidence that it is caused by racism or exclusion. We’ve seen the leftist accuse people who disagree with them of being Nazis or white supremacist, even ones who are clearly not. (PS. Nazis are gone, the closest people can be now are neo-nazis fyi). We’ve seen the leftists in favour of horrible things the likes of which America hasn’t seen in many years such as segregation and spaces that are “x race only” or “y gender only”. There have been leftists actively perusing the deconstruction of the west, they are absolutely postmodernists, and as I’ve shown that they are using neo-Marxists ideology to accomplish it in the name of progressivism and identity politics. I did also want to make a small point about Peterson’s use of the bible. He is not a conservative he is a liberal centrist, he has said so multiple times, and he doesn’t use the bible to support claims. His idea is that the bible holds truths to human nature and by examining it through a philosophical and psychological lens, we can extract universal truths about ourselves, and our needs. He advocates that people need purpose in life and one way people get that is through religion, so he examines what religions can teach about humanity and finding purpose and self-fulfillment in life. He then takes these old ideas and puts them in a modern secular way to help people. He does not use “soggy bible-padding conservatism”.
Okay so first point, you say Peterson got famous for "sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender people under Canadian law shall surely lead to Stalinism." which is an incorrect understanding of his position. Within Canadian law, it is already illegal to discriminate on such things and transgender people are already protected under Canadian law that they cannot be discriminated against because they are transgender. Canada's human rights act pre bill c-16 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/20141101/P1TT3xt3.html. What this bill did that he was against was "compelled speech as law". His speech in congress was compressed and presented here: https://youtu.be/wN3clJBg4h0 . The entire hour long is available here: https://youtu.be/KnIAAkSNtqo. Basically, if there person considers what you did to be offensive, such as not using the correct pronoun you requested to be used regardless of intent behind it, they could take legal action against that person under "hate speech and harassment" resulting in a fine. A fine that if refused to pay, as Peterson said he would not, would result in imprisonment due to contempt of court instead. He was very clear about the difference between saying "you cannot do this" and "you must do this or else" and this bill was the latter in this situation, different from any other law which is the former. In passing this bill future law could be made in the "you must do this" category. For example, you must hire x or y ethnicity or else you will be guilty of a crime rather than you must not reject an applicant only because they are x or y ethnicity. A detailed description of how this bill functions is here: https://youtu.be/bMbqCHPB9jg Second, Peterson's life help is not a Trojan horse; in his profession, he also helps people as a life coach and counsellor. Besides just teaching psychology, he actively applies it and has success with it in helping individual’s lives. In his comparison between Mao and a "trans-activist" in which he called trans-campaigners authoritarian” (as Newman quotes) and he clarifies it as “radical leftist ideologues are authoritarian, which they are.” Newman also says he’s applying this authoritarianism to trans people who have suffered the conditions of being trans, and he corrects her again saying “just the activists” and although some of the activists may be trans themselves, they don’t have the right to speak for their whole community. He also states it’s the underlying philosophy that guides them is the authoritarian aspect and it is not that they are trans-activists or the goal of trans acceptance that are harmful, but the philosophy that “guides their utterances” is, and it will do harm in the future. This starts to get to my third point here. He explains that group identity is paramount and it is clear that the ideological left he opposes puts great importance on group identity as we’ve seen the rise of intersectionality and intersectional feminism, which builds on the idea that everyone is part of their group such as race or sex/gender but one person intersects with multiple aspects of this. For example, a person would not just be an individual; this person would instead be a Bisexual Transgender Black Woman or another identity along this line.
Jordan Peterson is such a douche. I love the video, 10/10.
You're a fucking godsend.
Noooooo, not the Lobster Queeeeeen! D:
Great video! Love the humor. Gonna have to push back on the whole lefties don’t call for the wholesale abolition of hierarchies, cuz I totally see that sentiment among the left or large pockets of it. I really like you pointing out that Marxism and post modernism are part of the West.
Quite delighted to stumble across this weird-clever-funny channel. Nice to see that Peterson's sophistry hasn't seduced everyone on Youtube.
You can have me if you like? I mean an (ex? I dunno tbh) alcoholic and ex junkie-what could go wrong? On a more serious side-you know how to say what you want to say rather than hype. Keep it going!!!!
So you can't critique anybody who's a moron because a third party might get hurt, hahahahaha, okay now, byebye.
S O P H I S T R Y
Interesting insight. just wondering if “no one wants to abolish hierarchies, the hierarchies we are interested on are: gender, race and economics within our own society” can be taken as a freudian slip.
Channel 4 not BBC...
Dude looks like Winona Ryder.
God I love you
That little bit you did with the jorden mask saying daddy was classic hahah. Also thanks for opening up my mind. New sub!
good non-normative explaining
he cries too much when he talks
@ContraPoints / +ContraPoints
17:21 Best part of the video.
WHAT SONG IS THIS AT 22:44 ? i know its the British anthem, but who made that version and where can i get it?
Its amazing!
Funny video :) Here are a few contra points to some of your points http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/262280/jordan-peterson You're both similar to me. Fiercely individualistic and unorthodox in your approach to social issues. Like you both a lot.
qk1001 what do you think the state and legal system is? The state is literally a monopoly of VIOLENCE. Yes. The middle class softboys wouldn't be in the position they were in if there was actually any semblance of meritocracy. Unless you conflate "currently existing" with "natural"
"then you have no reason to bemoan people who seek to violently overthrow existing hierarchies" and you think reducing everyone to equal status is fitting and healthy for our society? physical violence is mostly used in low level societies, not in the west "but not the violence needed to maintain the current order" what violence? "the soft, timid middle class boy responds with something else than rock bottom" being in the middle class is literally the definition of not being rock bottom you turd
The poison of postmodernist thinking Well Natalie, I think you dont see the danger of the PM-Neomarxism, which is alarming JBP. I think his analysation is correct, it is like a cancer, cause it destroys the foundations of our societies : self responsability, honor for work and achivements, the canon of good goals, expression of uniqueness, striving for the best, seeing yourself as a needed contribution for society. Equity is a process to level down, not up. The PM's offer a poisenous remedy : nihilism, relativism, equity on a very low level, we already know from kommunism, identity nonsense, victimhood, which is the most destructive aspect, but all of them are very attractive sweet, poisons, people are eagerly drinking all though they are destroing their self respect, their dignity, their ability to deliver and at the end, society itself. Sounds a bit dark, but is'nt.
I mean I literally just pointed out the fact that he's making these things up, but sure man continue to blog here in the comment section if you wanna
Deo ex Machina : Well, snowflakes will rapidly melt in the heat of reality. This leftish mindset which is milking the productive and feeding the unproductive will strangulate the still functioning aspects of society, see Venezuela, Simbabue, South Africa, Soviets... They think, they would be the better dictators, ignoring the true nature of mankind. JBP knows how the coming of disaster looks like, though.
It literally doesn't exist, and isn't happening. JP is a fantasist, delusional to the extreme.
False.
ContraPoints is the articulate, well-known leftist media icon we need. Too much of YouTube is dominated by right-leaning (mostly uninformed) talking heads.
Mood lighting and set design. Well that explains half the weirdness of the channel
I don't really get what this is. Sorry, first time I've seen a video of yours so I don't exactly get where the cringy stereotype and faux-nihilism stops and the content begins...unless this is all kind of vaguely edutainment? Either way, assuming there's an actual serious argument being made here which I think there is I have to wonder exactly what is the point of this. You seem to have this pet peeve about the handling of the trans-activist incident that made him famous, despite the fact that he's not against trans people and his main contention with Bill C-16 was its aspect of legally compelled speech. Also, maybe I'm missing a source or something here, but the whole video just kind of seems like 10 minutes of softening the inevitable knee jerk reaction of Jordan Peterson fans that stumble across this, and 20 minutes of "No True Scotsman" arguments, made more confusing by reducing a term to it's parts and taking those literally to apply that argument. Why exactly must a Postmodern Neo-Marxist do and believe everything that Postmodernists and Marxists do? This is like arguing the two party system in the USA makes no sense because all Democrats believe in an Republic and all Republicans believe in Democracy. Same kind of goes for the whole diatribe on what the "West" is. Was honestly hoping for something actually critical of Jordan Peterson aside from "He uses bad terms" because it doesn't really deal with any of the arguments he makes.
"My lords, ladies, and those that lieth betwist." I'm laughing my ass off in the first five seconds, this is wonderful
Damn. I was expecting to hate this video as most of the popular criticisms of Jordan Peterson I've come across have relied either on the misrepresentation of his ideas or generic feminist ad hominem. Though this was hilarious and a well put together analysis, great work.
Date me pls
What do we want from you? 14/88 Ms Wynn. Come to the dark side. The aesthetics are better and everything's more fun.
"Someone has to whip the neckbeards into shape" Yes. Thank. You
Even though some of your critique is probably correct (postmodernism), I found few errors in your arguments and facts: - Peterson isn't putting all leftists in one category, he actually literally asks left people to define boundary between sensible socialist and radical left. - He isn't against left, he is all for balance between left and right saying society needs both sides to make policies such that it's benefitial for everyone. He himself is classic liberal (which is basically in the middle) - He doesn't put HR employees, liberals and university administration people as a group in marxist category. - He doesn't say that all hierarchies are good because animals have hierarchies - basically everytime he talks about that, he stresses that they should be just, effective and people shouldn't get stuck at bottom with no chance of going up. (So no, monarchy isn't that great) - He isn't against social progress of women or minorities (he is definetly for equal rights and opportunities to say the least)
This is perhaps the most balanced analysis of Peterson I've found on youtube.
Oh to make love to such sweet lady and give reacharound to that swollen clit.
You’re so funny, smart and perspicacious as would say your 18th century lady friend. Love you so much ❤️❤️❤️❤️
@16:54 The video states post-modernism claims there is no grand narrative about humanity. Yet, shortly before this, the video stated that Foucault looked at history as simply a shifting from one power structure to another. Couldn't we say then that post-modernism does in fact posit a narrative, one of power? This is essentially Peterson's claim. Marxism then is nested inside PM as it reduced the power to economic class struggle. PM just takes a broader view (another JP claim). I'll keep watching the video, but so far I don't really see you explaining how JP is wrong to link Marxism and PM together. The fact that Marxists and SJWs disagree doesn't refute JP's claim. Both factions are playing a power game. They just don't like the way the other side draws the boundaries. They have a Post-modern philosophy at their core. The part about tension between different types of feminists: They share the common goal of changing the current system (i.e. the Patriarchy). They really just disagree about how to go about it. Destroy the category altogether OR keep the hierarchy but switch it to a Matriarchy. So again, when JP points out that modern feminism seeks to destroy the current social order, he's correct.
Very nice response to JBP. Thanks. However, do elaborate on Marxist concern for "human progress, science and liberty". I mean, I would appreciate if you could point me at something better than Communist Party Manifesto, because we know how that turned out.
You should do a video on Sam Hyde the alt-right comedian who briefly had a show on Adult Swim.
Informative and entertaining. Glad I came across this channel.
There are 2 points I have issue with here: you state that indentity politics advocates for minorities, but it's not purely advocation. Secondly you acknowledge that the left doesn't really accept opposing points. When you couple these points, the left only allows for furthering of the left. So whilst it is a rabble, and not an organised movement, its an ideaology that doesn't accept alternatives. This is the main concern, that we're getting a ball rolling in a direction that it won't stop. This is why fundamentally, identity politics is a bad idea. Its not a game that pans out well. Minorities will benefit the most from progress, and progress will happen the more we can facilitate conversation and discussion. I do agree that making a generalisation that most won't immediately understand thoroughly (use of the term post modern neo Marxism), isn't necessarily giving an accurate description of the nuances of the life, but it is mainly correct. It gives the right information: the left is a self fueling idea that doesn't facilitate alternatives. Loved the video, thank you
your so gae and your going to hell but I just curbstomped an infant so I can meet you there and eat that sweet ass
Hi there. I don't like him because he is has talent as a public speaker or because of his engagement in life coaching. I enjoy Jordan Peterson because he is (at least for the most part) clear, honest, and authentic in his ideas and how he presents himself. He is accessible, reliable, and conscientious as a conversation partner, and genuinely interested in exchanging opinions … not in converting people. If you hate Peterson just because you think he is part of 'the other team' you are missing out on one of the most interesting and influential contributors to the current PC discourse. You don't have to love him or become a fan boy/girl/in-between but if you are open minded enough go check out his lectures on religion. They are an intriguing blend of old and new ideas. Cheers.
ROTFLMAO!!! Ok, ok... New subscriber for the "I'm not afraid of anything, I just smoked a bunch of PCP"
I thought you liked your voice. And I liked your voice too! Now it is different! I hope you like it more.
Haha that's such arrogant bullshit lol
I just looked up the self- help part of Peterson's ideas. Doesn't he basically advocate the pre-war ideas about the head of the family, stern but just, with a moustache and a pipe and to the church on Sundays? I mean, I keep thinking of Mr Banks from the Mary Poppins movie.
Peterson has, to some extent, addressed the fact that 'Postmodern Neo-marxism' is self-contradictory. I can't point you to a source, but I distinctly remember a conversation he had where he criticised Postmodern philosophers for throwing out classical epistemology, but still coming to conclusions regarding things like politics and morality. If anyone knows where that's from, that'd be great (I feel a little guilty for asserting things without solid evidence), but whether or not he said it is not quite as important as the fact that his worldview is still consistent with the term being contradictory.
That barbed exchange hahaha "18th century sexual deviant"
0:21 they didn't do coke or anything. If you were rich you bath more then other people put they put smell good stuff under their noses because everyone smelled bad. Maybe this channel isn't for me. I applaud your passion though.
You're making a strawman about gender pronouns and individualism. We're not against you calling yourself whatever it is you want to call yourself. We're against you trying to force your words and worldview into our mouths. I have nothing against trans people, I even find you to be quite cute, and I wish you a long and happy life. However, I do not believe that you're a real woman (or whatever you want to call yourself). I believe that you're a man. Since calling you a woman would go against my beliefs about reality, I don't think you should have the right to force me to use your words or force me to follow your worldview. I see this issue the same way I see religion. I think it's completely fine for you to believe in whatever religion you want, but the moment you start to demand that I have to behave as if I believe in your god, even tho I don't, then you've gone too far. And no, a religious persons right to not be offended is not more important than my right to say and think whatever I want and be true to my own beliefs and opinions. In short: Call yourself whatever you want, but don't force us to follow your worldview and/or use your words. It is this authoritarian behavior that's pushed so many people away from the progressive left.
The stupid daddy joke is taken way too far. It heavily detracts from the what-would-be intelligent points of your video. I can't take you seriously at all when you obfuscate everything with juvenile incestuous sexual humor.
this is terrifying
https://modernmoneybasics.com vs frito Doritos distributions good luck argueing with him or his devotees fact I even kind of like the guy
how embarrassing!
@ContraPoints A friend of mine recommended that I take a look at your video, so I sat down and took a look at your video. First things first, you've got talent for making videos. At no point does your video allow the viewer to get bored, and while some of the humor is a bit off (bathtub Peterson scene), I can appreciate the time and effort you put into it. It also looks like you put a lot of effort into researching Peterson, and I appreciate the desire to actually get into the topic. The instigation for this post comes down to the irreconcilability between post-modernism and neo-marxism, as well as the broader narrative of the West fighting against that hybrid philosophy. Below is a link attached to one of the better Q&A sessions, with the initial interviewer providing a number of tough questions that made it the most entertaining I've come across in a while. In the video below, which should be time-stamped to the right moment, he acknowledges that there is a fundamental contradiction at play, and instead says that the moment the post-modernists move outside of their intellectual engagements, how they act and behave fall along Marxist lines. Not saying that this is any more accurate, but it would be worth a viewing to see if it changes anything. Lastly, Peterson doesn't believe that Marxism is somehow non-Western in a geographic sense. Most of his criticisms of that doctrine have always been internal, and notably geared towards the French. His references to "non-Western" polities are always designed to showcase the failure of the ideas espoused by Western Marxists, not to ascribe origin as outside of the heritage of ideas. Peterson's religious talks have consistently been informed by Middle Eastern, Indian, Buddhist, and Chinese traditions and myths, where he welcomes comparisons of the Judeo-Christian ethos to those traditions. He's particularly fond of referencing the Egyptians, Yin-Yang, and the Buddha. The reason why I say all this is not to criticize, Peterson's online corpus is intimidating, and its unreasonable to expect others to watch the latest lectures and talks, which are usually two hours long and can come out 2-3 times a week, in addition to watching hundreds of hours of videos from his course lectures. The point here is just to add to the conversation, since - you know - that's what we're supposed to be doing. If we aren't willing to treat each other with respect and to highlight ideas the other might not be familiar with, then we're on a dangerous path. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V32WHDuy-Do&t=7360s
One last thing, you demanding that I use your pronoun of choice or face the strong arm of the law impedes on my individual liberty. If I'm to agree to use your pronouns it will be because of an agreement between you and I. Peterson has said that he has used trans people's pronouns, but will not concede this to the government to make laws about compelled speech. So yet another misrepresentation of his argument. Good day you madam walrus.
And your love in with identity politics is cringe worthy in my estimation. Peterson has stated many times that he wishes to regard the individual, their accomplishments, personality traits, and experiences. I believe this to be a much better way to acknowledge people than "trans queer walrus", "black fem lib blm leather boot strap", or "white cis slumlord". You my friend are entertaining, and I would enjoy debating you in a public space, but I don't take you too seriously. You're basically the milo of the left. Good day.
Also I think that your surface value take on marxism and post modernism are shallow at best and fail to derive any real meaning or valid conclusion. Marxism pits the rich and the poor against each other and created good guys and bad guys. It fails to recognize that many who attain wealth have done so through hard work, competence, and often times honesty (gasp). Post modernism also has many ties with nihilistic thought that can (in my opinion) be quite dangerous, and can easily cause stagnation.
Also, a bunch of leftists are afraid of his ideas if we're being honest, from my encounters most. But of course, this is just my experience.
I like Jordan Peterson a lot and think that he has brought up a lot of valid points. The left has gotten way out of hand trying to shut down free speech, and in the comments here I can see enough people calling him alt right. Freedom of speech used to be a leftist liberal position, and conservatives used to be the ones that usually spoke out against it. Now times have changed and the shoe is on the other foot. Are there far right types who are also against it? Of course, but Peterson is not one of these, and I will stand with him against those that seek to stifle the free speech and thought of others regardless of their political position.
Please only feminine pronouns when referring to JP
Post-modernists/post-structuralists don't disavow structural oppression, so of course he doesn't bother to gain any understanding of them. If you see all social/political/economic hierarchies as naturally occurring rather than as the result of social and historical processes that have purposefully evolved in exploitative ways, the claim that they are used to oppress and exploit people and that this oppression should be rectified by the deconstruction of said hierarchies feels very dangerous and scary. He just wants to say things might be bad but they aren't that bad for him (bc s e l f i m p r o v e m e n t) and therefor they aren't that bad for anyone else either, pls no changey. He wants to keep his security blanket. His whole lobster argument is a surreal attempt of reducing complex historical and social processes down to "lol dude its just b i o l o g y". The fact that he chooses lobsters, out of all animals, shows how shitty he is at making intellectual arguments. It's such an arbitrary notch in the wood to stake your argument in. But if you want to make arguments for internet and popularity points, lobsters are probably fine, nothing really matters then.
Thanks, CP. You're beautiful.
Interesting. One thing i always enjoy is gaining perspective. Perspective is a useful tool and very valuable and I can always appreciate when it is said in a reasonable manner. I enjoyed this overall though I disagree with some of your points and agree with others most notable being your point about pronouns and individualism. I am a libertarian and for all intents and purposes support the individual and their pursuit of whatever the hell they want. That said the issue is when government is involved. I support Peterson in his opposition to such legislation as Bill C16 because it is not the place of the government to enforce such a thing. Racism sexism and any other ism you can name will always exist in one form or another and people should be allowed to express and hold such views not to fear consequence of legislation but of the society which they inhabit. Anyways, always good to be able to understand what belief someone holds why they hold it and how they define it.
Although I disagree with most of the things you say, I loved your video. It made me laugh out loud several times, and I can tell that you are clearly a creative and talented person with original ideas. However, and I'm really sorry if this offends you, but I really feel the urge to say it: I think your voice is annoying as shit. Have you considered getting help with it?
Thanks, you make learning fun. I'm also in awe at the depth and diversity of your skills.
Man, I really wanted to watch this video in full, but your fucking voice and your shitty fucking acting have given me a headache. Please work on this.
"no one has ever said that every hierarchy is the product of western patriarchy" Cathy Newman didn't object. Neither has anyone he has ever debated with.
Let's be real Contrapoints. This video does a good job at pointing out the divides and logical inconsistencies of the left. But you are fooling yourself if you believe there is a significant debate going on between two opposing leftist ideologies. The vast majority of modern leftists, at least the one in power, fail to even realize their logical inconsistencies which is why they so consistently lose debates to people like Peterson. "gender is a social construct and does not actually exist". "one can be born as one gender biologically, but mentally be another gender". Yes, obviously those two ideas cannot coexist, and I give credit to anyone on the left who can admit that. But I have yet to see any leftists debate with each other on this, instead they try to pretend like there is no logical inconsistency because they are so blinded by ideology. However, there is one consistency here, and that is what matters: Both are trying to undermine fundamental values that the west has held for centuries (gender is real, biological, important, and men and women are biologically different). THAT is the point that people like Dr. Peterson is trying to make
"if your backlash also targets gender equality, lgbt acceptance, and civil rights, that would be bad, right?" no
invite him on your show to debate. You know he will accept
I'm all for this grill out. You bring the old baes, and I'll bring the Old Bay.
Sorry, can't continue listening to you and the music in the backgroud. I switch to Jordan P.
Your videos always do a lot of heavy-lifting toward giving folks a better understanding of overwhelmingly complicated issues, thank you! Also, lipstick is on point.
You did a good job in this video. Keep exposing these scamsters in a good well-constructed video like this. Keep it up.
You neeeeeed to have a discussion with Peterson somehow, that would be awesome (and good for your channel)!
I think i like dummy Jordan better then normal Jordan
geez, you should have skipped the first 22 mins of BS.
Yeah, I loved this. And I love you. Keep it up.
19:20 onward was probably the best summary evaluation of Jordan Peterson I've seen thus far from anyone. btw, love the queen character lol.
DeoMachina Isn't that something of a strawman? People who are in favour of trans rights are not the same as trans activists. And from what I've seen of the plights that trans activists mention, a major one is the issues facing those that have trouble getting housing and employment due to their status as a trans person. Certainly if those activists are attempting to pursue political changes to deal with an economic problem, they must have an opinion on the economics of the situation. Furthermore, if they see it as a struggle between those in power and trans people, couldn't the argument be made that some of them might see the issue as one that could be resolved by Marxist means?
fuck off
He's not making any arguments, that is the point. He's just randomly calling people names to try and discredit them. Consider the following: Your stance on transgender rights has no inherent bearing on economics. And yet people who are supportive of trans rights are..marxist? Bwuh? Exactly.
>the aesthetics are better This is honestly the most offensive thing I've heard a neonazi say
There are 2 points I have issue with here: you state that indentity politics advocates for minorities, but it's not purely advocation. Secondly you acknowledge that the left doesn't really accept opposing points. When you couple these points, the left only allows for furthering of the left. So whilst it is a rabble, and not an organised movement, its an ideaology that doesn't accept alternatives. This is the main concern, that we're getting a ball rolling in a direction that it won't stop. This is why fundamentally, identity politics is a bad idea. Its not a game that pans out well. Minorities will benefit the most from progress, and progress will happen the more we can facilitate conversation and discussion. I do agree that making a generalisation that most won't immediately understand thoroughly (use of the term post modern neo Marxism), isn't necessarily giving an accurate description of the nuances of the left, but it is mainly correct. It gives the right information: the left is a self fueling idea that doesn't facilitate alternatives. Loved the video, thank you
DeoMachina might I point out the context here: we're discussing left ideas across the world, in reply to a transgender YouTuber. How oppressed and punished is left thought? This seems adequetly free
DeoMachina actually I think the left are less tolerant of the right at the moment, and that is driving polarisation. There's no space for reasonable Conservative representation, and no support for a reasonable left option.
I'm not willing to consider the fact that you just hadn't noticed the aggressive intolerance against anything left-wing, so yes.
DeoMachina am I tho
You're lying though. We've seen decades of complete suppression of left thought, to the extent where just being left-of-centre ends your career as a politician, and you're accusing the left of being intolerant? It's not the left who murder people for not being left enough my dude.
Could it be any more dramatic. :) Have a good one.
I'm sorry being corrected on your factual errors is "boring" to you, but I'm under zero obligation to make your education exciting. Here are the facts, do with them as you wish. Ignore them all if you enjoy it that way. Just like Peterson, you resist and evade all attempts to be pinned down to something solid and concrete. Explicit claims are twisted into allegories for something else, turns of phrase are used as cover and "Ah, but did I really say that?" We're not impressed, btw. You're just mad because you had no idea he was truly this stupid, but you're not ready to accept it yet. Don't worry, the more exposure he gets, the more chances he'll have to prove his mediocrity. My part in this is done, I think. Later.
Okay, let's do this: Are you aware of primary and secondary sources? You throw me one chewed up bit of Peterson, and then expect me to understand where you are going with this? Do you really even try to understand people's ideas through tweets? Do we really have to talk about this? This is exactly what is so boring about conversations on the internet: I cannot expect somebody to really go into the labor of reading (or at least listening to) the first hand material before forming a "clear" picture of something. My point holds, what you can find in his material is largely based on metaphor, allegory, comparisons and other stylistic and cognitive devices which aren't as straight forwardly "Christian" as you would take them to be.
...you literally asked for a source. Now you're getting pissy because I did as you asked? How else do you prove points? Just make it all up? Oh wait, I guess thats exactly what you were doing.
You throw me references to prove a point, and I call me a drone? You epitomize what's wrong with discussions on the internet. Have you even read half of what I wrote? I was afraid you hadn't much to say. Take care.
No like, he's LITERALLY referencing God. Don't be like all the other peterson drones and pretend everything he writes is metaphorical. archive.is/khKVm
Let me add one thing: By "implicitly highlighting faith", I mean bona fide faith in something we call "god". This; however, has only vaguely something to do with our everyday application of the term "God" (in capital letters) as that which Peterson seeks to explain only becomes something concrete when it is brought to the level of human interaction, not in terms of an ontological category, or in other words: he is not interested in the or a 'real' God like the Christian God but rather in how certain (religious) narratives enable us to differentiate between what is good and evil, or what is "meaningful" and what is "expedient" to cite one of his 12 rules from his latest book.
Hi again. I understand why it "seems [to you that he] consider[s] faith" as such. I tend to think that this comes from that he regularly opposes "nihilism" and thus; however, rather implicitly, highlights "faith". But he is not too specific, is he? Did you quote him correctly? Did he indeed spell "god" in small caps like in your citation? If this is not a mere error on your part, this would be telling, wouldn't it? Come on, please be more specific! What is the "nonsense" he writes about atheism leading to immorality? If you are that clear in your position about him (cf. "batshit insane", "complete lunacy") you should be capable to summarize his core idea. And on a side note: When you cite, could you please also provide the source. That would be very kind. Cheers.
Sure: First he seems to consider faith absolutely necessary for anybody engaging in philosophy, when he wrote "Faith in god is a prerequisite for all proof". Then there's all the batshit insane nonsense he writes about atheism, and how it leads to immorality And then there's the complete lunacy at how he believes shamans discovered DNA's double-helix structure by getting high as fuck on peyote. (Does that qualify as religious discussion? Throwing it in there anyway)
Could you become more specific? What, in your very humble opinion, is he making up ?
"intriguing blend" That's a fancy way of acknowledging trhe fact he's a fucking liar. He knows nothing about religion. He's LITERALLY making it all up.
This is incredibly insightful. You're awesome. Thank you for making me look up so many things. Thank you for making me less dumb :) Please keep up the good work!
This guy couldn't pass in the dark. William Nicholas Parrott 3620 Keswick Rd #1 Baltimore MD 21211 DOB October 21, 1988 ( age 28 ) You know what to do, first one to get this mentally ill faggot to commit suicide wins.
Hmm.. I think you can get a better understanding (or at least I have) from some of the French philosophers. I don't subscribe to it... but I was at least given to better understand it as a philosophical label.
Post-moderism, that is.
lol. This is pretty fucking funny
Don't do a search on Jordan Peterson! if you do you'll spend so much of your time marking new videos of him with "not interested"
The amount of people who find Jordan Peterson intelligent and insightful is sadly predictable.
he said neo-marxism not marxism
Do you ever build anything? All I see are feeble attempts to belittle others and piggyback off controversy. The fact is Dr. Peterson is a good man who says things that resonate with others, and you only encourage his fans when you go out of your way like this. You don't even prove him wrong, you just say things to make his detractors chuckle with their circle of friends.
u need to rewatch the video it looks like
So much for the tolerant jacobins. This is hilarious!
Subbed
What is your deal with milk omg
That clip of him speaking at 8.40 made me die of laughter, like what planet is he living on?!
"What do we want from you?" Camp leftie intello deconstruction of this pl0x. watch it thrice thru, no scrimping: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUcoQL3ySPo&t=1675s
aaaaaaaaaaaa bwv 997 aesthetics
Ha! Good stuff! I guffawed several times. This is by far one of the best, most nuanced responses to Jordan Peterson. My fantasy is that one day you will get the chance to have a lengthy discussion with JP. A debate wouldn't do the two of you justice.
this video single handedly summarized my entire sociology BA
What Jordan Peterson actually means when he talks about post-modernism: Derida was a marxist but marxist political doctrine kept producing evil empire. Left wing french intellectuals put their heads in the sand for +20 years but they eventually recognised it by the mid 70's. Instead of the opposition working class/capitalist class, they started to play identity politics where we can divide people between oppressed/oppressor, the division does not have to be on economic grounds. Just as you can interpret a text on many levels, you can interpret world on many levels. There is a way in which that is correct. But the post modernists said that there was no right way to interpret so you can interpret as you like. And people tend to interpret the world in a way that facilitates their acquisition of power (marxist idea). The world is complicated beyond our ability to comprehend. But we have to extract from the world an interpretation that allows us to live and thrives over multiple period of time, in multiple environments, while we are doing the same thing with other individuals who are motivated the same way. If the lesson you get from Hamlet is that you should kill yourself and your family it is not very functional interpretation, because people are going to object to that and it is not a game that you can play over and over in the world. We need a set of tools that we can use to function in the world so that we don't suffer too much and so that the things we need to continue can be provided. The post modernists don't care about that at all. Postmodernism is an assault on the metaphysical substra of our culture and on everything established since enlightenment (empiricism, science, rationality, dialogue, the idea of the individual…). The division of society that should preval is a division based on competence. Competence creates hierarchy which is not based on power.
Maybe if you see things this way it is because your system of value is based on money but not everyone's system of value is based on money. My system of value for example is based on culture: which books have you read, what music do you like, what kind of art etc... The competent fast food employee gets to keep his job. The uncompetent fast food employee gets fired. The competent fast food employee is higher in the hierarchy of fast food employee than the non competent fast food employee. There are different sets of hierarchy. I am not denying than money gives you power in this world but everyone prefers a poor competent teacher than a rich incompetent one.
A hierarchy not based on power? The competent fast food employee is paid shit and has to struggle to resist homelessness while the competent hedge fund manager generates incredible wealth because capital is power, and one's place in the hierarchy is determined by one's "competency" in servicing capital.
Loved the video (as always), hate the Hume of the video, though you admittedly don't dwell on it. Look, can philosophy get over his arguments there. They *really* are, *really* bad arguments. At best his arguments amounts to the idea that premises need to match their conclusions i.e. if you're hunting for conclusions in biology, use biological premises/arguments. Ditto physics, music, masturbation, basketball and arguing on the internet. The distinction between ethics and the rest of that mushy human stuff and science therefore amounts to nothing better than the distinction between astronomy and chemistry, but we don't go around saying astronomy isn't science, so why would we argue that ethics isn't? In fact, "make your conclusions match your premises" is pretty close to the best definition of a scientific method we've got. If it was good enough for Moritz Schlick, it's definitely good enough for me!
"I'm gonna divide modernism into two periods because I feel like it" *SUBS*
don't play hard to get DM. you love the frog memes too.
Zoe Blade "god save the lobster queen"
So much for the tolerant jacobins may be the funniest thing i’ve ever heard after studying the French Revolution
Are traps gay? #MGTOW
Omg that Pink Flamingos reference near the end
Such excellent, delicious points
Feminism Is in its Body Exclusive NOT Inclusive of LGBTQ community.So If You Being A Trans Support a Sexist Ideology of Feminism then You are A Hypocrite.But Anyways Your analysis Was Nice and Awesome.Subbed!
At first I was like
I'm a HUGE fan of Peterson, and I think you did a good job pointing out the good and also the absurd about him. And a damn fine tour of the difference between identitarians and the post modern types. Just found out about your channel from r/RightwingLGBT. Thanks for the solid work.
Postmodernism is not opposed to identity politics. Yes, postmodernism "deconstructs" group classifications like race and gender in the sense that they don't have an essential nature and aren't eternally given, but it doesn't say that these categories aren't real in the current social order. The recognition of the social construction of these categories does not entail that one shouldn't use them in trying to liberate the oppressed.
Alternative title: Alt-right terminology is bullshit - Also, Daddy issues. Great vid, Contra :)
Hey Natalie, quick question: to what extent is the Foppington character reflection of yourself, and all your characters for that matter? They’re my favorite part of your videos
I think, based on your channel name and what you're talking about, that you would be interested in Contrapoints take on the free speach question head on, which she did in two videos a couple months back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGTDhutW_us I would watch it through, although to paraphrase, Contra/Natalie's position is that there should not be legal consequence to speech in any circumstance. In the new Canadian law, there, isn't? Pronouns aren't mentioned, it just adds the words "Gender identity" to a list including "race, physical disability, ect" so whether or not misgendering someone leads to punishment? I guess that'll come down to case law. Although the video I link will not be legalistic, but go right to the metal of what speach is.
I can't deal with all the random shit in this video. I made it to the bathtub. That should be enough disqualify me as as bigot.
As soon as I heard the words "what Peterson actually means" I knew in was about to witness some mental gymnastics. That's where I stopped the video and gave it a downvote.
Just be a man and suck it up,,
Your sound is a nightmare. Your voice is too low, the annoying piano is louder, the video extracts you play are barely audible... I wanted to discover your stuff, but hell you make it painful
You presumed Peterson is a political actor - he's not. He's a clinical psychologist and interested in the individual, so if he sounds political to you, you came in poised from your own political position.
This video makes me want to throw up. Jordan Petterson is 1000% smarter than you and has never even attempted to hurt any group of people. You make that up, he is not an enemy to transpeople , he's just an enemy to idiots. This video was trash .
Idk I think Peterson is right I’d still call you a dude
This mentality ill man has no idea what he's saying. #bundleofsticks
If anyone is interested in seeing JP explain the connection between post modernism and marxism https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH8IG7Awk0&t=8s
No, identity politics is not merely "advocacy [etc] for particular groups." It is the tendency to elevate group membership above individual agency, or in other words, to see people purely in terms of their group membership and not as individuals. For example, choosing to promote an employee not because of their individual contribution but because it would be desirable to see someone in their group be promoted. Or, you know, not letting "men" speak at awards shows. Or claiming that "white people" are responsible for...well pretty much every evil the world has ever seen, right?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hs5bJmZgM-s&feature=youtu.be
Telling people what pronouns to use is a "small thing"? When he glossed over that I turned out! This dude knows nothing and makes numerous assumptions about JP.
Loved the video! As someone who has been a Peterson fan for over 10 years, but conflicted about his recent success tied to politics, I really enjoyed your breakdown of the theoretical inconsistencies regarding Marxism/postmodernism. I was wondering if you’ve read Stephen Hick’s book on postmodernism as that seems to be the source Peterson draws from the most to tie postmodernism in with Marxism? Maybe at some point you could address that book specifically? PS the bathtub scene was amazing, pulling him into the bath with you is exactly what he needed!
"reason, truth, topics I simply don't care about" Why would I care about someone's opinion if they don't care about putting an intent to be reasonable with their thoughts? Plenty of people have their hearts in the right place when making a reasoned argument from either side, but in the first 1:17 of your video, thouest claimest that even trying to be reasonable isn't worthy of energy? I'll watch the rest of the video, but this isn't off to a good start.
I can't watch past the 5 minute mark. She's creating strawmen all over the place. She's dramatically oversimplifying his "philosophies", and using terms like neckbeards to describe people who enjoy his books/lectures. She also believes that Jordan Peterson's critique of postmodernism is a common nazi critique (although she states that he clearly is not a nazi). She's using obvious manipulative wordplay to make her points instead of actually making them. Many Liberals have similar critiques of postmodernism. Want an example? Noam Chomsky. Must be a nazi. Lolololol.
Oh I disagree with you for the most part, but this was a great video. Well presented, humerous, self aware and reasonably level headed when it came to the points you made. Don't have to agree to like your content.
So according to this guy nazism is part of the western philosophies??
Although I think you've misrepresented a lot of what JP has said, I liked that you actually presented a coherent argument for the most part. I personally find myself gravitating toward JP because he makes some very compelling arguments that I've yet to see contested in a coherent and convincing way. I am waiting for someone to make a really strong case against him on the left and I just don't see that. His views are constantly misrepresented as being far right when he clearly argues that both sides are necessary and tends to be closer to the center. I don't think a good argument can be made against JP until people start to recognize that he isn't necessarily against the left, but against ideology that attempts to police what people think and say. I think it's a mistake to interpret what he says as an implication of something more sinister. The man is insanely meticulous and deliberate with his speech and I don't think that he does that to make implications about anything. I think he makes compelling arguments about the attitudes and ideas that are becoming more and more popular and presents concerns that many other people have too. The left seems totally fragmented at the moment and it's unfortunate that there aren't many people taking JP's ideas seriously enough to stop calling him an alt-right sympathizer and really tackling the issues he brings up at a higher level of analysis. That being said, I appreciate that you made an attempt to do that in this video. I know you probably do the skits to make your videos more entertaining, but I would love to see a video where you just lay out your thoughts and arguments without any interruptions. There are not many people doing what you did here and I think there's a huge need for it.
"what is the west?" Have you listened to much Pet Shop boys?
Rubin and Shapiro are "zany goons" huh? Identity politics were used by Stalin as justification to oppress others. When she tries to counter this argument she ends up doing a dumb bit. Video devolves from there.
I don't agree with her thoughts on Peterson, but I do admire her ability to paint and illustrate her picture with psychology's. I think I would have awesome conversations with her
Very naive understanding of Marxism, particularly when it comes to how Marxism is practiced. Perhaps this is why you avoided speaking about existentialism and lived truth. Further, very naive understanding of today's university's humanities departments that's thrown out academic research grounded in validity and reliability, rather imposes assertations and silences it's critics. Having a good vocabulary is not a substitute for understanding the issues at hand. P.S. Too much lip gloss.
But Marxism and post modernism are philosophical cancers metastasizing in the western world that will kill its culture and history. The point that they are western in origin is irrelevant. Peterson is greatly influenced by Nietzsche who argued that it was Christianity's adoration of truth that ultimately led to the death of God. Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster
Takedown? Strawmen and sarcasm everywhere. 28m I'll never get back though. Meh.
Hi
I really don't agree w/ what you're saying but this is beautiful. I don't know if I like that I enjoyed this, but I did. Fuck you XD
Your critique of Peterson is orders of magnitude better than the blatantly dishonest hit pieces that I'm used to reading. Thank you for that. As far as I can tell, when Peterson says Postmodern Neo-Marxist he's talking about a way of thinking that rejects universality while simultaneously emphasizing the idea that people tend to be tribal and self-serving. This way of thinking is encapsulated perhaps most concisely in the idea of privilege. If you have privilege, you tend not to be able to see your privilege and therefore it taints your perceptions and your input into the discussion. Your input, therefore, may justly be disregarded on the basis of your membership in a category of privileged people. Peterson has repeatedly pointed out the incoherence of this way of thinking, that is, the incompatibility of postmodernism and Marxism. He also says that it makes dialogue between groups of people impossible and reduces the world to an ideological battleground between identity groups who can't communicate with one another, but have conflicting interests and are therefore enemies. It may not be an accurate description of a well-articulated body of academic thought, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who think this way. I think the fact that centrist and right-of-center speakers are routinely being shouted down on university campuses is good evidence that a substantial number of people do think this way, at least on campus. It's not like Peterson is sounding the alarm for nothing. Please entertain the possibility that it's precisely because something is wrong that he has become so visible, and the same can be said of Bret Weinstein, Lindsay Sheperd, Ben Shipiro, Steven Pinker and others. If nothing else, there is clearly something wrong on university campuses.
Hari Blackmore demanded that I provide citations to prove that two parent families are linked to upward mobility. What's the point of participating in conversation if one side demands multiple citations in order to verify commonly known truths, truths which are so widely accepted that "two parent family = upward mobility" is akin to "the sky = usually blue". Hari Blackmore, if you're this stupid, then I'm out. If you're going to attempt at abusing my time by obliging me to prove facts which everyone already accepts as facts, then Im not gonna talk to you, Im just gonna write in this thread to show other people how we would probably be better off if you removed yourself from this entire comment thread.
As a fan of Peterson, I've read a fair amount of criticism for his ideas. It's all been crap. Except for you! You make some excellent and constructive points. And you did make me laugh out loud, for real. Thank you!
Looks like they got the new algorithms working as intended, enjoy the echos everyone
Epic fail. Take that worthless gender studies degree you obtained @ Evergreen University & go work @ Starbucks. Lololololololololololololol
Yes, Dr Peterson is big on ringing the post modernist neo Marxist bell. However, consider his life's work for a moment.... Ok lastly, you need to get the story right on compelled speech as it infringes on freedom of speech and once freedom of speech is compromised it can be a slippery slope. Bottom line we all must find meaning and aim towards our biggest self so long as we do it without arrogance, contempt, or deceit then it is a worthy persuit. Some of us must work hard to find meaning, others are lucky, but most don't even get the opportunity we are all on a computer and ergo privlefged and we ought to be grateful I know I do me best to he. Lazy propagandist attempt to utilize doctor Peterson's material and then others misquote and inflame. Personally I'm in my third listen to his book and I feel like I need about 17 more to have a decent opinion on it we should all take our time and fully analyze these complex issues before hastily forming an opinion. Namaste may God bless us all Peace
wish is have learned of you earlier; good insights and perspective of a fellow who is being, perhaps reluctantly so, worshipped by young men and some women
I usually like your observations even if I don't fully agree but more importantly: God damn are you funny
The Lobster Argument is a Natralistic Fallacy. Just because it's seen in nature does not mean that humans should do it.
You should contact him directly and debate him I'm sure it would be an interesting debate
LET ALL THY VERTEBRATE ARTHROPODS STAND STRAIGHT WITH THY SHOULDERS BACK
I'm a gay immigrant, former Democrat, former progressive, and former Obama voter. Yes, both Peterson and progressives give "rules". The difference is that Peterson's "rules" are voluntary, the rules that the left gives are enforced under threat of financial ruin or imprisonment. As a gay man, I do not believe that the left's punitive approach is effective in advancing the cause of equality and justice. Furthermore, having experienced socialism first hand, I also don't have much confidence in the new-found acceptance of homosexuality by the left; traditionally, socialists considered homosexuality to be a decadent vice of Western societies, and progressives considered it a biological defect that required institutionalization and medical treatment, supposedly for the good of society. Even Hillary and Bernie didn't support gays and lesbians until it seemed politically safe for them.
GOD SAVE THE LOBSTER QUEEN
Aaaaand...subscribed. I was sent here from BoingBoing.com. I can't tell you how happy I am to FINALLY hear the left's positions explained so perfectly. My little heart sings!
That voice. So beautiful. So graceful. Genuine. Yes, that's the word that comes to mind. Genuine!
I'm grateful to Jordan Peterson. Without him, who knows how long it would have been before I stumbled across this channel. A very insightful, educational and entertaining video. Thanks :)
had to subscribe
I really love your videos and I like this video too....someone actually attempting a thoughtful, balanced intellectual critique of Peterson, which I have seldom come across thus far. Simple criticism though: I think your analysis of Peterson's lobster/hierarchies argument is, respectfully, the exact straw man you are accusing Peterson of....as it removes the context of his actual specific point that hierarchies will naturally occur, for a myriad of reasons, so seeking equity of outcome is a meaningless metric. Similarly viewing lack of equity as wholly related to 'group oppression' instead of stemming from a variety of factors that will naturally occur (thus some kind of hierarchy will always form), will send you down the wrong path looking for the wrong solutions. I think the key here is that as modern activism is based upon radically believing in and achieving these metrics, and the ideas take hold in various aspects of policy and administration, these wrong solutions, which don't receive criticism very well at all, at best end up very ineffective at solving the problem they intend to solve (as the problem itself may not exist in the way they understand it in the first place), and at worst will undermine the integrity of a system, which is at least functional and effective. Now, I don't necessarily agree with these views....but it would be a much more meaningful critique of Peterson to analyze them, instead of the 'straw man' assertion. Likewise, I think the discussion of the semantics and history of the "pomo neMa" term was very valid and necessary, but there was another big straw man in your conclusion, which ended the video where I thought the most interesting parts of the criticism would be: the activist culture than Peterson dislikes (under whatever term) generally has a dislike of various societal (or biological) constructs, viewing them as limits placed on certain groups for the purpose of control (Marxist = meaning 'us' the workers vs 'them' with the money and power; neo-Marxist = applying the us vs them narrative to every meaningful definable hierarchical societal construct)....and that all history should be viewed with the lens of categories and division based upon power....BUT the new categories are also just arbitrary divisions based upon the very same group distinctions, also based upon gathering a new hierarchies of power and control, this time based on whatever the "activist class" is, essentially the same rich white bourgeoisie gaining the same political power retooled for a slightly new narrative. I don't really think Peterson is talking about anything other than what Haidt has been talking about....he is just going about with his old white man Professor toolkit. To me the distinction Peterson needs to make, which he never seems to elaborate on (perhaps because he is never asked) is what is reasonable and what is not, and he clearly goes to far when he says all activism is illegitimate....whereas I think a common sense reformation of the all or nothing "oppressor vs oppressed" narrative into people instead advocating for solutions to the problems groups face is the actual real reasonable concern. For example: transgenderism is a real thing, its absolutely fine, and thus people advocating for trans rights and issues are necessary and good....but saying that trans people are hopelessly oppressed by the societal construct of gender conformity as a fundamental form of limit and control by those in power, and that any talk of biological science that may conflict with radical gender theory needs to be shut down as oppressive and transphobic is perhaps not a very reasonable default position that society and the academy should be based around....
You will only fool most idiots.
Not even close. Nice try.
Are you a vampire? Peterson projects way more positive energy than you seem to understand
One of the problems I have, even with this very good criticism of JP, is how the critics follow him along his observations and, when his observations stop, they cannot understand that he hasn't led them to his conclusion, but to a place where they are being forced to make their own based on the observations he's made. This is basic seminar level philosophy. He has conclusions, don't get me wrong, but in certain tricky areas, sometimes one can't make a conclusion, because there's something vital missing, or something extra that leaves a messy remainder, and maybe he doesn't know what, but it's important, and by sharing the knowledge he's put together on a subject, maybe someone else knows the missing piece. Maybe that piece changes everything. That's what a conversation does. That's why conversations are so important.
Why is murder wrong if everything is subjective and relative? I should be allowed to murder my neighbor and take his stuff because he’s oppressing me by being more successful.
Wow
Please try to talk to him. I would do anything to see you have a discussion with Jordan Peterson
Sorry, I was at 16:33, where you said that Peterson attacks "the entirety of the modern left". I don't think that's accurate. I think he just refers to those, within the modern (north-american) left, that espouse the ideas of - and I think I'm being mostly exhaustive here - social constructivism and affirmative action, and generally the whole theorisation those two ideas lean upon. EDIT: at 20:57, you ask what he was implying by stating that biological differences between men and women is relevant concerning the different representation of the sexes in the workplace. The point he was trying to make is that the biological differences are also _in the brain_ . He was saying that women overall desire less to do the things that are necessary to earn more in the workplace, and he was arguing that if that's how women's values align, society and policies have no place telling them what to want. He was also saying that most workplaces (especially the high-risk/high-responsibility high-reward ones) require personality traits that are less prominent in most women, and that since this requirement is very likely a result of the "natural selection" of the free market on companies, pushing for different criteria of selection (besides competitiveness and dedication) could be disastrous, all the more seeing as we have no data that any other workplace behaviour would be at all effective. And obviously he was arguing against the most moronic principle of all, which is equality of outcome, meaning that no matter how effective or productive or innovative or creative someone is, you have to discard them in order to fill your ranks with a token proportion of less prepared individuals belonging to a minority (or women). It doesn't take a genius to realise that if you equalise the salaries and the hirings rather than the education, you will end with crippled companies and, guess what, social injustice. Peterson also argues elsewhere, but not during the Newmann interview, that equality of opportunities is good and auspicable. EDIT II: at 23:35. When Peterson refers to "the West", I think he does it in geopolitical terms. He's not characterising pomo neo-M as if it doesn't belong to "the West", on the contrary, I think he means that they're doing all their nasty stuff to the West because _that's the place_ those ideologies were born. Like the Basilisk vs Hogwarts.
This is the best analysis of Jordan Peterson on YouTube.
After watching the entire video it is clear that ContraPoints is confused about what Jordan Peterson is advocating. Let me try to sum it up: Equality of opportunity is not only good, but highly desirable. Humans differ on far too many dimensions and dividing people along the lines of their skin color, nose length, genitalia, sexual orientation or finger count is equally pointless. Seeing the world or history through the lens of power struggle between arbitrary groups is the definition of Neo Marxism. Any sort of oppressor/oppressed view of the world is Neo Marxist. The West of today has achieved a very fair and balanced society. Any person of any background, skin color, nose length, genitalia, sexual orientation or finger count is equally able to vote, work, travel, go to school or hold up placards protesting the poverty. And so that there is less confusion, the West is the place with these liberties. Rough rule of thumb to define West is to look at the flow of people in the world- ie where people wish to go and live, by their own choice- basically Western style democracies where people can and do vote, there is strong rule of law and people are free to pursue their dream. This makes them rich by definition. They are rich because of these qualities, not in spite of. Now, here is the problem: insisting that some groups are worse off, so that they should have special advantages- is in essence equity doctrine of Neo Marxism. By their logic all people are the same. Society should put weights around the historically good runners so that historically poor runners have equal chance to win. This line of reasoning doesn’t stop there. It is also advocates that some groups should have a head start so that every runner crosses the finish line at the same time. Neo Marxist can rest when everyone is equal in every way. Historically this means everyone is equally poor and starving in the dirt. This is the same doctrine that Communists enacted that has already let to the deaths of millions of people. We should learn from our history and strive to avoid it. According to Jordan Peterson the only true way forward is the Christian way. The individual is sovereign and we should do everything to support and help individuals. Everyone should have equal opportunity, but what they do with it is up them, personally. A random person with different skin color, nose length, genitalia, sexual orientation or finger count should not be treated any differently than any other individual, regardless of their immutable, innate characteristics. Different groups of poeple should not be treated differently either for their detriment (alt right) or their advancement (radical left). Identity politics is equally idiotic and bad. Thank you for reading.
Hilarious. Nicely put. Important to remember Peterson is a depressive, which no doubt desaturates his world view.
Sorry, but what's happened to the comment section?? People are having _civilised_ discussions!! Also the video is hilarious, kudos.
This video above all other media critiques of JP addresses what makes his brand of social commentary so alluring and yet so misleading and dangerous. Kudos for an absolutely brilliantly crafted analysis. Subscribed and looking forward to more liberal rational and fair viewpoints.
This was the funniest dismantling of JP I’ve seen so far. Great work. Can’t wait for your Dave Rubin video
How come every time neoliberalism dresses up in leftist rhetoric, Peterson and his allies take it at its word and falls for the trap... but when an actual trap comes up, he says he is not a fool and will not take appearance for substance? Anyway, political post modernism is basically the defense of all moral and cultural degeneration caused by the development of capitalism, as predicted by not only socialists but also by everyone in the 19th; a defense made using "leftist terminology" with absolutely no actual relation to Marx. But since people like Peterson want Marx to get bad reputation from the action of degenerate bourgeois kids, and since those very kids want to associate with Marx to get, in their context, his good reputation, the farce is maintained by both sides of the play. Otherwise Peterson would have to admit his glorious capitalist patriarchy produced this very degeneracy he despises, including the malicious use of leftist rhetoric to advance their selfish, indolent goals; its simply good marketing, you should recognize standard capitalist practice when you see it. And these bourgeois kids would of course have to accept they are capitalist excrement, not revolutionary soldiers; that they are precisely a weapon used against the working class and not the opposite. They would have to realize they are so fucking bourgeois that even a literal fascist is less "anti-worker" than them. The result? Neoliberalism is pushed by both sides to increase competition and colonize as many spheres as possible with market logic. These kids with rehearsed pseudo-leftist rhetoric make sure it flows into sexuality and gender relations while people like peterson make sure government is only removed from the picture after it has done the dirty work of corporations. Neoliberal interests making universities absolute garbage, but just because this garbage is dressed up in leftist rhetoric you are stupid enough to believe it is true. Peterson and his people believe "the left" is responsible for destroying everything that is sacred, when everyone in the 19th century saw it happening back then and knew it was a result of the capitalism-democracy pair (which are one and the same in their contemporary versions). ps - neoliberalism is not abolishing the state in favor of markets, but the use of the state to further the interests of the market and make it more competitive, as is precisely advocated by "leftists" when they call for affirmative action (and it goes without saying affirmative action is still meritocratic and does not break with capitalist ideology at all... and even worse, everyone knows who are the blacks, the migrants and the women who take the affirmative action spots that are created to help innocent victims : bourgeois blacks, bourgeoisimmigrants, bourgeois women, and so on. This is how "the right" side of neoliberalism became more pro worker than its left side: the right side didnt have enough clout to keep pushing more liberalism with its rhetoric, so its left side took over for a while. And so on and so on
I stopped watching when she straight up lied about him and how he came to fame. It had nothing to do with transgender people and everything to do with forcing speech. Those people can't control their feelings so they resort to wanting to control others' behavior.
I often find myself agreeing with Peterson. It was nice to see a logical (non-sensationalist) counterpoint to his claims. If only people could always talk like this.
You've earned a sub
You're a dude right?
What do you have against Led Zeppelin? Stairway to Heaven is a timeless masterpiece, don't @ me. And you did *not* just call Levi-Strauss a hippie
Honest question, is this person a dude?
JP fan here. Absolutely great response to/critisism of his philosophy. Thank you so much for making this video :)
RORTY!!!!
"So much for the tolerant Jacobins" is my new fave quote.
Oh and nice homage to Hume in the last few lines of this!
Every bit of progress the beetles music ever made, the left has completely destroyed! Giving up humanity just so y'all can label yourselves to fit in! So sad and the reason why trump is president now! #HumansArentLabels
"Having a Bath with Jordan Peterson" sounds like a Fry & Laurie sketch.
You remind me of the kids that constantly grouped together and tried to bully me all my life, you bullies will never win, just like the nazis and Communist lost, so will you. Oh and no matter how many surgeries you have, when born a man, will always be a man. You will never change your genetic DNA! Get over yourselves!
I definitely think that people should be able to express themselves however they see fit, individualism is a key component to our Western ideals. The problem arises when people care more about a forced outcome instead of opportunity. I think it is telling that you are a supporter of socialism/Marxism. It is not good enough to live and let live, others must conform to your idea of fairness, be that economic or gender related. Looking at history, it is very clear that forcing the ideal of equity in economic outcomes only leads to oppression and misery. Do you honestly expect that forcing such a simple solution on a very complex subject like economics will result in utopia? Because if you do, join the millions of other that had to learn the hard way. In the same way you believe that forcing your ideals about gender will lead to harmony in our treatment of each other. Why is it not enough that we label those with XY chromosomes men, and those with XX chromosome as women? However you choose to present yourself beyond that is up to you, and you free to do so. Instead, you compel speech, you attempt to back up your claims with pseudo science such as a "gendered brain". Even the trans movement can't agree at all on what gender is and how to define it. It is reasonable then to use scientific knowledge to define male and female based on chromosomal arrangement, and the rest is left up to the individual. I think you will find people are a more tolerant than you give them credit for, it is the strong armed tactics of compelled speech and the demand for the world to bend to your scientifically baseless ideas which is causing all the issues.
This was great. Thank you for making it.
Postmodernism is an intellectual framework. In other words, it is bullshit for people who don't actually have to work.
This is so funny how you actually take pride in misconstruing everything the guy is saying. You added comedy and satire to make it easier to lie about the actual words that came out of his mouth and misrepresent what he said. You're doing the same thing Cathy Newman did.
Well, isn't this all so adorable! Sit down with him and tell it to his face. Others have...and they've been fed their buttocks with a nice side dish and dessert selection.
Wow this was horrible lmao. At least you have like-minded followers. Why I left the left.
That's a dude, isn't it?
This is by far the best response I've seen to Jordan Peterson's material. Thank you for putting in the time to do this. I enjoyed watching the video. It did seem to misrepresent Jordan Peterson's positions in a number of ways, albeit through presenting only a limited subset of his views, and not through misrepresenting his positions (aside from intentionally humorous jabs, such as saying Peterson equates transgender activism to Stalinist policies; it's much more accurate to say that forced speech leads to Stalinist policies due to limiting free thought). He agrees that one might find different outcomes for each gender and each race, and offers that we should also consider age, birthplace, the income and education of parents, disability, and an infinite number of additional metrics that end up drawing a line between each person individually. He argues frequently that one can categorize a person in an infinite number of ways, so why stop at the few popular ones? Individualist philosophy derives from this observation, and Jordan Peterson's philosophy does the same. As far as racism and sexism goes, Peterson disagrees with addressing these types of problems through government policies, since one would need an infinite number of laws to enforce all of the different ways in which each of the infinite number of categorizations might oppress each other. He argues rather that we ought to pass legislation based solely on the oppression of individuals, which includes all races, all genders, and all other categorizations. This has the effect of removing oppression simultaneously from the infinite number of categorizations. Peterson vehemently opposes activism and legislation about power struggles based on arbitrary, binary categories, since the outcome of such battles often leads to violence. This is where he draws similarities between modern identity politics and Marxism, which relies on class struggle to overthrow existing governments. Fundamental to Marxism is the idea that each class in society thinks using incompatible logic, and that it's impossible for one class to understand the logic of another, which ultimately leads to revolution. This same type of flawed reasoning happens frequently in identity politics -- i.e. "You're a man; you could never understand a woman's struggles" -- which serves only to rewind formal logic and modern society by a couple thousand years. Pitting groups against one another while simultaneously arguing that neither group will ever understand one another inevitably ends in violence. Fundamental to all of Peterson's arguments is the idea that an increase in violence is always an undesirable outcome. He studied to find the answer to a simple question: how do you stop conflicting ideologies from destroying the earth? It's important to frame his arguments in this context, so as not to lose sight of the intent of his arguments. All of his public speaking intends to elevate individual thought, decrease individual oppression, and ultimately reduce violence. Thank you again for the video. Looking forward to watching more of them. (Also, this is an unedited brain dump, so I apologize if I haven't done a point justice. Feel free to lambast me, and I'll provide a better response. Edit: I just edited a typo, so it's technically edited, but not for content issues.)
"No one on the left denies that there are some natural hierarchies" You are straw manning Peterson while claiming he's straw manning the left. You've completely ignored the context of the biological explanation for patriarchy. You're not addressing the point he's making at all. You're just saying he's not making this point or that point which implies his point isn't a point at all like those other points would be. So, you excuse yourself from having to answer his point because he didn't make points you want to address. This doesn't suggest the points he's making are correct, but it certainly fails completely to address anything he has actually sad.
I don't get why Mickey Mouse is so mad at JP, he's always talking about his movies.
The desperation of the left to combat anyone who deviates from their rigid philosophy system is truly pathetic.
You stated that Peterson said men and women are biologically different and didn't argue against that. You said it was stated in the context of a conversation about the under-representation of women in government, but you don't show that context or show him not connecting the two topics together and of course you don't show him connecting them, that would suggest your point was wrong. You fail to grasp the implications of the differences in biology as an explanation for the differences in pursuits such as positions in government. It's pretty straight forward. I'm sorry you feel someone has to connect the dots for you in order for you to understand them. "So, how do you respond to this? Either... (false dilemma) you fall into the trap of arguing against the obviously true statement or you have to guess at what he's implying." No, you can ask him what the biological differences have to do with under-representation in government or whether he thinks there is a way to overcome the biological differences to provide for a more accurate representation. Based on the difference being biological we'd be hard pressed and maybe even in the wrong ethically to try and force human nature to change to our very short-sighted will. If you guess what he's implying by putting words in his mouth, it shouldn't leave your speechless to find out that he will accuse you of misrepresenting his ideas. That's what happened with the interview, in your opinion, based on your theory, which is rooted in fallacy. Your talents like far from intellectual analysis and discourse and closer to reinforcing bias and sounding more confident than you should. I don't mean that as an insult because it is highly effective even if I disagree with your points.
Jordan Daddyson, I mean Daddy Jordanson...Daddy Peterson? Daddy?
Oh well, it was a nice try.
Could it be that Peterson and other talking heads from the alt-right are actually trying to appropriate post-modern critical theory in the way Christians appropriated aspects of pagan cultures? As an American Libertarian, with a background of Objectivist philisophy, I see more of a trend along these lines.
You’re just salty that you’re mentally ill
5 minutes and 16 seconds in and your whole point is to straw man Peterson? I expected way too much after reading the reactions to this video. You've claimed the problem is localized but the response is national. The evidence suggests that is incorrect. "We don't tell people what to do. We tell them what not to do" equating advice on how to be a responsible and productive adult to totalitarianism seems illogical. "When it's okay to criticize things" Contra says is Peterson's rule but that doesn't sound like a rule, where as the left absolutely does demand you never criticize minorities, children, or Muslims. Your arguments are weak. That doesn't mean anything Peterson says or does is right, but making such a huge claim as you did at the beginning of the video requires big evidence and this is just polite trash talking a deception.
My new favourite youtuber! :)
Nearly 4 and a half minutes before anything you say is relevant. The problem, in Contra's words, is that all this life coaching is "basically just a Trojan horse for reactionary political agenda" (cut) "Peterson advocates an ethics of self help, not merely as a guide to private life, but as a replacement for progressive politics, which he characterizes as totalitarian and evil" (cut to clip where the interviewer says, "There is no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there?" To which Peterson answers, "Why not? The philosophy that is guiding their utterances is the same philosophy" This is not an example of him characterizing them as totalitarian or evil. It is him asking "Why not?" and then comparing them as if to be the example and go against the idea that the interviewer can have total control over him and force him not to--likewise progressives can't police thoughts. "Peterson doesn't use the word[sic] progressive politics because [hearsay] that doesn't sound scary enough. His new scarier word is postmodern neomarxism." Scary is subjective, I'm concerned with the accuracy of it, and Contra didn't say it wasn't accurate. "We have to be careful not to confuse... (introduces a different concept to be LESS confusing)" and then claims a conspiracy theory based definition of the new concept before promptly suggesting the two are comparable which leads back to, if you can compare "postmodern neomarxism" to "Nazi conspiracy theory" why would it be though not allowable to compare "the utterances of a trans activist" with "the utterances of Mao" (cut) Okay. 5 minutes in and no points made by Peterson have been addressed. Neither has there been supporting evidence for the idea that Peterson's life coaching is a Trojan horse for reactionary political agenda. Nor is there anything suggesting that Peterson uses the term "postmodern neomarxism" because it is scarier than "progressive". Which, based on Mao's "great leap forward" which killed 45 Million people in 4 years, progressive is a plenty scary term.
I just want to express that despite having a worldview aligning more closely to Peterson it is awesome seeing someone make a real intellectual rebuttal to him. Everything I have seen prior simply dismissed him as a racist or a nazi and just assumed that was enough to show what his positions were wrong which, for me at least, only further bolstered his arguments. From someone who is on the other side of the isle; Keep it up
What the hell is this dude talking about? lol.
Hmm. Side note, just occurred to me, if this was Sept 2017 or earlier you prolly would have been topless in the bathtub. Anyways... Most young people today, particularly the ones who wasted their parents money on a college education, are pretty much text book definitions of fascists. You've pretty much all been indoctrinated. Could not be more obvious. One must either think like you do or they're simply bad and/or should be silenced. Anyone who is perceptive can see this change in our culture. The very foundation of fascism: suppression of opposition and control of thought. Or, ya know, the #Metoo movement, for example. ;) The problem is, you all have been so brainwashed into it and practice fascism so frequently that it's not a socio-political theory to you. It's just the way your brains work at this point. Ummm.... friggin...yikes?. :\ My question is.. how long will it last? My guess, it's almost over.
Is this a tranny??
I'm a Peterson fan, but I love your work and I think the video was made really well and I'll be listening to JP's arguments with you sitting on my shoulder (whispering 'daddy'). You're hilarious!!
Damn you sure showed that stupid Yale professor
This is an amazing video. I can hardly imagine the time and thought put into it. Thank you!
While I agree particularly with your last point about reducing or summing up "the west" to those specific ideals is shortsighted and incorrect, I disagree with your dismantling of "Post-modern neo-marxism". It is somewhat irrelevant that such an idea is contradictory when looking at both terms and ideals separate. No doubt that there is an inherent contradiction, as even Peterson is aware. What is more important is how such ideas are applied. And in this sense, I actually find "post-modern neo-marxist" to be a far more accurate blanket term than say, cultural Marxism, because it is more apt in describing certain grouping of ideas, all of which can be accurately summed as offshoots of critical theory. So the reason why Postmodern neo marxist is an apt description in describing a number of different groups who on the outset seem unrelated, is because they tend to see the world and society through a Marxist lens of oppressor vs oppressed, and filter it through the post-modern idea that truth is dictated by those in power, and those truths are there to hold those with power at the top while subjugating those who dont have power and keeping them at the bottom. The different iterations play out like this: oppressor group vs oppressed group in BLANK power structure borgiasse vs proletariat in the power structure of capitalism whites vs POC in the power structure of white supremacy men vs women in power structure of patriarchy colonizers vs colonized in the power structure of colonialization cis vs LGBTQ in the power structure of heteronormativity it's also good to keep in mind the Peterson doesnt actually accuse the left as a whole of this type of thinking, but what he deems the "radical left". And that while there may potentially be some truths to such type of analysis, it ultimately reduces many of the worlds problems to certain vague causes themselves, while allowing for a tunnel vision/confirmation bias that allows one to ignore many other potential variables that may influence people and solely look at the worlds problems in a univariate way. As such the idea of white supremacy and patriarchy being the cause of racial and gender disparities, when in reality, the problem is far more complex. Such ways are thinking are very dogmatic and self serving, using a kind of circular reasoning to justify itself and discredit its opponents. For example, the idea of privilege is used to shutdown conversation, and that immutible characteristics of identity informs ones logic and politics. Where we can say to each other, "you only believe this because you are BLANK" there by discrediting someone not on the validity or merit of their arguments, but by things they cant control, like the color of their skin, the makeup of their genitals, and where they were born. And that is a dangerous path to go down. One we have seen throughout history to justify a number of atrocities including slavery and the holocaust. Such is the potential dangers of Identity politics and the tribalism that tends to stem from it.
How long until that high suicide rate for trannies catches up to this one?
I'm here to listen and learn. I've only heard Peterson's side. So I'm 100% biased. I don't think anything Peterson says are things he thought up, it's things he's observed and witnessed through reading or observation. Reality IS. Everything else is second to that? (still loved the content as a first time watcher!)
As an unapologetic JBP fanboy I would like to congratulate you on your criticism of Peterson. It's funny, well-thought, and - importantly - not at all disingenuous. You don't go in for ad hominems either, and your mickey-taking is never nasty. You make good points, and even though I remain undiminished in my regard for Peterson and his work, you have given me the space to look at him in a different light. I'm grateful for that space. Just brilliant. Subscribed.
I don't agree with everything you say but I agree with some of it. Thank you for existing, definitely excited to hear more content :)
What an utter disappointment. I got directed here to what was supposed to be a thoughtful critique of Jordan Peterson, and I find little more than snark, mischaracterization, and dissembling. Had you done any research, you might have found Peterson precisely explaining what he means by "postmodern neo-Marxists" in instances like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDRgMUoEvcg&t=1069s. Is his point not valid: Why, if you scratch a Postmodernist, do you ultimately find a Marxist? Stephen Hicks examines why, curiously, all of the leading Postmodernists have only come from the far left at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BGbHG63x8w&t=4317s. Since Postmodernism embraces radical skepticism and relativism while rejecting absolutes http://anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Postmodernism%20and%20Its%20Critics, it cannot claim to be a superior perspective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we6cwmzhbBE&t=479s. As the philosopher Richard Tarnas contended, postmodernism "cannot on its own principles ultimately justify itself any more than can the various metaphysical overviews against which the postmodern mind has defined itself." Worse, Postmodernism superficially eschews value judgments and yet makes its very own. "Pauline Rosenau is undoubtedly right that postmodernism, despite being difficult to define, has two faces, which she calls affirmative and skeptical. The affirmative postmodernist rhetoric includes multiculturalism, tolerance, communitarianism, an ethics of openness and inclusion, and the 'salad bowl' model of ethnic relations that is supposed to have replaced the old-fashioned 'melting pot' and assimilationist models." https://books.google.com/books?id=vUVclj5IpV0C&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=%22Pauline+Rosenau+is%22&source=bl&ots=uVukA4Gmtm&sig=p4TtsCodizYm6RnEtyCj7Rr9zUc&hl=ja&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwwbqTpcHbAhUDHZQKHWkbDz0Q6AEIVTAH#v=onepage&q=%22Pauline%20Rosenau%20is%22&f=false These inherent contradictions are why when Postmodernists make value judgments or policy prescriptions they inevitably default to Marxism. Perhaps if you had even attempted to understand and address Peterson's argument rather than mocking it you might have had something interesting to say.
thank you . Plz marry me.
The problem with the trans-gender language laws isn't the language, most people will be happy to call you whatever you wish if asked politely. The problem is the threat of punitive action that comes with it. The same problem would occur if government decided we should help old ladies cross the street, so whats the harm in slapping people with fines/jail sentences for not helping old ladies cross the street? It's the threat, not the request.
You’ve misunderstood Peterson. His claims are quite clear: the left has devolved into identity politics, end of. That’s it. There’s no other claim. It’s basic, blunt English. The left, if it continues along the path of identity politics, will slit its own throat. He asks his listeners to contend with that. In this video, you failed to contend with that. So in your next video, do it. Very simple, very plain English. That is all.
there are absolutely people on the left that claim that all heirachies are a result of patriachal power games, im related to a few who also happen to be effeminate west hating baby boomer hippies, if these people didnt exist and there wasnt any truth to it, he wouldnt be so popular, with intellectuals as well as the laymen.
where are these "intellectual discussions" happening on the left? this is one of the many problems associated with the left atm and one of many reasons why ex-leftists like myself have been drawn to jordan peterson, where are these intellectuals on the left? like actual intelletuals with credibility that wont play identidy politics, or post modernist games??? the oter poin i'd hghlight is that everyone jordan Peterson puts under the umbrella of "post modern neo-marxist" which you claim are at odds with each other, are most definitely united in oppositin of peterson, even if their opposition stems mostly from outrage or embarrassment!!
this could have been a good video. but directly after condemming "his scary choice of words" .....using "the nazi conspuiracytheory" as a description is exactly why the left is loosing the support of the people.
Going to be honest, I got somewhat peeved right after you said why he was against bill C-16. The fact that you think it's okay to bend his message to whatever fits your dialogue is, quite frankly, obnoxious. He is very much in favor of equal rights, for everyone in that case. It is very, VERY, clear that he opposed the bill because it called for the necessity of calling someone by their preffered pronouns. While it is obviously the polite thing to do to call somebody by their preferred pronouns (and he's even mentioned in interviews that he has no problem doing so), it has NEVER been required by the full force of the law. And isn't that a scary thing? At a basic level, telling people that they have to say something, and if they don't, they're going to jail. That's fucking insane, and is entirely comparable to the regime under Stalin. Finally, I really don't like how people always paint him as though he's referring to all of the left when he talks about post-modernism. He is only referring to the radical left, the people who focus solely on Identity Politics (which over time, has certainly come to embody more of the left). I'm a liberal myself and I can see this as being obvious... I think people associate him with the right because those are the only people that will let him speak, and then talk with him without trying to denounce his ideas with strawman tactics. And I know the point you made about Identity Politics and post-modernism... I just don't think we should be taking it so lightly when there are clear examples in society of how they're being abused. Of course, I think you also made some decent points, especially about the dangers of backlash against some of the localization lgbtq activism, as some of his followers definitely don't understand that he's not denouncing the lgbtq community by saying that some of the things they've asked for are absurd. However, I hope you were joking when you decided to leave out those insanely crucial details. It's really not good.
I do want to address your question, this is a wonderful dialogue and well, I await the link when you're awake for it, if you wish to go through that trouble. The intent of the law, on the macro level, is to further a goal of equal rights. The right to marry, the right to not be denied service from a public business, the right to not be denied employment because of something that has nothing to do with the job. What use is the amendment? Well, people with specific gender identities and specific gender expressions were/are being denied equal rights. For example, in Nova Scotia, there was a lot of things that almost certainly were employment discrimination, because people were trans, or in other words, their gender identity and gender expression did not match the gender they were considered at their birth based on physical sex: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/transgender-unemployed-business-jobs-discrimination-1.3740571 These people had the right to file a complaint of hiring discrimination, they were being denied not based on skills or experience, but based on what their gender is. But they did not because it seemed hard to prove under the legal system. Canadian law did not mention that gender identity and gender expression; therefore, it is harder to prove that what happened happened. There was not as much concrete in the law dealing with this sort of thing. Adding r "gender identity and gender expression" to the list is going to increase the likelihood that people will report cases of discrimination, because the law is in clear language, no bones about it, declaring that illegal. This will make the legal process easier for the people who on the receiving end of this kind of discrimination. I personally would love for a lot of elements of Canadian law to be better worded, with more specifics, c-16 among them because, ultimately what first goes to court is going to end up being very influential case law. I think there is fault in the lack of specificity to be found in c-16. I think it's also good to be happy that this bill exists though, cause it's just kind of shitty for people to not be hired because they no longer identify as the gender they once did (in my humble opinion). Edit: I posted this before I saw the second comment you posted for me. Thank you for posting it. it doesn't really change anything I say. I agree with Peterson's criticism of how vague the law is. I do not think that is the only relevant comment on the law however, because while we do not know how case law will shake out (hopefully in the way that best allows people who are being assholes to be punished and those who are not trying to be assholes to not be punished. I am not a Canadian judge nor an expert on them, I'm not sure what will happen). We do know that discrimination is an issue and I do think it is positive that it is being addressed.
Okay, so get this. I found this after doing some more research on what Peterson was referring to in regards to the bill. Peterson said the C16 itself was going to be interpreted by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Here are some quotes from the OHRC website: "Harassment is a form of discrimination. It can include sexually explicit or other inappropriate comments, questions, jokes, name-calling, images, email and social media, transphobic, homophobic or other bullying, sexual advances, touching and other unwelcome and ongoing behaviour that insults, demeans, harms or threatens a person in some way. Assault or other violent behaviour is also a criminal matter. Trans people and other persons can experience harassing behaviour because of their gender identity or expression (gender-based harassment) and/or their sex (sexual harassment)." "Gender expression is how a person publicly presents their gender. This can include behaviour and outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice. A person’s chosen name and pronoun are also common ways of expressing gender." So, yes, "Harassment is a form of discrimination", which can include something as simples as "questions" on "email and social media" that so much as "insult" a person. Gender expression is defined as "outward appearance such as dress, hair, make-up". So, yes, you can be charged for harassing someone for commenting on their fashion choices. Overall, it just seems so vague and easy to misinterpret, and I think that's what Peterson was worried about. The idea of free speech isn't supposed to include speech that threatens harm upon someone else, but it most certainly includes being rude or insulting. I don't want anyone to feel harassed, but come one, this really seems like it has the potential to infringe on free speech. Hopefully this cleared things up a little, as I myself was being quite vague to begin with.
No no, you are right, I was merely misrepresenting a basic idea of what Peterson was saying to just get my point across, there is no actual mention of pronouns. I have listened to many lectures of Peterson but I had failed to read Bill C-16 up to this point, so I am in the wrong. However, there is the mention of gender identity or expression. I believe Peterson is opposed to this being added because he doesn't believe that the idea of gender identity, at least by the lgbtq community, has been based in any extensive scientific research. That and the fact that it seems to be growing every day. How can you base a law on something that hasn't found any kind of stability? Yes perhaps he seemed to be overreactive, but he's made his point clear on that as well (It's very late at night and perhaps I'll attach a link to his opinion tomorrow). I'm honestly very new to this whole conversation, so I feel as though I'm quite ill-informed, but overall I'm learning a lot. Thanks for the dialogue!
You bring up a lot of points but I feel like dealing with the one that is unequivocally false, and that is that the bill "called for the necessity of calling someone by their preferred pronouns" to which it did no such thing. It added "gender identity and gender expression" to a list of things you can't discriminate with that included race, colour, disability, ect. And it also said that like those other things, discrimination against gender identity and gender expression will be taken into account when considering related criminal charges, ie, hate crimes are to be regarded as such. Here you go, feel free to read the text that went through parliament and was approved by the queen: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent (not that she has power, just, the rubber stamp). There is not a mention of pronouns at all. That, will come down to case law. I am no expert on Canadian case law. The people who pushed this bill did mention that they wanted fines for cases of misgendering (although they did not advise jailtime in those cases) but I have no idea how much that will affect various judge's opinions or rulings. I suspect the only misgendering that is unequivocally not allowed is if you're in a government job, and you deliberately misgender someone with the intent of making it harder for them to get government services. And I highly doubt there are going to be penalties if you misgender someone at a party and they feel too awkward all evening to not correct you.
The worst video i've seen in a long
MY LORDS. LADIES. AND THOOOSE THAT LIETH BETWIXT.
Why are you so HOT, Contrapoints? You, more than anyone else, has made me question my straightness. Keep it up, you turn me on big time!
Let a 1:40 min ad run for you natalie
First off, let me just say that I thoroughly enjoyed this criticism of Jordan Peterson. As a former philosophy graduate student, and Peterson fan, I thought this video is one of the most fair (and entertaining) criticisms of Peterson online two date. I just want to say that I think what Peterson is referring to as Post-modern Neo Marxists is exactly what the nonsensical name implies. I think he uses it as term for people who, unlike you, do not really know what they are talking about most of the time. I know plenty of people who use their post-modern influences education to emotionally cherry pick their beliefs on a given topic. And more often than not, when the topic is capitalism they are not for it. I think Post-modern Neo-Marxism is a perfect, although ironic, way of describing that way of thinking (or non-thinking) and the societal implications they produce. Wondering what your thoughts on that are.
Wow... I just found this channel. Not only are you gorgeous and stylish, you’re hilarious and highly intelligent too. Insta sub.
Is...is it a man? I'm confused.
A response? A response to what? There isn't actually much Jordan Peterson in this video.
This is pretty good but you're taking ideas from Romanticism and calling them products of The Enlightenment when they came after that time period. It's not that big of a deal tho
I appreciate the effort you put into this video, but the arguments presented, though well thought out, dont win me over.
For a deep dive into what a neo-fascist J. Peterson is see the following: https://theviolentink.blog/2018/02/07/flirting-with-holocaust-denial-on-the-paleo-conservative-and-dangerous-ignorance-of-jordan-peterson/ and: https://theviolentink.blog/2017/12/16/time-flies-like-an-arrow-fruit-flies-like-a-banana-on-the-knuckle-headedness-of-jordan-peterson/
It's weird watching this the 30th time but with the sound on this time and realizing it was about Jordan Peterson
I am a huge Jordan Peterson fan but this video isn't terrible
Heavy fake up. Blue and purple are pretty colors. Especially the led’s in my computer cabinet. And the lights in her room. But pretty colors doesn’t make pretty a girl. Americans wear navy fake up from eye lash to eye brow. Clowns.without the red ball nose. Or blue and purple nose.
You are beautiful, and even with the "Oh the dysphoria..." statement it took me a couple videos until I realized you are trans. While I love Peterson and the good his ideas have done for my life I have to say that this is not only a good 'rebuttal' to my man JP, but probably the best I've seen.
Read the book and what he actually says, not just snippets.
Hi. Can we be friends?
My side will fight to the death to make sure you can say whatever thoughts you have, even if I personally don't agree. Your side is willing to use the power of the state to stifle my thoughts if you don't agree. I'm comfortable being on the right side of history on this one
I am interested in evidence that the left is using the power of the state to stifle your thoughts, or my thoughts, or anyone's thoughts. Of course, Peterson concerns himself with this point, as do I, in regards to C-16. Forcing pronouns. Not the greatest thing to stifle, but that would certainly be stifling. Too bad the law does not mention pronouns Here is the law that was passed: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/royal-assent Full text, it's rather short, because it just added "gender identity and gender expression" to a list that included "race" and "disability" and "national origin." It's no more repressive than current Canadian speech law, which is, legally written quite oddly, but in practice (through the courts and case law) have been quite permissive throughout the past 50 years with one notable exception. In 1970, there was the FLQ crises, where there was a lot of rumors in the press concerning an outbreak of pro-Quebec independence violence (by a fringe minority for that cause, but it did lead to actual death). After Quebec's provincial labor minister, Pierre Laporte, was kidnapped and killed, the national liberal party whip (the liberal party in Canada was then and is Canada's centre-right party, although it'd be considered left wing in the United States) Louise-Philippe Lacroix accused the press of causing his death through rumors and there was real concern that there would be censorship that, could have happened. The War Powers act was in affect. So um, in conclusion? Well, I'm not fond of Canadian speech law. It is messy and vague and it does not restrict people in practice but it quite could. But I also am not going to pretend that this is the biggest free speech concern that I have to worry about. Nor am I convinced that the left wing is about to take our free speech rights, and if I find any of my left wing colleagues trying to legally restrict speech, well, then fights will be fought.
Oh my...
Well that was weird. And kinda stupid.
you fuckin' rock!!!! \m/ \m/
communism is not going to win, just give it up
1. Classical marxism is focused on class struggle. Neo-marxism focuses on all other forms of systematic oppression (race, gender, sexuality, etc.), which overlaps so much with contemporary identity politics that they are practically equivalent. JP often notes the contradiction between postmodernism and neo-marxism, he just uses the terms as an imperfect catch-all for the illiberal (authoritarian) left. Marxism and postmodernism are very Western ideas. JP isn't defending Western civilization so much as he's defending Western liberalism. There's a fundamental contradiction between liberty and equality when political theory becomes political practice. JP and real liberals choose liberty over equality. The radical left chooses equality at the expense of liberty. 2. JP doesn't worry much about a giant leftist conspiracy to destroy Western civilization. He's very worried about smaller leftist conspiracies to defame and silence people like Lindsey Shepard and James Damore. Based on what Jonathan Pageau says, JP is also very concerned about what kind of reaction "postmodern neo-marxism" will provoke amongst the right. His preoccupation with revolutionary authoritarianism on the left is very much an attempt to pre-empt reactionary authoritarianism from the right. 3. JP is a (late modern) Pragmatist in the vein of William James. You mentioned Richard Rorty, who is a postmodern Pragmatist. Both forms of Pragmatism would admit to a kind of relativism when it comes to language and other symbols. The question is whether the linguistic/symbolic relativism is merely subjective, or if it actually reflects an objective reality. The late modernists would say Truth (and progress) exists, therefore symbolic relativism is superficial and something to get beyond with skepticism, empiricism, and other tools. JP reasons his way into this position using morality: 1) evil exists (Solzhenitsyn), 2) therefore good exists, 3) therefore an objective standard of progress exists. Richard Rorty and other postmodernists take skepticism too far and consequently can't get past the subjective.
The Southern Poverty Lobster Centre has highlighted this as anti-Lobster hate speech video.
"Reason truth and power these are the types of topics i don't care about" .....yet here you are "most of his audience are young men" ..No. His contention with the legislation in Canada has to do with free speech, not transgender people, this is a strawman argument. 7:10 His "rules for life" are not the same as a government legislating speech. If for example the government took his book and mandated citizens to follow it, it would be just as fascist as the government telling you what to say. 14:20 sexism.
To answer your question on why lobsters are relevant. Pregnancy takes longer time than the production of sperm, therefore women will be the bottleneck for reproduction and men are going to line up. So women can be picky with who they choose. Out of this comes male competition for status and sucess. How socessful a man is with women is correlated with his socio economic status at 0,5 while there is no such corralation for women. Lobsters may not have cereers but its still a competition for status. And men tend to value career more than spending time with family. Thats not just because norms and socialisation. Its also because the differance in incentive structure that arises out of biological differences. Women can ofcourse still want a successful career and a high income for other reasons but we cant just assume that if we take away some crooked socialisation men and women will have the same priorities. Newman said at one point in the interview, but you're going to put all those hurdles in my way. This is a conspiracy that just because there are more men at the top they must be working together against women by putting hurdles in their way. Can the lobsters be used to justify all inequalities? I think the point of the lobster analogy is just to say hierarchies are not created by capitalism or men deciding a few thousand years ago to work against women to keep power for themselves. But there can ofcourse be bias and discrimination but you have to show the evidence for that, but you cant say just because there is a wage gap then there must be discrimination. Yes it might not always be clear what Jordan means but If Newan didnt see the relevance of the lobsters she could have just said, I dont anderstand why lobsters are relevant to human hierarhies can you explain in what way they are similar? You dont have to guess, or project what he is implying, you can just ask. Thats what Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin would do and there is no problems of understanding in the conversation he has with open minded people.
This video is fantastic
You should do a video on Ben Shapiro.
she??? are you all on drugs?
This is only my second ContraPoints video and I LOVE HER
the 70s porn music lol
Debate JP in real time por favor.
when petterson rails against postmodernists he sounds just like a postmodernist...
I'd like to preface my praise with the fact that I don't agree with you that it is all relative. I believe in morality and ethics, and not just outcomes. I can not philosophically defend that position (yet), but that position is the central reason why I disagree with marxism. However, the purpose of my comment here is to thank you for this fantastic video. Very entertaining, and educational. I really appreciated finally hearing a legitimate critique of Jordan Peterson, and this is it. You're great!
Well balance review.
Did not intend to watch the whole thing, but it was just too good. Kudos. I did have one thought. (Apologies if someone has already tried this in the *many* comments.) I was convinced by your argument that 'postmodern neo-marxism' as a view is incoherent. But I'm wondering if a committed Petersonian mightn't respond that that's grist for his mill. That the view is at odds with itself is only further evidence that the people postmodern neo-marxists themselves are mistaken. Point being that there's a difference between stating/labeling someone's underlying philosophy and assessing whether that it is coherent. You've done a great job showing that they have an incoherent worldview--and that's precisely why we should reach for the alternative, whatever that is. So sayeth the Petersonian. I mean, I'm kinda cherry-picking here, and I can think of a bunch of things you might say. It was just a thought.
This is FANTASTIC. Thank you so much. xx
Please be my new best friend.
You're hilarious and I wish you were right. I don't have time to comment on the whole video, but Peterson knows full well that there is a contradiction between postmodernism and Marxism's grand narrative. He has interesting stuff to say about this. Again, it seems like most of his critics don't actually understand him.
Interesting video. Well done. I'll subscribe
Epic video!!! Yes, there are some bits that are sloppy (and the faux English accent hurts my ears), but hey, this has got to be the most content-rich and intelligent youtube vid on the Culture Wars I had ever watched. And yeah, the flair. You are very very very good... I just hope that people actually listen and engage.
This is so lovely.
It's funny that one of the best arguments from the left actually comes from a man masquerading as a woman. So I guess men are the best.
You do realize bill C-16 literally infringes the freedom of speech right? Jordan never said he wouldn't call someone by the pronoun they prefer. In fact he clearly stated that he does refer to trans people he knows by their preferred pronoun. However he refuses to let the government dictate what he can and cannot say. He talks about how that's a dangerous doctrine. I'm tired of people trying to demonize or misconstrue what he says.
Also all of Jordan's rules, he doesn't want placed into law. Unlike how the left wants to force us to use certain pronouns if we don't were fined. If we refuse to pay the fine they have to jail us. If we refuse to go to jail they will kill us. It's all because we refuse to say what they wrote into law that we have to. This video is the same as all the race baiters and terribly violent left wing individuals. Like saying you can't say the n word is fair. Or saying that I can't bully or harass you calling you slurs against trans people is fair. However you saying I have to call you but the pronoun you choose when I don't know you is completely unfair, unjust, and all around just wrong. It's like me saying if you don't refer to me as him I will have you arrested. That's absolutely ridiculous...
Just because you are an emotional cripple, more fragile than a Faberge egg, doesn't mean you will be allowed to run rampant using your wounds as weapons trying to beat others into submission. You should take Dr. Peterson's advice to clean up your room. Heal yourself first. A wounded healer can only pass on their disease others.
Good video, but I need to make the point that just because Jordan Peterson's characterisation of "the left" as being a contradictive mish-mash of Marxism and post-modernism would be logically inconsistent, it doesn't make him wrong... It just means that most leftists are intellectual hypocrites. For example I know one fellow who is both a member of the socialist alliance party which is a Marxist political group, meanwhile he's also a university scholar focusing on post modern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida. Therefore, Jordan Peterson's characterisation of the left as neo Marxist post modernists seems spot on in my personal observations and experiences
JBP step 3
What's so unreasonable about getting your life in order before criticizing shit... The left including contra just hate him cause they refuse to acknowledge natural hierarchies....
the biggest problem with the left is that they think theyre intellegent but theyre SO damn stupid. i wish you all understood how crazy you drive normal people
Thomas Buchovecky pretty much. just complete nonsense. lol. they selectively, intentionally, and deceitfully overlook facts and feign mistreatment whenever possible. Emotional immaturity combined with lunatic level opinions on the way things should be.
Meaningless drivel.
Offering people optional guidance isn't telling them how to live. Whereas forcing people to use gender pronouns is telling people how to live.
As soon as I heard the words "what Peterson actually means" I knew in was about to witness a strawman doing mental gymnastics. That's where I stopped the video and gave it a downvote.
Kronky Pooh I know this is out of no where but why do people gotta be so harsh about Peterson’s book?
Marrothefirst Jordan said he'd call people what they want to be called. At his own will, if the individual hasn't caused problems
"Yes, that's maybe a thing, but why on earth would you call it Postmodern Neo-Marxism?" The near-complete rejection of universality is the postmodern part. The narrative that the world is best construed as class struggle between self-serving identity groups is the neo-Marxist part. It makes sense to me. What word would you use to denote the idea that objectivity is impossible and people tend to oppress one another through group dynamics? I think Peterson's choice of words is fine.
I think I agree with the general thrust of your point. But I also think ContraPoints definitely has a point. "...when Peterson says Postmodern Neo-Marxist he's talking about a way of thinking that rejects universality while simultaneously emphasizing the idea that people tend to be tribal and self-serving." Yes, that's maybe a thing--but why on earth would you call it Postmodern Neo-Marxism? If that's the view, the label just sounds like an empty dog whistle. Also, I think she does (and I do) agree with the thought expressed by "there's something wrong on university campuses." (I wouldn't put it in generic terms like that, but I think I get what you're getting at.)
The fact that animals engage in some behavior is neither good nor bad. It is a fallacy to say that just because some animals do something, it is necessarily good for humans to do, or just because some animals don't do something, it is necessarily bad for humans to do. Lobsters also live underwater. I don't think that just because they live underwater would be enough to convince you to do the same.
PieRSquared Media , glad to hear you say it. So, just because some animals engage in homosexual and promiscuous behavior, that doesn't mean humans should emulate said behavior...right ?
This was interesting, insightful, and relentlessly funny. Thank you!
Damn youthtsthsthsths, and their non-alcoholic gingerale schenanigans. #millennialsruinedalcoholism
Nice stealth Pink Flamingos quote at the end in the guise of Marquis de Sade. I guess John Waters is the de Sade of our day.
24:00. What the heck are you talking about? Absolute straw-man. Communism and postmodernism might well be western philosophy, but it most certainly would not be classified as Judo-christian philosophy, or in particular, the classic british liberalism that Jordan Peterson stands for. Second of all, an acceptance of the primacy of the individual is not necessarily the same thing as being a proponent of anarchy. Indeed, that was a key point in his book - there is a balance between chaos and order, and the individual should land between them. We, as individuals, operate within social structures. Clearly there needs to be some permeability, but to suggest that actions should not be criticized is absurd.
Fuck I was writing a long comment and accidentally, it got deleted, but now, I’m too lazy to write it, so I’m gonna say what I was gonna say briefly. 1- WHY THE FUCK AREN’T YOU INTERVIEWING PETERSON? These so called experts, intellectuals and professionals are failing miserably publicly. 2- I still like Peterson for the good parts he has to offer because a lot of his psychology experience is interesting, but any sane person would never take another person’s views as the ultimate truth. Thank god I accidentally found your channel through some douchy person. -__-
She would get owned. It was an interesting critique, but the arguments were bad.
Psychiatrists are like laundry machines. They are called "the shrink" for a reason. Their job is to brainwash you and write scripts for Tide Pods. And you're supposed to clean your room so you can give them your dirty laundry. When he looks in the hamper and sees that you're going commando every day, he'll know that you've gotten too big for your breeches. If they develop static cling in the dryer he'll diagnose you with insecure attachment disorder and make suggestions on how to be less clingy.
I have a question about the alleged conflict between post modernism and communism. Could not post-modernism be used as a tool to compliment a belief system? Even if Communism and post-modernism are contradictory world views, interpreting history in terms of power struggles, seems like a tempting lens for their world view. Even if there is no goal to history, and we are simply acting out this constant struggle, it does not then follow that a utopian vision cannot be envisioned and struggled for. Next, the tools of deconstructionism can be used to create a more chaotic intellectual environment, destabilizing present structures which theoretically could allow for a new dog to settle in town. I'd imagine these folks would suggest that, their vision could come to pass, a more appropriate power balance magically be struck. As such, elements of post-modernism could be used by fringe elements to destabilize present "oppressive" systems, and create new "just" systems from the chaos.
I couldn't tell if there was anything worth listening to because all of the wierd!
I disagree with many things you believe, but my god do you make a great video. Laughing out bloody loud at many points. Ta-ra.
Contra points out that Marxism and post-modernism are philosophically contradictory ideas. Granting that "post-modern-marxism" (or whatever its called) isn't a coherent world view, it does not then follow that people are unable to buy into it. Most people, myself included, do not have a clear sense of the structures of their beliefs. Rather, we cling onto whatever fruitful conceptual crumbs we pass by. Consequently, we do not consider exactly how each of these ideas are to coexist. Generally speaking, people are not philosophically consistent in their beliefs - we tend towards the pragmatic considerations of reality. Accordingly, I don't think that this segment of Contra's argument has any weight, because she failed to establish a contradiction in Jordan Peterson's diagnosis of "post-modern neo-marxism".
I don't understand how regardless if you disagree with Peterson. You can openly support an ideology, all of which throughout history have lead to the death of innocent lives and children. Secondly an ideology that claims that white people are inherently racist and privileged ( both prejudice statements) and still claim you're a moral person. It's clear that you're not calling out the hatred from your own side. Let's not forget the hypocrisy of never talking about ending the Monetary system but asking for equal pay. So basically screw the 10 million a year death toll that monetary system kills each year. The left doesn't care about classism asking as they can buy Aldo bags and fidget spinners.
Test
Decent video but I don't buy any objections of JP from the left, really. Maybe some from the nationalist white. Hell, not just nationalist white. Every ethnicity deserves a nation of their own in perpetuity. I learned a lot from your video! But I don't buy the payload, what you wanted me to take, cause the highest values are either relative, or... Darwinian, take your pick, and so you can't philosophically undermine white or general nationalism. And JPs ideas help me. But being high in openness, I get ideas wherever I can, and I get knowledge and insights from you. I'm not fighting the same monsters as you so much just goes over my heddd
I came in hoping for a thorough analysis of Peterson but you really did oversimplify many of his ideas and arguments. For example, you said that he justifies hierarchies but he absolutely does not at all and has talked about it at this many many times. He simply recognizes that they exist now and have for many millions of years. This ties in with his discussion of the lobster in chapter 1 of his newest book; he goes into depth of how even crustaceans, with whom we have a common ancestor from about a third of a billion years ago, have hierarchies much like our own. Even their brain chemisty reacts much like ours does to changes in our place in the hierarchical structure...and that is just the tip of the iceberg!
Blaise Zak agreed, but my comment still stands.
Yea, but contra never the less did a better job than most of his critics. I thought she took an interesting approach in trying to break down the broad narrative vision that Jordan Peterson takes. She fails in my mind, but it was interesting.
I absolutely love that you play with colors in your videos.
I think I'm in love.
yasssss
Is this a man or a woman?
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/john-mulaney-finally-diner-lobster-sketch-snl-article-1.3935458
I'm not a fan of Peterson, haven't really even come across most of his stuff. But at the beginning of the video you said 'reason, power and truth... these are not concepts I care about'. That confuses me. What does that leave? Not caring about truth or reason... just shouting emotional pleas and giving in to whoever is loudest or most intimidating? In my experience, that is what remains when reason and truth are abandoned. From the little I have heard of Peterson, it sounds a lot like he is speaking as an academic philosopher, but to lay audiences that don't understand hardly anything he's talking about. Like when he said (the only thing I've really read about) that perhaps those concerned about people being impoverished in terms of material needs should also consider those impoverished in terms of interpersonal/sexual needs. That's the kind of idea that really can only be discussed in a philosophical type of context, in a context where people can consider the consequences and basis of the various concerns with emotional detachment. When a philosopher puts forward an idea like that, the lay audience immediately jumps to "he wants to turn women into brood mares, forced to screw neckbeards" or similar. They see asking a question as taking a position. That's not how philosophy works. Questions are honest. You can ask "hey, what if we decided murder was a virtue instead of a crime?" and just follow the idea, see what it gets you. You don't commit to the idea that murder is great and then try to bully people into your position. The answer from the audience you're looking for isn't to start murdering people, it's to talk about the ideas, defend with reason what the negative consequences would be without ignoring the positive benefits (hey maybe it'd be easier to get a job?). It's a level of thinking that the vast majority of people are absolutely not comfortable with and, after a 20th century rife with a growing anti-intellectualism, really very opposed to even engaging in. When the audience responds with a blood-curdling scream of offense... that doesn't get heard. It's little different from someones stomach rumbling out of hunger. It's a mean, meaningless function of the body, not a thought. It can't teach anything, and such responses have always been laid against ideas whether they were completely right or completely wrong. So it's just going to get ignored. The reason transgender activism and 'identity politics' gets compared to Stalin is because Stalin, whether you like it or not, actively used identity politics to fuel his rise to power and his purges. When you focus on peoples group affiliation, you denigrate them as individual human beings. And when you do that, even if you would never dream of playing the groups off against one another and setting one group above another, you can be absolutely 100% certain that a sociopath will emerge in your society who will do exactly that. And having built the infrastructure that segments, separates, identifies, and separately treats each of the groups, you will have laid the framework they use. It's not a matter of 'treating people as they wish to be treated leads to Stalin' directly. It's that the general pattern of splitting people up into groups leads to war between the groups, whether anyone wants it or not. And it's not as simple as "we either mandate pronoun usage based on external sexual phenotypical expression or mandate pronoun usage based on individual identification". We don't have to mandate anything. Government is not the sole mechanism by which society regulates itself. How about this? If you call someone by the wrong pronoun in a situation where you know the pronoun they wish you to use... you're a dick. It's disrespectful and impolite. Yeah, there will be disrespectful and impolite people. So long as there is more than 1 human alive, that will be true. It's an imperfect system, but it's almost impossible to weaponize on any large scale. Peterson, I don't imagine, isn't under the impression that most of the people on the left, have any idea what postmodern neo-marxism even IS. It is not necessary at all to understand what a philosophy is called, where it came from, or what its history is, to follow it. Like if you walk into even the most extreme "leftist" gathering and put forward the idea that maybe we should start eating children, the proper postmodernist response would be for the whole room to say "that is a legitimate possible truth and we should all accept it"... I don't think that's the response you're going to get when you start taking a machete to pre-schoolers. They accept postmodernism only on the most superficial level, and if they studied philosophy, they would probably reject it. A real deep acceptance of postmodernism leaves you unable to justify eating to sustain your own life. Postmodernism says you can not know such a thing is necessary, and can not provide a justification for taking food out of the world just on the unknowable chance it might help you live. Marxism is a whole different kettle of fish and I won't get into it. Really I think Peterson should go out of the public eye. The public does not want, and is not prepared, to have serious discussions. When they hear something like "it'll lead to Stalin" they get too obsessed with being offended to even ask why such a thing was said and given it honest consideration. He is speaking a language the public doesn't know, but think they know. Peterson is completely and ridiculously wrong when it comes to hierarchies, though. Hierarchies are not natural. Every hierarchy is rife with violations. On the scale he's talking, every hierarchy is full of parasites, symbiotes, and things which can't be placed in the hierarchy. It is wrong to depict his view as "therefore any hierarchy is as valid as any other." He's a philosopher. His claim that hierarchies are inevitable only disputes exactly one claim: that hierarchies are unnatural and optional. That's it. You can't extend even one tiny bit from a claim made by a philosopher or you are almost guaranteed to get wrong where they would themselves extend it. Peterson is an advocate of Liberalism, the "political theory" kind of capital-L Liberalism that says individual rights have value. He would oppose monarchy on that basis, regardless of it being a hierarchy. (Liberalism, btw, won so completely across the world after the American Revolutionary War that most modern people don't even know what its alternative, Conservatism, looks like. Conservatism is when you see it as totally natural and correct that some people are Better and are born to lead by blood, perhaps because they are descended from a god or are chosen by a god, etc. It's the mindset that ruled the world for a long time and backed up every monarchy. Violating individual rights was fine, because the public were only there to exist in service to the state and if violating their rights would enhance the state, it is their moral duty to be ground under its wheels.)
Dustin Rodriguez the sarcasm and parody went over your head
nearly wet myself at 2:41
Why don't you debate Jordan Peterson then ContraPoints?
Don't care about "reason"??? Wow.
I am sorry, I tried to watch this but your actions are speaking louder than your words and I don't have the patience for that behavior.
It is a little weird, but then, I imagine that is her point. Contra is probably trying to poke at the taboo's of a Jordan Peterson audience. It is clearly a political move.
I did come into this from watching Peterson videos and was expecting another vitriolic attack video. Turns out the most valid and reasoned argument against Petersons points that ive found anywhere on the internet involved peterson in a bath.
Pretty good video I have to admit. I'll have to be more careful.
The unifying concept of postmodernism is that it applies this to every aspect of life. It is inherently contradictory. JP is just pointing this out by putting the "grand narrative" (marxist) prefix in front, which simply manifests itself in the oppression hierarchy. Also, postmodernism is completely antithetical to science and liberty.
21:00 Seriously? I can’t think of something I want to hear less from Jordan Peterson for the mere fact that I’ve heard it so many god damn times is the science behind big five personality traits, and how women and men differ in them. Which is to say they are biologically different in their demeanors. Which is to say they probably make different choices. Which is to say when looking at disparate outcomes in society among men and women that when they can vary greatly in large aggregates the biological differences between men and women helps explain that. A lot. There’s no implication to that, he’s just helping explain the differences, because absent of that we’re left to assume, what? Patriarchy? Is that what you’d prefer as an explanation?
6:40 Citation needed on how this endangers the groups you mentioned. Peterson has said repeatedly that his political outlook can really be reduced to pointing out that societies that don't organize themselves around the sovereignty of the individual fail. Unless you can point out to me a JBP quote saying that he doesn't think the groups you mentioned are individuals, this concern is completely ill-founded, and of course you can't get explicit in how this backlash would occur.
6:16 Seriously underestimating the issue. There really is hardly ANY deviance from the same progressive narrative in academia. Shouldn’t that strike you as odd, that nearly all university campuses think so similarly, and are so in lock-step with one another? Really, for someone as punchy and as witty, you really should have more to say about how crummy the monotony of the lack of "diversity" of opinion there is on social issues in universities. Because IT'S BORING. You don’t strike me as someone who likes boring. It's not just a few localized crackpot Marxists either, ask anyone who's in university now, like myself, what it's like to take a class in the communications field, or literature, or political science, sociology, or most of the rest of the humanities. Critical scholars are EXTREMELY dominant and are more of a monolith than you'd like to admit. You can play it cool and act disinterested and witty all you want, there's a reason it's not just JBP talking about this stuff on youtube, he's hardly the only one, and it’s not attracting a large audience because it sounds like this cool new fight all the neckbeards in society can get in on and feel like a part of something. Maybe, just maybe there’s something to it if he and many others from that world are sounding the alarm and attracting large audiences while doing it. I actually attended one of his talks on his book tour recently and I assure you, it is FAR from just a bunch of neckbeards.
4:55 I'm not familiar with the nazi conspiracy about cultural marxism, and I do find it interesting, but I don't have to be to point out this isn't a fair or real argument. Because that means that any time Peterson criticizes something that he might call cultural marxism, you get to lump him in with nazis. Do you think Andrew Breibart was a Nazi? Because that's a term he wrote about and talked about quite frequently. I personally think it’s a little ham-handed of a term, but it gets the point across well enough and at the moment there really isn’t a better way of putting it. And maybe, he uses terms such as that because they actually do get to a bigger point than just saying progressive politics? Again, you're the one assuming motives on this. By the same logic I could say that you only used the word trojan horse to describe his self help advice to make it sound scary, when it's actually just a self-help book. See how attributing motive isn't fair?
Ok so I’m a particularly bored youtuber and this is a super long response, but for anyone who cares to respond I’m game to have this conversation. I appreciate the wittiness and sincere attempt to rebut JBP but I do want to disagree, a lot. And what good is the internet without youtube arguments with strangers. Also, bear in mind, I have my own criticisms of Peterson and by no means won’t accept any attack on him without exception, but I just don’t think many in this video are actually all that substantive or reasonable. Anyways here goes. I’ll break it up into parts to make it easier to get through. 4:15 for all the satirical, sarcastic attempts to dispel what you want to portray as the conspiracy theories of peterson, this is a pretty big conspiracy theory of yourself pretty early on, that is even less substantiated, even after having watched the rest of the video. I kept waiting to hear the problem, what this trojan horse looks like and where the danger is, and the punch line never really came. Also, Peterson makes the distinction quite often between the advice he gives to "put yourself together" or whatever, and his commentary on social issues, be it theological/philosophical political. Your suspicions that Peterson's advice on how to put yourself together is an attempt to somehow bring about social/political change is.. really kinda odd... How does that even work? Obviously there's a through line to a lot of his advice in the book to the things he says about social/political matters, but because it's the same guy, not because it's the trick up his sleeve to try and overthrow the left. As much as you try to distance yourself from the kinds of things he's arguing against as if he's making a straw-man, you're literally doing it right here. I’m not convinced his self help book is some kind of political power play or trojan horse, sorry.
I appreciate this video. Thank you for making it.
First five minutes: 1:24 Yes, he is a psychology professor at the university of Toronto, however the claim of "Sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender people under Canadian human rights law shall surely lead to Stalinism" is false. The factual event: He objected to Bill C-16 because it's the very first time the commonwealth wanted to implement a Compelled speech law. Meaning "UNLESS you speak THIS SPECIFIC WAY, you are going to be fined, and if you will not accept the fine, you will go to jail". That's called compelled speech and is an abomination to self-expression and the free-thinking mind. And if we lose the ability to freely self-express and think then, as it appears to me, we may as well rearrange our governments according to George Orwell's 1984.,m we will lose everything and gain close to nothing that's actually desirable. A slightly less important point was that the bill was horrendously written in that it contradicted itself and thus it does not meet legislation writing standards. Surely anyone would agree that a law, regardless of its intended result, should be clear and concise in its message and intent and in NO way be self-contradictory. 3:20 Intellectual trappings? What's an intellectual trapping? *Quick google search* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_traps_for_intelligence_analysis https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201410/the-5-psychological-traps-we-all-fall Is this what was referred to? Perhaps someone can explain the relevance or direct me to what is being referred to. 4:10 'Trojan horse for reactionary political agenda' All right, let's get down to the actual talk! 'Peterson advocates ethics of self-help, not merely as a guide to private life but as a replacement for progressive politics'. ‘Replacement’ sounds iffy to Me, There is some accuracy to the word, but I am not convinced it’s accurate enough that it warrants proper legitimacy. Reactionary political agenda? to progressivism? In the next clip shown Dr. Peterson says, “The philosophy that is guiding their utterances is the same philosophy”. Presuming that’s true, (And I do believe it to be so) the philosophy and agenda of the social justice warriors and leftists are propagating; group identity over individual identity, big government and control, obedience and compliance to party(group), etc. etc. is the same philosophy that Lenin, Stalin, Mao and multiple other communist leaders used as their guide. That led to no less than ONE HUNDRED MILLION DEATHS -100 000 000 human souls! in the twentieth century. And now the SJW’s and leftist folks think they have got it right? After more than 100 years of failed states have attempted to make this genocidal and EVIL doctrine work, Nah, communism and Marxism had its shot. What is going to HAVE to happen is that someone will have to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever, how the new Leftist/postmodern neo-Marxist/Communist push in the west not only can but WILL work as proclaimed/intended. Let me copy paste that one more time *What is going to HAVE to happen is that someone will have to prove,* *_beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever,_* *how the new Leftist/postmodern neo-Marxist/Communist push in the west not only can but WILL work as proclaimed/intended.* If that's not possible then It's time to stop beating the dead horse and move on.
I had to force myself to watch this entire thing. Too many jokes and interruptions for my buzzing mind, but I really appreciate that this actually attacks his points of views, and isn't just a fucking hit piece. I don't agree with everything you've said, but you raise valid points.
That JP daddy in the bath thing is going to give me years of nightmares.
Along with alot of other people, i found myself on this page due to some article saying we should check it out as a counter to jordan petersons positions. I have been waiting for someone to step up who can articulate a contradictory position to jordan peterson for awhile now... and im sad to say I am still waiting. First off, this isnt a serious discussion. which is fine, i half enjoyed the whimsical tone. Secondly, when ever i find someone attempting to engage Mr Petersons positions in a meaningful way, i always find myself disappointed at the actual points they try to engage in. Picking apart his definition of post modern neo marxism or marxism is superficial and doesnt actually even attempt to engage in his positions at all. I guess its a good start for a background of the discussion that im looking for, but it always stops there. Again, it becomes all about labels and how they should be used.. which is very disappointing. why cant the opposition (the left?) get past labels and definitions of those labels and actually address the MEAT of his arguments? great, you think hes using incorrect labeling in his arguments... but what about the actual arguments!?? I didnt get anything out of this, and im not really sure what the point was. was it simply to point out your disagreement with his definition of post modern neo marxism? why bother? what does that prove when no one is actually rebutting his POINTS about what he calls post modern neo marxism is doing and what the ramifications will be? if you ever heard any of his talks, you would be surprised at how little they have to do about the definitions of ideological groups. Even if you think his definition is incorrect, you still very clearly understand who he is referring to when he speaks. and to make things even more disappointing, even THAT argument is reaching for a point. post modern neo marxism in the way he is referring to that label simply means the current form of marxist ideology. It is very accurate as simply calling them marxist is incorrect as there are very large distinctions between where marxism started, and what it has evolved into today. at their core, they both are pushing for a communist future. how they try to achieve this is the difference. by that definition, yes post modern neo marxist would indeed destroy western capitalism.... we agree this is what his position is, in the long run. out of everything this man is saying, is this the only argument with his positions we can find? I (begrudgingly) admit, its more than i can find. He makes more and more sense every time i listen to him. also, im about to start his book, see what that is all about.
Do you think these "basic self-help principles" have any impact on politics? I started voting Conservative after I had to accept some harsh truths to beat some very serious depression, which included an attempted suicide and several drug overdoses. It just feels like the natural extension of my new healthy worldview
I'm not sure I agree but I did do a lol
Bravo! Great video!
Among the valid points of this video there is a lot of caricatures and misrepresentation. Anyway The Left the Right, capitalism, communism, modernism, post-modernism, dominance, oppression, blah blah blah. I'm tired and bored of it all.
Hello, Dave. I'm afraid, Dave.
As a Jordan Peterson fan, I appreciate ContraPoints effort to try and address his arguments, but I did not find her points to be compelling or persuasive. Even though she did that weird bathtub stuff and some other strange things (which was unusual for me to watch - though certainly interesting), I still felt like the argument was kept respectful and honest. This is rare among Peterson detractors
I came here because I wanted to hear someone actually refute Jordan Peterson. You're funny but I value my time and I want the last 15 min back.
Actually that interview was done by Channel 4, not BBC.
Julian Dusett Thank you! I'll get to watching them when I have the time later. Have a good day.
Aron puma Okay, so I’ve been somewhat at fault here for some misinformation I’ve provided, and I apologize. I also didn’t mean to make it seem as though posting a link would really take any effort on my behalf, other than making sure my point was taken, so hopefully that didn’t come across as dismissive. I will attach a link to the full C-16 hearing with Peterson, which I have now watched. It isn’t about the bill itself, it’s about multiple logical incoherencies presented in the legislation surrounding it, as Peterson describes. I think it is extremely important to prevent discrimination, but I think Peterson brings up a great point that the legislation surrounding this bill has to be much more clear for it to make any real sense in a court of law. Again, I hope I’m not interpreting anything incorrectly, and perhaps I’m not doing his point justice, but hopefully this link helps. Also, I’ll attach another link to a clip about an event that happened afterwards that is also relevant (the title of the second clip is obnoxious, but it is pulled directly from one of Peterson’s videos). Again, this has been great. As much as I may find it difficult to challenge my own views and the views of others, it’s a crucial part of learning! https://youtu.be/KnIAAkSNtqo https://youtu.be/cf7H49f6J-M
Aron puma commit a felony and go to prison and I'll be forced to pay for whatever transition you want be it a man, dolfin, blade of grass, zerg...... They'll all say how brave.
My only further comment is well, most people of your political persuasion would prefer if I did not transition, so asking me to :man up", is something I find odd you asked. But hey, if you're willing to help me pay for testosterone and block my estrogen, with some other surgery... I mean I'm not interested actually in that sort of thing, but I'm, flattered?
so many words......to address your first point. Count Dankula is behind bars because he taught his dog to move its leg. so many words must be the maple syrup (did you know that maple syrup is controlled by a cartel in your country? That there's warehouses full of syrup incase of a world wide shortage. Syrup I mean can you think of anything more ridiculous?) Speech is the tool that we use to clarify and ratify out thoughts. Limiting speech limits our ability to come to rational conclusions on very complex issues that can have very wide ramifications to everybody involved. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." so many laws to protect feelings.....man up
Gerald Weyland no
Peterson isn't defending just any hierarchy. He's clearly speaking of hierarchies of competence which are frequently attacked by or on behalf of those who are less competent.
Popular left-wing talking points today are often a mesh of postmodern AND (neo)marxist ideas. That doesn't mean that they are actually one and the same.
faggot
You make some damn good points. You also act as if Peterson is reacting to the tiny minority of leftists who've actually thought these things out. According to your video, my misgendering of you probably shouldn't bother your persona--even if your twitter would absolutely suggest otherwise. Where my issue with your line of rhetoric comes into play is that you assume that your labelling isn't just as oppressive as the labelling of the other side. To you, the concept of masculine and feminine behavior don't orient you in the social tide because you don't relate to the widespread normalcy of those concepts, and because that's the case (and this is an inference based on a couple of your videos, the Dave Rubin video with the thesis "he's for free speech, if free speech means having a bunch of racists on" being a particular highlight, for me at least) you may be a tad oblivious to the fact that for the vast majority of humanity a binary system of understanding, gender most obviously, is incredibly helpful for navigating the vastness of our global society. In other videos of yours you fully uphold the same relativism that you attack in this video. People who disagree with you are racist, DAVE RUBIN, the homosexual, is an asshole to you because he allows the people who the mainstream minority mob have deemed too rhetorically talented to be given a fair shake a chance to talk. YOU CALL GOOD THINKERS RACISTS AND THEN ACT AS IF YOU'RE AGAINST SOCIAL INVALIDATION. You flippantly disregard vast swaths of logic because they're inconvenient for you and then pretend to be all-encompassing in videos like these. THE SAME relativism that, to you, should invalidate the progressive thoughts of passed philosophers (your reminding the audience that Hume made racist remarks is laughably invalidating) doesn't apply to the blatantly horrid underlying philosophy of third-wave feminism which would, once again, rather the world attempt to radically socially engineer women away from the things which make them happy (being a stay at home moms, for example--also I believe women should have the freedom to do what they want, but acting as if the only reason women don't act more masculine is because they're taught not to is absurd) toward a more masculine way of living. Peterson's points can be harsh, cutting, maybe even mean-spirited, but his sentiment that we should not make it acceptable to blatantly, socially or rhetorically, subjugate the thoughts of the majority for the sake of the minority is directly why so many people have jumped on his intellectual train. The fact that your pretend to be objective, when it's obvious you have a fucking huge dog in the fight, illustrates to me that you're just as blinded by your feeble sense of intellectualism (though maybe a tad less 1-dimensional cause you've given him some credence) as all of the people he attacks, and all of the people who feel so threatened that his arguments bleed the wind out of the petulant virtue-signalling sail should recognize that it's insanely narcissistic to pretend that because you're threatened by normalcy everyone should bend over backwards to make you feel better. REALITY IS HARD, PEOPLE SUCK, AND TRYING TO ARGUE AWAY THOSE FACTS DOES NOTHING BUT RETARD YOUR EFFORT TOWARD 'SOCIAL JUSTICE.'
I was expecting to hate on this, but I will confess you had me chuckling and made interesting points - nice video
Speaking as a cis-white male, your videos are incredibly entertaining and you've done a great job making them entertaining, philosophical, informative and hilarious. Well done! I think this video best captures JBP's views towards "post-modernism," however you define it: https://youtu.be/qhxjoLGYaOQ I think I fully support the individualist model as I think most reasonable people would and how you choose to express that is your prerogative. The problem occurs with larger groups of people. I think as JBP says, you have to give up part of yourself (identity) to be part of a group is absolutely right and this works at several levels of society. You may claim and say you're X but that doesn't necessarily make it true until both you and the group can agree to the terms. It's definitely a negotiation process. With it being a negotiation process, you can't just expect people to accept your perspective both straight away or unchanged. Just my 2 cents. All the best with future videos!
I would generally consider myself a Jordan Peterson supporter, and while I disagree with you I still can appreciate the fact you were respectful and fair of his points. Hell, I'll even give it a like!!!
I suddenly have a desire to listen to the Velvet Goldmine soundtrack....
Just found your channel, I wish I found it sooner! Your vids are great!!
Can we talk about this in person over a glass of wine and then you fuck me into a mattress? This sounds like my ideal date
It was disingenuous of you to edited Peterson's responses to Newman to make him appear negative to her outlandish questions. You also mislead that his opposition to the Bill C16 had to do with prejudice agasint transsexuals and not wanting them protected, when if fact, it was that the law was forcing citizens to use certain pronouns against their will, or else they would suffer legal punishment. That is NOT the right method to address discrimination, by forcing people to use socially constructed language.
Buried within it the bill is this legal consequence: Lawyer Brown told the Senate Committee the federal Liberals have made it clear they will follow Ontario’s lead when implementing Bill C-16. And Ontario Human Rights Code guidelines “mandate” the use of genderless pronouns on request, he said. “Mandating use of pronouns requires one to use words that are not their own that imply a belief in or agreement with a certain theory on gender,” he added. “If you try to disavow that theory, you can be brought before the Human Rights Commission for misgendering or potentially find yourself guilty of a hate crime. To sum up, on the subject of gender, we’re going to have government-mandated speech.” Those who refuse to go along could be “brought before the federal tribunal,” Brown said. If the tribunal assesses a penalty such as a fine or “non-monetary remedy, such as a cease and desist order or an order to compel them to do something,” and the person refuses, “they will find themselves in contempt of court and prison is the likely outcome of that process until they purge the contempt,” he added. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-canada-passes-radical-law-forcing-gender-theory-acceptance
That's not what c16 is
I also like to state what I like first. You are very skilled, funny and you actually did stay away from underhandedness, which was beautiful to behold. There are many things, small and large, I wanted to challenge. That the backlash is being generated by Peterson, versus Peterson acting as an outlet for a latent potential, which is certainly, in part, due the the rhetoric of "the left". The way you presented bill C16 made me wonder if you understand his issue with it. Whether you feel he's claiming that discrimination isn't a real and serious issue. And more. But I feel a novel coming if I keep that trajectory. What I will say instead is I think, ultimately, these things are at the boundaries of what we can communicate clearly about. We could take a very simple statement, and spend hours unpacking it, and probably find a lot of middle-ground. But for anyone with a strong conviction, a change of mind is the death of part of their identity. It's much safer and more convenient, if the opposition are just bad people. Ignorant, stubborn, self-centered or whatever have you. Not saying that's you btw, I'm just rambling now. Although we're all a little tangled up indeed.
A short statement only takes hours to unpack when one party is refusing to use words in the commonly accepted manner. You know, Peterson's whole gimmick.
I found my new love.
KILL YOURSELF :)
I’m a huge Dr JP fan but I love the fact his woman is debating his ideas not just screeching (insert identity here)-phobe. I do think the cultural indoctrination is a problem in today’s society, 55% of college age students don’t believe in the 1st amendment principles, so it has had an affect. I would love to see a conversation between her and some of the more pro-Peterson Youtubers like Sargon of Akkad or PSA Sitch. Let’s have a discussion, maybe we can reach a middle ground.
It's interesting to me how deeply misunderstood the use of "postmodern marxist" is among the left. Listen, you're actually well read in this boring philosophy shit, you actually know what both those things mean on their own! You can't expect most of the people using them together to be...well, that. What they mean 90% of the time: 1) postmodern - "someone who questions or poopoos objectivism and the scientific method, pushes "lived experience" and "subjective personal truths", and someone who constantly digs into shit and tries to "deconstruct" it in ways that make no sense, are not useful, or make us feel bad." 2) marxist - "a commie obsessed with control of others' speech and actions, someone trying to control culture and society in general by imposing doublespeak, guilt tripping, fake accusations, kafka trapping, public shaming, witch hunts and kangaroo courts. You know, like they did in Stalinist Russia." Seriously, this is what they mean when they accuse someone of being a postmodernist retard, or a cultural marxist. Analyzing it too deeply and going on about definitions won't get you anywhere.