Trump And GOP Claim Biden Ordered His Assassination At Mar-A-Lago! ►kzread.info/dash/bejne/gJuNztubh621e8o.html

@howdareyou41

Ай бұрын

Trump claims he only ordered 6 McDoubles and 3 Big Macs

@seanmurphy2365

Ай бұрын

Debate Alex O'Connor

@zeex9338

Ай бұрын

Btw I was the guy who said you were sounding butt hurt whilst listening to Peterson. Listen, I agree with -most- of your takes and you're pretty reasonal compared to THE MAJORITY but it feels like you were a bit nitpicky about Peterson over a subject based on the video he was in, that you don't care about. That's why it felt like a hasan-lite stream, like a smaller version of you picking apart Hasan which is far more understable.

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

That Peterson impression slayed me. 🤣👍

@joshafflu1

Ай бұрын

For the part that is clipped in the beginning, I understand the frustration, funnily i saw a podcast talking about religion and culture, and it talked about how over time the emphasis on something literally being true vs something being a myth but having equal epistemological value to something being literally true. The guest on the podcast pokes fun at the west for not being able to accept the value of mythological truth as equal to the value of literal truth. AND TO ANSWER THE QUESTION: YES, if you were in Egypt at the time you would have seen a mass migration of Hebrew people, not just the Jewish. The date of the EXODUS is 1467 BC- over a 200 year period of time 1700-1950ish four serious individuals came to this date independently of each others work using sources other than the bible, one person has the date at 1466 BC, which is actually insane when you think about it. The fact that it happens doesn't mean the bible is the word of god(the info in the bible about the date is inaccurate), but either way there was definitely a mass movement of people from Egypt that was likely caused by a series of compounding crisis, Famine, Disease, and Cataclysm.

"Hey, dad(Jordan) can i go outside and play?" Jordan: "well son,it depends on what you mean by outside and what you mean by play."

@blahblahbag8715

Ай бұрын

Given what I was like as a kid, that's a way more reasonable usage of that kind of thing that what JP normally does 😂

@frankdevo5715

Ай бұрын

That doesn’t really sound like a bad question for a parent to ask

@piggytub1

Ай бұрын

@@bluesh0es this is good,well what is it that I mean by good and this and is? Who knows?

@piggytub1

Ай бұрын

@@frankdevo5715 touche,not the BEST example,but we get it. xD but at the same time,no one talks or asks questions like this. Lol

@Drdirtydee

Ай бұрын

I’m getting 2016 flashbacks bro don’t trigger me like that Bucko perhaps i should clean my room

Fwiw, Alex's use of equivocation is correct. Got an undergrad degree in Philosophy. Equivocation is where you use a term in different ways. So if Peterson talks about the events in Exodus as if they are materially true, but when pressed starts talking about Exodus in the sense that it is figuratively true, and then back to talking about events like they objectively happened at other points, that is "equivocation." Alex is a philosophy student, and this is 100% how equivocation is used in the field

@LaoZi2023

24 күн бұрын

It's also the way the word is used outside the field...b.t.w.

@noahj.1232

22 күн бұрын

Exactly. That part was painful to watch. This is classic equivocation on the word ‘true’-‘true’ meaning ‘historically accurate’ in one sense and ‘true in some metaphorical/transcendental way’ in another.

@confounded_feline

22 күн бұрын

​​@noahj.1232 our Steven often gets too caught up in pedantic semantic cringe a lot lol. Cringe because of the conviction behind his correctness when he ends up with egg on his face occasionally. I'm no linguist or philosophy bro, decently articulate but that wasn't lost on me either OP. I think it's better in most instances to just let it lie, people misspeak and make small errors all the time but you know exactly what they mean.

@confounded_feline

22 күн бұрын

Also ironic from Steven 'epistemic humility' bonnell 2.0. Heheh

@DavonValiana

20 күн бұрын

Plus equate and equivocate are closer than not. Equate to make two things equal can be done by equivocating, to make something less than it is, by making the bad thing equal to a good thing. So while equating doesn't mean to equivocate, almost every time you say equivocate you are equating.

There was a real conversation to be had here, but it's all fucked now because Destiny equivicated his equations.

@michaelbowling1344

12 күн бұрын

Most arguments either difference of view, will not let the other finish or engage further before changing the subject slightly to a known losing argument on the the other side to not look stupid and re-directing the topic that puts the other in a corner. Typically pointing out faults or public mistakes the other person did to make the other person even if he/she is right look wrong because "they are a bad person now" despite the argument being over something like what ice cream flavor is the best. I think even those with music degrees take gen ed classes where you learn this type of strat. Something like this. "Strawberry is not the worst flavor of all the choices. Why would you even consider such a bigot choice? Is it because you were seen 10 years ago making fun of someone who had a sun burn and you were bullying them about it? How can you sit here and argue with me over it when you bully someone for being red and being out in the sun?" OMG YOU ARE A BAD PERSON OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OM GOM GOM GOM GOM GOMGSL:KJDF:LASKJD:LAKSJF:LKJDL:KAJSDL:KASJ. And when you are the host of it, its so easy to make the other look smaller.

I don't think Alex politely engaged with Peterson just to keep the interview going. I think Alex is just more accustomed to people who talk like Peterson than most people. He's a late university level student of philosophy, so he's probably had to adapt.

@confounded_feline

20 күн бұрын

Correct, it was a surprisingly pleasant conversation. I was ready for it to be vexatious throughout, going in to watch. It was nice and respectful, albeit a bit animated at times. Destiny was projecting his cynicism a bit onto Alex on account of JBP being a trigger for him, I suspect, lol.

Invite Alex on the podcast

@krlegulas

Ай бұрын

forsen

@nahguacm

Ай бұрын

Destiny has been on Alex's podcast before

@__keys

Ай бұрын

Why? Because he happened to be in a video with jp?

@PowerGem3000

Ай бұрын

Alex Jones

@likejimi5845

Ай бұрын

​@__keys bc he's a smart, interesting dude.

“But Dr. Peterson, how can a material girl such as yourself exist in such preposterously absurd, post modern neo Marxist unserious reality”

Better to spend 2 hours hearing Peterson's back and forth than to spend 2 hours hearing Destiny complaining about Peterson's back and forth.

@user-fi3ht1cm5d

9 күн бұрын

Yeah he makes some good points but is so bitter 😂. I hope he gets better

@PurpleFiiilth

6 күн бұрын

Because its frustrating hearing Peterson take so long just to say nothing

@Walkerxy

5 күн бұрын

@@PurpleFiiilthI just find it sad how 2016 Peterson became the nonsensical man he is now

Equivocating [edit: the equivocatino fallacy] is when you use a term with one meaning in one premise and a different meaning in another part of the argument. For example, "Man, the stand-up comedian killed last night. If someone kills, then they should go to jail. Therefore, the stand-up comedian should go to jail." [Edit: I assume in this case the idea is that Peterson is equivocating on terms like 'happened' when he says things like, "the Exodus story provides a lot of moral wisdom. That's a sense in which it really happened. So people who deny it really happened are wrong." The people who deny it happened aren't denying that it "happened" in the sense of providing moral wisdom.]

@Majorwindy

Ай бұрын

Thanks for clearing that up

@Warsmith_The

Ай бұрын

I see so many knuckleheads try to play this game with the word "pride", specifically in regards to "pride is a sin".

@paulkerrigan9857

Ай бұрын

It sounds like the point was that Peterson does this.

@JBHACKSAW

Ай бұрын

I just thought it meant purposeful obfuscation. It doesn't necessarily require two adjacent ideas. It's just purposefully ambiguous way to talk to confuse the audience about one's true stance.

@MrJustSomeGuy87

Ай бұрын

Thank you. Destiny’s explanation was dogshit.

“if you’re not willing to become a monster, then you will never get any bitches, a-a and that’s not a insignificant thing!” -jordan b kermit

@perfectiondreamusa

Ай бұрын

real

@HUGEFLYINGWHALE

Ай бұрын

Lol

@likejimi5845

Ай бұрын

Based JBK

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

Just pretend that you live in the dark ages and it all makes perfect sense.

@randybobandy9828

Ай бұрын

Pretty based advice... You get no beeches

Jordan Peterson doesn’t do Philosophy. He does Philopervetry.

@alephmale3171

Ай бұрын

Also known as Sophistry.

@yashsamuel

Ай бұрын

ok i disagree with peterson on quite a few issues but calling someone pervert for having different views is just so bad faith , now you are not even trolling but just dislike him too much

@chasehunt4415

Ай бұрын

Yeah.. calling anyone with different views from yours a perv. Great logic and intelligence on your part 😂.

I highly recommend watching the original conversation instead of Destiny's commentary on it in this case. Jordan and Alex had a very good faith conversation and Alex presses Jordan on his beliefs in a much more fruitful way than Destiny's constant stopping and nitpicking. Destiny seems to have a good grasp on how Jordan conceives things so I don't get why he feels the need to constantly act incredulous when Jordan talks the way he does. Why don't you just meet him where he is instead of demanding he always use the rational materialist language you prefer.

@MrShanester117

21 күн бұрын

If you constantly meet someone where they are at, that would be foolish. The real truth is that Jordan Peterson doesn’t believe in god, but his audience does. So he finds a way to pay lip service to that base without answering any obvious questions that would show the truth about what he believes

@HuntersHunter

21 күн бұрын

@@MrShanester117 That's a convenient story to tell yourself but it's completely ignorant of his work. He's been saying the same things about religion and god since long before he had an audience to appeal to. If you want to ignore what he's trying to communicate and just perceive him as a grifter go ahead, but don't pretend to have some sophisticated understanding of his ideas.

@arthurseleznov3555

11 күн бұрын

@@MrShanester117 He thinks there are universal laws that are congruent with some "higher power" that is expressed in society thru collective consciousness and that the the bible is a manifestation of a fruitful force of creation and social prosperity. Because he believes it appeals so well to humans he's also said "im afraid god may exist." thats what he believes, its just a complicated nuanced belief and he's dug himself into a corner where i think he feels it would be misrepresentative to engage in this discussion on the level people engage him on it To like jordan peterson you really have to read a lot of his shit, it may speak to him not being a perfect orator but his ideas eventually come across. They are very abstract but still very good food for thought. Of course, as with all popular icons you gotta be wary that they might go up their own ass eventually and so does their audience. Destiny and peterson are both hindered by the fact that their audiences are super receptive and forgiving of the shit they say so eventually the good gets mixed with the bad. common phenomena for pop icons. I think people that worship any of these people get into the trap of letting their emotions allow them to either swallow retarded ideas, or dismiss good ones just to feed their emotional narratives about the guy they like or don't like, videos like this one have the same amount of substance as an nba cagefight. its not an intellectual exercise its just entertainment.

@PurpleFiiilth

6 күн бұрын

Because alex is polite but Destiny says what we’re all thinking, Peterson is full of shit.

For a man who crusades against supposed ‘post modernism’, he obfuscates and distorts the meaning of words very frequently…

@galacticmonarchy1546

Ай бұрын

Yeah but what does "against" mean? Is this a metaphysical description of the ontological nature of good vs evil? Must we be "against" things? Is it not arrogant to be "against" things that are quantumally real when we are unsure of our own being? Only a marxist post-modernist would suggest that we must be "against" things.

@danielgalvez7953

Ай бұрын

He has always given postmodernism praise for pointing out that there is no one way to interpret anything.

@Theactivepsychos

Ай бұрын

He’s like that snake disappearing up its own ass.

@AspiringDevil

Ай бұрын

The conservative post modernist movement is hilariously popular with the same people who hate post modernism

@Mignon15

Ай бұрын

I've disliked him ever since I first saw him on JRE with Bret Weinstein or whatever his name was. He takes 15 minutes to set up a point and has to go through all sorts of hoops to get there. For me, listening to JP is like pointing out a plot hole in a movie and somebody writes a 10,000 word essay to explain why the moon is in fact made of cheese. I think he relies too much on niche vocabulary usage to get people lost in the woods and make people feel smart about themselves.

the equivocation shit gave me cancer.

@Xelbiuj_1988

Ай бұрын

Yeah I'm literally dying at about 8 min in. I'm terminal now. FML.

@theundying6640

Ай бұрын

I don't understand why august kept it in jesus christ!

@Pedro00Alan

Ай бұрын

Vyvanse sperg

@voidlover-eu1og

Ай бұрын

He does this shit a lot and this is probably what I dislike most about destiny.

@cmpc724

Ай бұрын

@@voidlover-eu1og I think he wants to try and look as smart, if not smarter, than Alex, who’s a ridiculously smart and eloquent 25 y/o - which Tiny can’t handle PepeLaugh

Equivocate DOES work. If you’re moving between two definitions you are being ambiguous which is the definition of equivocation, Destiny is just wrong

@Begeru

Ай бұрын

Yea he defines “equivocate” with a negative connotation for some reason

@BlGGESTBROTHER

Ай бұрын

Was funny that instead of just looking up the definition he insisted that his usage of it is the only correct one.

@EdertheJust

Ай бұрын

Someone in his audience told him it was the second definition, and he just said, no one uses it that way. Loll😂 he can't say he is wrong so he will keep fighting.

@voidlover-eu1og

Ай бұрын

​@@EdertheJusthe also literally said the definition doesn't matter lol

@MichealScotch

Ай бұрын

@@BlGGESTBROTHER I mean incel isn't used how it says in the definition

3:15 - I think Destiny is wrong about the equivocate/equate question. "The equivocation fallacy occurs when a word is assumed to mean the same thing in two different contexts, when it actually means two different things." Alex is implying that Peterson is equivocating the mythical and historical contexts of the stories as if they were the same thing without taking time to draw attention to the clear differences between the two. So when someone asks Peterson if something is real, he equivocates a material reality with a metaphorical reality as if there were no differences between the two.

@unreadlibrarian

29 күн бұрын

This is because, as humans, we are entirely unable to perceive the material reality without the lens of our own metaphorical reality (as constructed from a foundation of subjective values). What we think of as a 'material reality' could be a dream, simulation, etc. That's just the current story we tell ourselves in the West about why matter is how it is.

@WishfulCreation

29 күн бұрын

@@unreadlibrarian I'm just pointing out what Alex was saying in the video and that he properly used equivocate in this context. I wasn't debating the merits of Alex's claim. I do agree, however, that all forms of reality, whether that be material, spiritual, metaphysical, etc. require a thinking mind of some sort. For that reason, you saying that we can't perceive a material reality is bordering on nonsensical, simply because we can't even be sure a "material reality" exists at all. That being said, we can still talk about historical facts and so can Jordan Peterson.

@unreadlibrarian

29 күн бұрын

@@WishfulCreation That's all mostly fair. One point: I didn't say we can't perceive a material reality. I said we can't do it without using a lens - that lens is provided by our worldviews, which is founded in our values. That's all.

@kainuipenaloza9395

27 күн бұрын

Well something can be true despite not being real, so it's value does not diminish from being real or imaginary. This is not a commentary on the bible, just this idea.

@WishfulCreation

27 күн бұрын

@unreadlibrarian I see no difference between the lens we use to view material reality and what we think of as material reality. Really, all that we're looking at is our lens, not material reality itself.

Destiny sky high ego creates some hilarious moments like the whole equivocate thing

@joshmilne1268

11 күн бұрын

I don't think so. Destiny's criticism is fair because peterson goes so broad that it can be. Plus, he smuggles religious words in there that don't have to be there to make his point.

On equivocate: in philosophy it's when one word has two meanings, and you swap between the two meanings during the same argument. For example: Premise 1: A feather is light. Premise 2: What is light cannot be dark. Conclusion: Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

@m.j.e.5245

Ай бұрын

Whats nuts is destiny's comedy style is willful misinterpretation aka an equivocation fallacy. The way he misunderstands the words that Dan says on purpose is a full example that he knows what it is, he just chooses to use it as a cudgel to win debates.

@keys5595

Ай бұрын

@@m.j.e.5245😂

@Macheako

Ай бұрын

Solid example 🙌

@EdertheJust

Ай бұрын

​@@m.j.e.5245Destiny hated admitting he's wrong.

@slaterslater5944

Ай бұрын

What you just described is the equivocation FALLACY rather than equivocation, but yeah

Let's not forget that Destiny, does in fact, equate to a women's name

@GyatRizzler69-of3wl

Ай бұрын

But what does a “woman’s name” mean precisely

@Sxwrz

Ай бұрын

@@GyatRizzler69-of3wla name that identifies as a woman’s name!

@Dementia.Pugilistica

Ай бұрын

Please don't equivocate Mrs. Barbelli's name with an endorsement of transgenderism

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

Maybe if she's a stripper

@LaoZi2023

24 күн бұрын

..."to a woman's name."

“Has this been the entire talk or did this just start 40 minutes ago” well that’s a difficult question. It’s entirely plausible that it’s been talked about the entire time, it’s a very complex topic that you could talk about for a while and it could have been happening the entire time. And to some extent this talk has existed inside the hearts of everyone talking about philosophy ever since philosophy began

@felipeflores9644

26 күн бұрын

😂

It's such a shame. When I first saw Peterson on Kathy Newman in 2018, he seemed like such a brilliant thinker who really knew how to get to the point and drive it home. His thinking was practical, objectively rational and concise. Ever since he came back from his illness his mind has been lost in a web of endless abstraction and increasingly distorted rationality.

@acason4

Ай бұрын

His brain has melted into marble mouthed, post modernist, mush. It's sad because his Psychology takes were intelligent & valuable.

@enmanuelrondon9700

Ай бұрын

You should try watching this without destiny pausing every minute to reinforce that no one cares and that it's a boring convo.

@Durzo1259

Ай бұрын

@@enmanuelrondon9700 I actually watched this before already. The commenter above you is right, whenever he discusses religion he turns into the same kind of post-modernist he condemns. The social justice post-modernists believe that truth isn't what's true, it's whatever serves a positive utility - and therefor, if something helps your cause but isn't factually true, you can still say it's true by convoluting it into an abstraction of some wider meta narrative. Peterson obviously believes in the utility of belief in Christianity - not it's literal truth - so he "acts as if God exists" to serve that utility by pretending that objective questions can all be answered as subjective allegories of psycho-social archetypes. Just as SJWs believe in the positive utility of believing trans-women are real women, so they obfuscate the definition of woman and train their adherents to ignore the objective nature of an objective question.

@enmanuelrondon9700

Ай бұрын

@@Durzo1259 I don't care if he's being a hypocrite. Still an interesting convo, imo.

@michaelh878

Ай бұрын

​@@Durzo1259No, he obviously believes in the Bible as historical fact but knows that he won't be taken seriously by most in the world if he admits it.

Jordan floundered on the same thing years ago, when a Christian scholar asked if he believed that Jesus literally rose from death after 3 days.

@Wi_Gong_Dye

Ай бұрын

Peterson is not Christian, Bible Scholar or anthropologist. He does a horrible job of defending christian literature.

@off6848

Ай бұрын

He’s a Jeffersonian Jefferson famously rewrote the Bible without what he considered superstition as a materialist Peterson is saying that materialists who are asking these questions have a different metaphysical epistemology they have to prove materialism before they can accuse Christian of being wrong

@kirbycooper9496

Ай бұрын

​@off6848 so why does he defend the metaphysical aspects of Christianity so often?

@BruceKarrde

Ай бұрын

What kind of question is that even?

@off6848

Ай бұрын

@@kirbycooper9496 my guess is that he’s an idealist not a materialist but since a lot of his work has hinged upon evolutionary psychology he’s reluctant to reveal that

It’s a bird it’s a plane, no wait it’s Complicated Man!

@y0landa543

Ай бұрын

no he’s just pretentious af

@betty-rq7qv

Ай бұрын

Virgin JP defender: yOu JuSt DoN't UnDeStAnD hIm!!!

@1984isnotamanual

25 күн бұрын

His superpower is that he can confuse with his words.

@loffel1700

5 күн бұрын

This made me chuckle, and I'm in most other contexts a Peterson fan. I agree that he is very devious and evasive when it comes to his talks about religion. When it comes to orienting oneself for success, on the other hand, I appreciate his take on things.

They did solve that at the end. He just equivocates truth with meta truth, and when someone ask about the historical truth he just refuses te engage because it's the wrong question to ask, in his opinion. And he refuses because the actual question is in what religious box to put him in, and for nonreligious the answer will simply be no, throwing the metatruth with it. Rare Destiny L.

@Extracredittttt

Ай бұрын

I think it would not be difficult to assert that Exodus didn't literally happen while still acknowledging useful ideas, metaphors, truths, cultural histories etc that come from it Being unwilling to clarify your beliefs because it'll cost you rhetorical points seems flatly bad to me

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

Except he could just answer the question directly. Your comment has no coherence whatsoever

@The_Zeta_Male

Ай бұрын

Tremendous cope lol

@JakovLSSJ4

Ай бұрын

@@Extracredittttt It's not gonna cost him "rhetorical points" to engage, but instead he would be conforming to the religious-atheist team sports (which is exactly why the interviewers usually ask him this anyway). The concept is similar to the "just asking questions" thing Destiny always mentions. If keep asking seemingly random factual questions you're trying to get some narrative across, and Peterson refuses to engage with that and just calls it out for what it is (just like Destiny would do with Fuentes "just asking questions about the holocaust")

@valentinemichaelsmith2744

Ай бұрын

@@JakovLSSJ4What’s wrong with trying to convey a narrative? Surely not all narratives are utterly or even mostly false. The narrative that Jordan Peterson seems to have a vested interest in catering to his more right leaning and/or religiously minded audience and will avoid, if he can, provoking that audience by saying something that would contradict their sentiments seems at the very least, a narrative that is falsifiable. Unless you think “right leaning” and “religiously minded” are also unwarranted narratives regarding those who appear to mostly fill the Jordan Peterson fan space and their relation to the development and dispersal of various “right leaning” and “religiously” oriented ideas. Peterson seems very happy to construct and convey a narrative of the left, “post modernism”, the LGBT, etc. It seems that if not for anything else, at least in honor of the virtue of fairness, Alex has an equitable right to approach Peterson and his behavioral characteristics and ideas in a similar light.

58:25 I believe Peterson has said that he personally respects the pronouns of trans people he interacts with. He is just opposed to any form of compelled speech, so he doesn't believe it should be illegal for people to choose to always misgender others, even though he doesn't do it in person. And when asked "what is a woman?" by Matt Walsh, he didn't give any of that 'adult human female' BS -- he said "marry one and find out". He seems to be consistent.

@Extracredittttt

Ай бұрын

Haven't gotten to this part of the video so maybe I would agree with the relevance of this comment But I will say that JPs whole thing around compelled speech is that he pretends that basic protected class status for trans people counts as compelled speech laws and then he fear mongers about them. He makes a softer claim that sounds reasonable to push his real, much less reasonable claim that trans people are a problem.

@KRISTIANSMILJANIC

Ай бұрын

While that was supposedly his position on the matter when he first got into the limelight he has since been what I would describe as overtly transphobic. One specific example of this was in regards to Elliot Page where Peterson seems to be under the impression that a celebrity being openly trans is in itself condemnable. This all while referring to Elliot by his former name as well as consciously misgendering him🤷‍♂️

@tomasroque3338

Ай бұрын

@@Extracredittttt I don't doubt that. I was just clarifying that his take is somewhat different from the standard reactionary position.

@tomasroque3338

Ай бұрын

@@KRISTIANSMILJANIC Yes, he is still transphobic, but his views on language aren't what Destiny implied.

@Tom-jy3in

Ай бұрын

@@tomasroque3338 I dont think transphobic is the right word as it would imply hatred or disdain for transgender people. He does think transgenderism as a movement is bad and he does see transgender people as severely mentally ill. For someone who is transgender or very supportive of their acceptance that might seem transphobic, but i do think there is a difference that deserves being called out.

Destiny isn't a girl's name. Destiny has been around long before women were a thing. Fax

@SimonLind-lh6pt

Ай бұрын

Counterpoint Destiny's Child: timeless classic

@howdareyou41

Ай бұрын

Destiny is what McFly Sr says to a young Lorraine in BTTF

@howdareyou41

Ай бұрын

@@SimonLind-lh6pt kelly was the best. Beyonce is overrated

@JP__Delta

Ай бұрын

So woman is a name's destiny ?

@eriklucasmusic

Ай бұрын

Liberal logic tbh

imagine jordan peterson on the stand in court. “did this happen, jordan?” *flabbergasted kermit noises* “well what the hell does that mean??!”

@byrdfeathers3552

Ай бұрын

This shit killed me lmao

@fensteroffen

Ай бұрын

they are talking about the truth of religious texts and later literature. to compare this to the law shows you are trying to not understand his intentions.

@solarblitz4524

Ай бұрын

​@@fensteroffenHe does this with everything, not just religious stuff.

@fensteroffen

Ай бұрын

@@solarblitz4524 what stuff? the whole conversation is about how to interpret religious texts, now you bring up stuff noone has heard about

@eugenesnow

Ай бұрын

​@@fensteroffenno the conversation is "hey Jordan, very simply, did exodus happen?" And he's doing everything in his power to not answer the simple question

JP is not intending to obfuscate, he’s intending to direct the question at the ‘correct’ level of analysis. At the level of ‘religious story’ he judges that the level of analysis is not the same level as ‘archeological analysis’ The problem is that religious sceptics will often attempt to use the incorrect level of analysis to scrutinise the religious/spiritual domain, which rubs JP up the wrong way

@MrShanester117

21 күн бұрын

I think you’re equivocating

@Cello10131

11 күн бұрын

All the word salad just to dodge a simple "yes" or "no" question. Admit it, if he faces up to the fact it will destroy him emotionally.

Destiny: "Nothing JBP says is interesting." Also Destiny 5 minutes later, after JBP says Darwinian truth vs Newtonian truth: "What is Newtonian truth?" *looks up Newtonian truth, gives up 2 minutes later*

Watch 15 seconds of the video, pause to argue with chat about the usage of a word, start the video over and pause again at 10 seconds to argue with chat some more about the same thing, start over again, then pause at 16 seconds to argue with a chatter about a comment you read...

@fredjenner

Ай бұрын

Trashing petersons answers before he even gets a full sentence out. I guess we out of vyvanse.

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

Hi! Welcome to the channel! 😁

@ferrisbueller9991

Ай бұрын

@@fredjenner Needs to upgrade to Desoxyn. And to take the edge off of that a couple muscle relaxants.

"Conflating" is better than either "equivocate" or "equating" if you're trying to clear it up. Conflate: transitive verb CONFUSE Given its name, St. Thomas in Houston has on occasion been conflated with St. Thomas in Minnesota … -David Barron Conflated: adjective confused with another or with each other : not properly differentiated … in our society, where love and sexual desire are so conflated … -Olivia Fane Conflate: verb To fail to properly distinguish or keep separate (things); to mistakenly treat (them) as equivalent.

@azzedine9415

Ай бұрын

equivocate i think still works in his sentence

@coonhound_pharoah

Ай бұрын

@@azzedine9415 It's called a "false equivocation." The descriptor matters.

@lucasgoncalvesdefaria7121

Ай бұрын

TRUE

@chrisrock219

Ай бұрын

​@@coonhound_pharoahwhere I'm from, it's common for people to use "equivocation" to mean "(false) equivocation". But it's context dependent.. it's a type of "elliptical construction", I think

"You read 5 pages from Kant and you pretend that you've understood a single thing that you read, you are clueless." Well, it's difficult to understand when you are not even allowed to finish the first sentence ...

I want to take an AI and make it have a conversation with itself as though it was two Jordan Peterson's. Could you imagine the infinite regression of every single sentence?

@jamrollz

Ай бұрын

It'll be a DJ crescendo ' what do you mean, do you mean, you mean, mean ,mean ,mean, me, me, me, me, me, me' *bass drop*

@buckfozos5554

27 күн бұрын

He'd be interrupting himself over and over, no sentence would get finished.

I was going to make fun of Destiny's shirt until I saw the suit Peterson is wearing.

@pickle1200

Ай бұрын

Suit > argument

@EvilPineappl

Ай бұрын

Nah that suit is cool.

@CribNotes

Ай бұрын

Peterson's suit is definitely a Canadian thing. Are you a xenophobe? LOL

@evanr5871

Ай бұрын

@@CribNotesYes.

@williamcozart8158

Ай бұрын

@@evanr5871 based

To 'equate' is to compare things. To 'equivocate' is to speak in a specific way. You wouldn't equivocate two things, you would equate them. You could equivocate at the same time by being vague in the way you define those two things while equating them.

@Alex.Holland

Ай бұрын

Right. You equate 2 things overtly, but you equivocate things covertly. I can equate apples and oranges, but when i equivocate, its closer to a fallacy. Something like, apples are red, and stop signs are red, so we should stop eating apples.

@Tom-jy3in

Ай бұрын

@@Alex.Holland I thought equivocating is when you try to stamp out your position in an ambiguous way which (usually that's how its done but I guess it could also apply to a disadvantageous case) tries to gain the advantages of all the given different meanings of your rhetoric without the advantages such that an inattentive listener that only listens to your rhetoric might side with you because they don't see the dissonance between the one rhetoric invoking different meanings

@Alex.Holland

Ай бұрын

@@Tom-jy3in Yea thats close to what i was trying to say. when you equivocate, you mislead by drawing a relation between 2 different definitions of a word, or between similar concepts, in a way thats not really logically sound.

So, what I think is going on here is that Peterson doesn't actually care about the reality of the history. He did say he thought it probably happened halfway through the first clip, but mostly he's more interested in the story and its patterns than the historical accuracy. He also doesn't seem to universalize a single story too much, and is interested in the different cultural constructs. But I don't think listening to someone who doesn't care about the physical world very much talk about physical reality is sort of pointless.

@bestdjaf7499

27 күн бұрын

Because these are stories. The Bible is not a historical book. He keeps bringing up the Memes. Imagine in 1000 years people will look at the memes & try to guess, if they are a true representation of Trump. Or if Wojack was a real person!? Peterson would say that there is a possibility that Wojack was a real person. Therefore memes are true. At least they represent some truth.

He said the stories are NOT banal, meaning that they're not simple or flat, they're more complex. Just clearing that up.

Equating "correctness" to "Lucifer" gave away that Peterson should not be taken seriously with anything he has to say. He might as well be wearing a helmet and bashing his head against everything.

@Tohlemiach

Ай бұрын

idk, it makes sense to me. If I remember correctly, since he's made this point before, he's saying that Lucifer wants to usurp God, and if you take JP's definition of God, then partly what that means is that Lucifer wants to control truth. So he's making the case that people obsessed with being factually correct have a sort of Luciferian impulse to place themselves on a pedestal at the top of reality where they fully understand the true nature of the universe, whereas the only person who could reasonably said to fully understand the nature of the universe is God himself. It's an idea couched in the religious belief that part of a good life is just not understanding everything and giving up on the desire to have perfect knowledge. I can see why someone would bristle at the concept of correctness being tied to Lucifer though, to be fair. You might have the objection "Oh, so being incorrect is good then?" but again I don't think that's the point being made. Truth is good insofar as exposing people who lie, but making true statements about the nature of reality is a lot harder to do, and I think Peterson is referring to the kinds of people, aka Destiny, who are obsessed with trying to categorically understand every aspect of the world. It's a control freak mindset, and it often leads to the kinds of confrontational style of conversation that Destiny is known for, which Peterson has stated he doesn't actually enjoy.

@jessie6600

Ай бұрын

Have you heard his advice on relationships? It’s very based. Don’t be so biased dude

@whateverimake9350

Ай бұрын

Seems like it hits the soft spot for you...

@whateverimake9350

Ай бұрын

Funny he, jp made that exact point giving some thoughts after talking to destiny

@JobVanDam

Ай бұрын

JP is referring to a concept called Luciferian Intellect. "The Luciferian intellect is the desire to be the smartest and most important person. Smart people with this mindset believe their intelligence should be valued above all else, and are often frustrated when the world doesn't recognize their worth." JP admitted when he was younger because he skipped grades he was guilty of this. He wanted to be right on everything and would just steamroll people with his intelligence instead of just finding the truth.

Dunno why Destiny spent so long ranting about what equivocation is when he got it totally wrong himself. Only 8 minutes in right now so maybe he figures out the correct usage later but this is annoying to hear. Equivocation is when you imply that two or more different things are actually one thing by using ambiguous terms.

@scanneringdark4793

Ай бұрын

That’s usually the case with destiny

@Krevvs

Ай бұрын

He was deadass saying "use the word equate" and then defined equivocate lol

@josephposenecker9741

Ай бұрын

Well Alex is actually well educated, so it’s not fair to hold Destiny to the same standards.

@EdertheJust

Ай бұрын

I think he realized he was wrong but didn't want to come off looking dumb. Correcting someone when they're right looks bad.

@Krevvs

Ай бұрын

@@EdertheJust Dawg he like double or tripled down lol just look up the word and admit your wrong and move on

you see, everybody else failed to realize, that Peterson does not understand the question because, in the US, the exodus is called 'Aqua'.

I think what Peterson meant when he said “it’s not my problem” is that other people’s concerns about his use of language are their own problems-not that he has failed to use the practice of language to communicate effectively. It’s like: I have belief A. You have belief B. You try and rationalize my belief A into your belief B using language but struggle to do so. It’s really not my problem how you comprehend my beliefs unless it’s my goal to convince you.

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

Either the historical events occured or it did not. This isnt difficult

@KonoGufo

Ай бұрын

Except he said that he understands what they're trying to ask but that people don't get to ask questions like that, so he won't give them any sort of useful answer.

@dagttv

28 күн бұрын

@@mariomario1462 I agree. I was just referring to the “it’s not my problem” comment.

@dagttv

28 күн бұрын

@@KonoGufo agreed

Jordan Peterson refusing to answer this question has always been so smart of him. Nobody wants the answer, they just want the sounds coming out of his mouth.

@slaterslater5944

Ай бұрын

If he ever took a position he wouldn't be able to wriggle back from his bigoted dog whistles, would he?

@Igelme

Ай бұрын

To be fair, I think it would've helped if he didn't pause every 2 min to try and "predict" an answer or to fight with that one retarded chatter.

@Alex.Holland

Ай бұрын

I literally said this earlier as a response to a different comment. I enjoy him largely for his going off the rails talking about what things MEAN vs how they are simply defined. No one would listen to him if he was a dictionary.

@Igelme

Ай бұрын

@@Alex.Holland Agreed, also his bible knowledge is crazy. Destiny kinda skipped the whole "being a christian" part which was super interesting

@HotDog-yf2je

Ай бұрын

I dont believe he is refusing to answer. This is his answer. Who knows what the correct answer is? Peple who say he is refusing to answer, are seeking an answer they would be ready to accept. Why must it be an answer like that, any answer can be given. It is not the person's responsibility to give an asnwer that the questioner wants to hear...

Jordan Peterson “if there’s a best meme then Jesus is factually true”.

1:03:00 Destiny, Peterson's entire position here is that the intuitive perspective of most people is fundamentally wrong when it comes to these subjects. He genuinely believes that asking about religious matters from a purely historical perspective is fundamentally wrong. That is why he says it's "hard" while you say it's "easy". Your "easy" intuition, he says you are wrong and misguided to follow it, and that it is very complicated to arrive at his "correct" perspective.

Wittgenstein helped me with my conversations. Simply put, there is no ultimate definition of a word that can apply to said word and all of its uses. The words are just signifiers communicating an idea, the signified. T-R-E-E- are signifiers communicating the object that we call a tree. It’s a means to an end, not the end itself. If one is at an impasse, simply ask clarifying questions and stop fighting over definitions. But, if someone refuses to answer those clarifying questions, and instead decides to muddy the waters, you can be sure this person is not being honest.

Damn, Destiny is not familiar with the equivocation fallacy.

@m.j.e.5245

Ай бұрын

Why would he? Its one of his strongest debate "gotcha" techniques

@Necrophadez

Ай бұрын

​@@m.j.e.5245 Curse technique reversal: gotcha.

@careneh33

Ай бұрын

@@m.j.e.5245 interesting perception, I have rarely if ever seen Destiny engaging in a fallacy. Do you have some example in mind?

@Macheako

Ай бұрын

@@Necrophadez nerddddddddd

@yamo511

Ай бұрын

@@careneh33 well appeal to authroity, like constantly

Alex's video on JP goes over this as well. It is insane how much Jordan Peterson obfuscates when it comes to theology. He could just say he doesn't believe in christianity but likes the message and societies it fostered, instead he just gets slippery.

@howdareyou41

Ай бұрын

Alex may not know the meaning of equivocate but JP sure does and has built a career around it

@joegreene7746

Ай бұрын

I don't think he obfuscates in reality. I think a lot of questions are just not appropriate based on the scale of the question. Like if you asked me if I believed in God, I would have no idea what you mean by God, so I can't answer that question until I know what you mean. That's not obfuscating at all, that's making sure I don't say yes to a question where I have no idea what the question is. Asking anyone about their faith is just a stupid question, especially a scientist who is continuing to try to figure out these questions himself.

@DickDyeria

Ай бұрын

Also don't forget: It's a lucrative crowd.

@gabrielparanormalchildhood7559

Ай бұрын

If you watch the video Jorden explains he does that because the only reason people ask him if he belives in God are to find out what teams hes on. He explained he isnt going to be boxed into a certain team witch is why he leaves his answers unclear. If he lays it all out like that then its not insane and hes not being stupid, he just doesnt wsnt to answer and he doest have too

@JohnDoe-kn7ex

Ай бұрын

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@joegreene7746What do you mean by “stupid question”? When you use the word stupid what are you referring to? Do you mean the question itself displays a lack of intelligence because when you really break it down it’s hard to say if a question can truly have its own capacity for intellect. And when you say “anyone” I truly have no idea what you mean since you refused to define anyone, a word which has historically had many uses with different meanings. Do you mean to say that under any and all contexts it is “stupid” to ask about faith. Unfortunately, your comment is extremely vague and I have no idea what you’re complaint is because now we’re in an infinite regress.

As a dude who took a philosophy 100 class destiny’s characterization of what a class would look like was 100% correct. We went over a few big concepts and dove in on three major thinkers for each. Pretty surface level but also very interesting and a good starting point.

The point of Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism is not to invite "ultimate skepticism" but rather invite one to question naturalism. It's in the name of the argument! If sound, the argument succeeds in forcing only naturalists (no one else) to be skeptical of thier beliefs. Even thier belief that naturalism/ materialism is true. A Christian, on the other hand, believes God desires a free and loving relationship with his creation and so would endow us with cognitive faculties capable of tracking truth.

@maxwellsdemon10

Ай бұрын

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't believers have the exact same problem? If I believe that my brain is the product of evolution, I can neither trust my senses, nor the reasoning of my brain, since the evolutionary process doesn't care about truth but survival. So maybe I live in world of useful delusions. Sure, I think this works in the same way that the "brain in a vat" works. I have no access to reality without processing it through my brain, so I inherently cannot trust it. I don't see how a God fixes that without assuming that he wants us to perceive the truth, but I don't think this presumption is any more warranted than the presumption that we can perceive a form of reality and can reason correctly. If we are designed by a God, we still don't know if we perceive reality or reason correctly. Any process by which we determine that God would want us to reason correctly and perceive reality is tainted by the fact, that he created us and our reasoning facilities. So God could be deceiving all of us for motives that we literally cannot fathom. Am I missing something, or isn't that the exact same problem?

LOL destiny doesn't know what equivocation means it's using two meanings of the same word interchangeably that's all it is

@Macheako

Ай бұрын

He does it, quite literally, all the time….

@elijah8104

Ай бұрын

Does it not also refer to the idea of using ambiguous language in general? That's at least what I got from Merriam Webster - it has two definitions.

@Ficojepet

Ай бұрын

@@elijah8104 equi=equal=same, vocate=to call it's two different things/ideas/meanings by the same name

@Ficojepet

Ай бұрын

​@@elijah8104 sorry to clarifty, in destiny's example a calm exchange of ideas, and violent shouting match can be both correctly called an argument when you say, "it's just an argument, it happens all the time in a relationship it's completely normal" it's true that the former arguments are normal and healthy, but if you're making that claim while talking about the latter then you're equivocating those two you're using the word argument to refer to the first one (it being normal) and the second one (the argument in question) at the same time

@elijah8104

Ай бұрын

@@Ficojepet no worries at all. well explained. yeah Peterson certainly does his share of equivocating lmao

Destiny, "Their metaphysics is not Christian" makes sense in the context of the conversation: he is referring to people whose definition of "real" is material/physical, i.e. "if it did not materially happen, it is not real." He is saying that materialist metaphysics isn't Christian, and goes against the kind of things that Christianity and the Bible present as true.

@chrispyisthebest1

Ай бұрын

Yes… also that Peterson insists that this line of inquiry is wrong because its utility is only to expose the historical inaccuracy of the Bible (which he believes is futile). Why otherwise ask that question?

@BruceKarrde

Ай бұрын

​@chrispyisthebest1 during the days of the New Atheists and Atheism+ so many hours were wasted on "proving" that some events never happened. Obviously ignoring the philosophical side of the stories.

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

​@@BruceKarrde uh no. You don't get to be a Christian while at the same time pretending none of the events In the Bible actually happened. Nobody takes you seriously.

@SquishypuffDave

Ай бұрын

Asking whether a historical exodus materially happened doesn't require you to be a materialist. It just requires you to believe that the material world exists. Is JP suggesting it's unchristian to believe in the material world?

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

@@BruceKarrde uh no. Just because your Bible is flawed and makes unsubstantiated claims doesn't magically make it true.

Richard Dawkins gave a perfect description of Peterson, love it.

51:45 No. Peterson does not propose to question unimportant things. He says that the most critical questions can't have simple answers, and coffee is not essential.

@drexelrep

25 күн бұрын

Do you think the point destiny was making was actually about coffee

The way Jordan kept interrupting Alex was insane.

@mrtumnusmusic

Ай бұрын

And that he always did it right as Alex was getting to the point about why Peterson is wrong. I'm beginning to wonder if it's actually a subconscious thing because he literally can't handle the possibility of being wrong

@JobVanDam

Ай бұрын

People in a bubble who don't actually watch Jordan Peterson don't know what they are talking about?!?! SurprisedPikachuFace.jpg Watch Jordan Peterson's talk with Catholic Bishop Robert Barron, someone who he has high reverence for, he regularly interrupted him. Its just a bad habit of his.

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

@@mrtumnusmusic It's such a basic B apologist response, too. I don't watch Alex but I watch a lot of the more funny Atheist channels and I was finishing Peterson's sentences as he said them. It's all very basic, just couched in "well actually".I have never understood why people worship him like they do just to try to cope with their religious beliefs as they play victim and assert their stupid views into law through a coward L/R pres.

@digzrow8745

Ай бұрын

He does it all the time regardless of who he talks to. I remember it to be a big complaint when he started podcasting

He says NOT equivocation... Why would destiny post that part?

"it's a fruitless endeavor because no one wants to talk to an ultimate skeptic" sounds like a rhetorical argument to me. People thought all deductive reflection on foundational epistemology was pointless and then descartes came along

@JakovLSSJ4

Ай бұрын

Yeah, it is... destiny doesn't want to debate philosophy lately and has only been focusing on politics, so he just handwaves even the stuff that's worth talking about

@mielipuolisiili7240

4 күн бұрын

The problem is that with ultimate skepticism there seems to always be just one answer to everything: I can't know for sure. Even something like Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" is making the assumption that human logic is infallible, which it might not be. Ultimately entertaining the ultimate skeptic point of view leads into a dead end. That doesn't mean that it's a bad or incorrect point of view, just that it's kinda pointless to go down that road. Like you can endlessly deconstruct and suspect everything if you wish to do so, the fact of the matter just is that at some point you have to realize that you'll have to figure out how to live your life that you seem to be experiencing in a reality that seemingly exists and probably make at least a couple of assumptions of what you can know in order to do so.

@Sweetiemuffin

3 күн бұрын

@@mielipuolisiili7240 "making the assumption that human logic is infallible, which it might not be". That's not true. There's definitely no such thing as a square circle for example. You can say "how about a higher dimension or something" no, then you'd be talking about something else. The mental concept of a square and circle are exclusive. Or "what if there was a universe without area" but the fact that we exist in this capacity is enough to know if/then facts about reality and concepts even if our entire understanding of reality was scrapped and disappeared. Edit: I agree that at some point you kinda have to just give in to the fact that you believe some things and can't prove they're true or you should act like they're true or something. All you know is that if they're true there's stuff to do.

@mielipuolisiili7240

3 күн бұрын

@@Sweetiemuffin Yes, and there's definitely an external world that I can definitely perceive with my senses.

@Sweetiemuffin

3 күн бұрын

@@mielipuolisiili7240 where'd you get that from?

Peterson just really don't want to say "I don't know" unfortunately, he does say it at some points, but generally he avoids it like cancer

The one where Destiny forgot the word equivalence

@m.j.e.5245

Ай бұрын

He is equivocating equivocalness. Dude needs to touch grass

@insensitive919

Ай бұрын

Next he'll be telling us to get off his lawn. And no, we can't have our frisbee back.

I honestly think JP is saying he doesn’t know while also believing these things are “true” philosophically and affects human consciousness, but as for biblical stories being fact he’s agnostic, but doesn’t want to say so. That’s what I gather from this interview.

@mr-h6x

Ай бұрын

what do you mean "philosophically". logic is a branch of philosophy and if anything, philosophy is what destroys religious claims

@killcount4750

16 күн бұрын

​@@mr-h6x if anything its the opposite

@mr-h6x

16 күн бұрын

@@killcount4750 na....see divine command theory and euthyphro's dilemna. religion was buttfucked in 400 BBC

OMG, when Destiny was doing the store skit I was dying LMAO.

It’s crazy yo! Me as a Theist. I find so much clarity in the way Destiny explains things. I’m glad to be a subscriber.

God I love alex

@lucasgoncalvesdefaria7121

Ай бұрын

I was scrolling fast and red "God I love sex" That'u now

lol destiny just dislikes him now and is clutching at any straw

@cameroncarr2462

Ай бұрын

still go destiny tho

@TransilvanianHunger1334

Ай бұрын

He never liked him lol

JBP helps millions of lives, saved thousands of peoples relationships, sells out arenas all over the world, 3 #1 best selling books and over billions of views from lecture, a professor who’s taught at Harvard and U Toronto ……”JBP isn’t interesting , has nothing to say” - Destiny …….a guy who wants you to stay on your computer all day and watch him misunderstand words like Equivocate for an hour and stir online drama / argue with idiots online…..sounds legit.

@voltaicburst4279

Ай бұрын

Yup he’s a net positive to the world, I don’t trust people who dislike him. Like oh yeah he has some iffy religious beliefs, so what? Likely every single person on earth could be wrong or inaccurate about something!

This is just like his debate with Sam Harris where they went back and forth on the definition of meaning for 2 hours. He has a knack for wasting people's time.

There are many things that Destiny has been called. Mister banal is not one of them.

I am in love with Destiny’s Jordan Peterson impression !!😂

So, Jordan Peterson has 8 million subscribers, and Destiny only has 800k and has been at it a lot longer. I wonder if that's the real reason for Destiny's frustration?

@account_nameonline6420

25 күн бұрын

Nah that’s not it

This is truly the most cringe low iq interpretation I've ever seen from Destiny. By banal, alex meant facile, which was relevant to peterson's reasons for not engaging with it directly which destiny didn't understand when asserting peterson is negating the purpose of language. and destiny completely misunderstood the question about the complexity of the truth of a story, thinking that truth only refers to historical truth. I think these lapses are a manifestation of prejudice, and this is why I personally put destiny in the category of someone who only attends to the full complexity of an issue most of the time, instead of axiomatically accepting his prejudice.

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

Kiddo, either exodus happened or it didn't. The "story" behind it is irrelevant. Your word salad doesn't change reality when you don't like it.

@lennysmileyface

Ай бұрын

Historical truth and the moral/philosophical truth of the story can both exist separately though, we use made up stories to share a moral lesson all the time.

@molten2587

Ай бұрын

@@lennysmileyface ya, I agree, that doesn't refute me or Peterson's points. Though I do think peterson obfuscates a little, which makes that unclear, but he doesn't lie about it.

@molten2587

Ай бұрын

@@mariomario1462 I can't imagine how much of a presumptuous person you are if you thought your comment had any substance. I'm being honest when I say my "word salad", was a result of actual thinking. It's only a word salad insofar as it's poorly written, not dishonest. It's not perfectly written, but it's definitely coherent. The story is definitely relevant. I don't think you understand that there is a conflict when using the word true, as it could refer to historical truth, or moral truth. If your asking the question of the historical truth in itself, the moral truth is irrelevant. But in general the historical truth is trivial, and irrelevant compared to the moral truth, and is asked based on a flawed apprehension of religion to jordan. So jordan usually resorts to explaining the moral truth when he gets asked about the truth in general. The category mistake is the point of jordans argument, and why he won't initially directly address, though will if asked specifically. He gave the answer to historical truth. He said it's plausible but I DON'T KNOW. Why is their still criticism?

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

@@molten2587 nothing presumptuous about it. Neither you nor Peterson make any coherent factual point just pseudo philosophy and nonsense. It's really that simple. Present a single piece of proof of Any of the claims Peterson makes. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not. Either exodus of jews occured or it did not.

Destiny still seems a bit grumpy about his encounter with Peterson.

@KRISTIANSMILJANIC

Ай бұрын

I think Destiny is mostly annoyed by Petersons takeaway from the meeting as Destiny seemed rather pleased by the conversation and dynamics at first

@JakovLSSJ4

Ай бұрын

@@KRISTIANSMILJANIC No Destiny didn't seem pleased by the conversation at first but I get what you mean. Destiny said on stream the day after the conversation that it was a disaster, and he got surprised about the positive reception when the video actually came out a month later. But Peterson instead went in a cope direction that "Destiny just wants to be right" so Peterson clearly feels his political beliefs shaken after the convo (so credit to Destiny for that). Still, Destiny poisons the well so bad during this reaction that it's unwatchable...

@KRISTIANSMILJANIC

Ай бұрын

@@JakovLSSJ4 the only part of the conversation Destiny seemed to be unsatisfied with was in regards to climate change as he felt like he could have been better prepared for that. Other than that I distinctly remember him talking about how much he enjoyed the fact that him and Peterson could get quite heated at times only to later get back to a calmer and less adversarial conversation. In regards to his reaction to this clip I would probably agree with you although I can understand the frustration that Petersons obvious obfuscation can lead to.

Jordan Peterson is sounding more and more like Vaush

@NobodyJones

Ай бұрын

Underated statement

@leobaron9417

Ай бұрын

Has he talked about horse cocks yet ?

@jeffmentanko740

Ай бұрын

@@NobodyJones probably says more about you than Peterson, if both of them sound the same to you, no?

@NobodyJones

Ай бұрын

@@jeffmentanko740 sure

@TheRealZeke2003

Ай бұрын

@@jeffmentanko740 One of the most overused insults in KZread comments. You can do better, get creative

"I don't want to debate people who want to be right" Goes against Cosmic 🤣

the way the gigachad just emerges into the chat window fills me with joy every time i see it, like "here i am bucko, deal with it"

I understand the way Peterson thinks, as it seems to be the same way I think. So please read my short explanation, for those who don't understand this way of thinking: He never claims to believe anything a 100%, but will lead you down his path/road of thoughts, to show YOU where he currently sits on his understanding of a subject, with what he has gathered so far. So when you ask him what he believes to be true, he will say "I don't know", which baffles people. But if pressed to give an answer, he will give you his current position/conclusion on a topic, but leave the subject open for further and deeper understanding. This way we are constantly curious and open to new ideas and understandings, having many different views on the same topic. It helps us understand people who we disagree with, being diplomatic and bringing balance. It's a very non-judgemental way of living, while simultaneously being extremely judgemental at the same time, as some ideas and understandings most certainly are more beneficial to have than others.

@sparkmie

16 сағат бұрын

Yeah and the reason he asks what people mean all the time suggests to me that, his answer will change depending on the exact definition that people give. He’s trying to gauge what people are actually asking, if at all asking in good faith, and it also makes the questioner reflectively think about their intentions.

I took an intro to philosophy class this past semester and it was one of the easiest classes I’ve ever had. Bragging about getting an A in an intro class he probably took over 10 years ago is crazy.

9:21 Who knew Destiny had a perfect Jordan Peterson impression in his pocket

lmfao your JBP impression fucking kills me

Equating SEEMS to be broad,like when you compare two things, it's always equating. But it's not always equivocating.

What do you mean "Do" What do you mean "I" What do you mean "Believe" What do you mean "God"

@roymarshall_

Ай бұрын

What do you mean "Based"

He definitely used “equivocating” correctly, he literally clarified in the following clause that he intended “moving between the two quickly” which is much closer to “equivocating” than “equating.”

I love that hes so close to Alex, but when he interviewed you the chairs were on the other side of the room!

13:09 the reason why he says the stories aren't banal, is because if you are going to say that the story of Exodus is historically accurate, you will need to take the other details of the stories in Exodus as historical as well. You can't simply cherry pick your way into choosing what to trust and what not to trust.

@martinmcmartinezface4243

Ай бұрын

You said "the story of Exodus" and "the other details of the stories of Exodus". What do you mean by that?

@kcal12

Ай бұрын

@@martinmcmartinezface4243 well, the burning bush, for example, or the parting of the sea. While I understand that one can fragmentalize what to choose what elements you take as true, by the measure of assuming validity of the historical accuracy, you are also assuming at the very least a certain reliability of veracity to that text. Meaning that if you start saying the historical part is true, it will become difficult for you to make a case to completely deny the miracles or the metaphysical in general from that text. Because then what? You will agree with the historical standard, the moral truth of the text, even the ethical teachings, but then do a full stop at the miracles of that same text? While it isn‘t impossible to do so, it becomes increasingly more difficult for one to make a case against the miracles, for example, if one is to agree with everything else in the text, because you say it is historically accurate enough, it holds true moral and ethical teachings, but then, the miracle part is completely fabricated to make a point? Which is why, i assume, JP has a difficult time just saying „yes“, because it would imply the rest too. He does overcomplicate things, yes, but it also makes sense from his perspective as to why he is being careful.

Whilst I was on the Alex O'Connor side at the start, and whilst Peterson did spend ages answering a simple question, I do actually think Peterson made a very profound point about what it means for something to be 'real', or as he says at one point, 'hyper real'. I fully understand and partially share in the frustration that he made a simple question seem very complicated, but amongst all the metaphors there is an incredibly deep and interesting point there. It took a long time, but by the very end I dont think there was a clear, albeit, complex answer, and that was to the credit of both Dr Peterson and Alex O'Connor. I think Destiny approached this with a little bit too much immaturity, likely due to his already existing dislike of Jordan Peterson. Alex O'Connor in this conversation genuinely tried to understand Jordan Peterson's ideas here. Destiny came into this seemingly with the intention of shitting on Peterson in bad faith.

@aidanrock8719

Ай бұрын

Jordan says absolutely nothing of any value, it's just vacuous posturing, self-aggrandisation with him hiding behind a shield of "I'm a professor, don'tcha know"

@joegreene7746

Ай бұрын

This is what Destiny does. He is obviously biased and that's fine, but after watching their debate, he's in no position to make these claims. I think Jordan is one of the few people that gave Destiny a real run for his money.

@IndiaTides

Ай бұрын

His view on what is real and what is real to us are different things. Materially either Jesus can exist or not exist. In our fictional narratives, Hamlet can exist in the sense that it has impact on our lives. He definitely knows what the questioner's meaning when he asks a question.

@mcdick1621

Ай бұрын

i mean everything peterson has ever said that goes beyond "get structure in your life" is complete ass. granted he might also be good at giving me a jungian psychoanalysis of my relationship to the dragon of chaos but thats where it kinda starts and ends

@jeffmentanko740

Ай бұрын

@@aidanrock8719 why is alex able to have a good conversation with him if thats all hes doing? If you watch this without Destiny's commentary you might actually get something out of it

Timestamp for when he’s done talking about equivocation?

waiter: what would you like to get today? Jordan: I dont like that question, youre trying to box me in. There are too many marxist assumptions embedded in a hierarchy of memes for that to even make sense unless we consider the metaphorial substrate and dostoevsky's the idiot. I guess my answer would have to be Raskolnikov

@deshon3523

26 күн бұрын

Marxism at this point is a joke.

why does destiny look so drippy tho 🥵🥵🥵

I read Exodus. The book goes on and on about how the ark (chest), that stores the tablets, should look like. Also the offering table and the tent where all the rites were done. Also, God is on an erupting volcano and before that he is riding a tornado or dust whirl with lightning. Another thing is that it seems the number of Jews is almost as big as the number of Egyptians and the pharoah forced the Jews to make adobe bricks out of shrubs and mud. There are so many lines which are just rulings on what the compensation should be for a number of cases, many involving livestock. Its clear that the tale of Exodus is just an old Jewish tale not much different from how the siege of Troy is a old Greek tale in Iliad

@mr-h6x

Ай бұрын

that would be fine if christians talked about the old testament in the same way we talk about the iliad. But they don't . They pass it off as real.

2:00 SOUND THE EQUIVOCATE ALARM

"Is it real? It's hyperreal." - Jordan B. Peterson. _Very_ poor choice of words.

@cypherkoro6553

27 күн бұрын

I think you meant hyperpoor*

Jordan Peterson is a televangelist

@seag1492

Ай бұрын

Nah, he actually has some legitimate points that is worth contending, it's just that he is partly exasperatingly deep into his own analysis and ignores/forgets what most people mean when they ask him questions which makes him responding to questions frustrating at times.

@AspiringDevil

Ай бұрын

Pretty much he's just a secular one... Kinda

@maxwellsdemon10

Ай бұрын

⁠I'm honestly not sure if he has good points. Since he isn't bothered to actually communicate his ideas in a way that is understandable for others, this really makes his statements super ambiguous and they have to be interpreted. I feel like it's a little like Taro Cards. You can find deep meaning in them, or not find anything valuable in it. That's because the cards themselves don't mean anything, you have to inject the meaning into them. That's a little how I feel with Peterson. I can sometimes understand his sentences in a way that make sense and are insightful, but I am never really sure if that is what he is trying to say at all, or if it's just my personal interpretation.

@seag1492

Ай бұрын

@@maxwellsdemon10 You need to understand the way he thinks about concepts before you really understand what he is saying. It's a bit cryptic and naturally it turns a lot of people away from listening to his points. But once you get through it, there definitely is an intricate web of useful information. It just is difficult to get there, and it's really helpful when we have people like Alex to bridge the gap that should in reality be unnecessary.

@jackeagleeye3453

Ай бұрын

@@seag1492 Peterson talking in weird cryptic, overly religious terms all of the time really is just a smoke screen to make it sound like he's saying something profound when he's not saying anything at all. It's a common tactic when you don't want to answer a question directly to ramble, Peterson has simply made an art of that process.

Jordan Peterson is a correction to the "Le reddit atheist" archetype that dismisses all critical analysis of ancient works out of hand because "lol so you think Eve ate an apple from a snake". The "literal occurrence or otherwise" of those stories became a preoccupation at the expense of the other, more interesting layers in those stories.

@TheDavedevil619

Ай бұрын

❤

@keys5595

Ай бұрын

Over correction*

@mr-h6x

Ай бұрын

cap. either you think it happened or you don't. if you want to draw meaning from it as a fiction story, just say so. you don't because you don't want to own that you can't defend it as a real account. people love spiderman because of his character and the role model he is without waffling on whether or not it's fiction.

@RuthvenMurgatroyd

Ай бұрын

​@@mr-h6x No, because we think that eve eating the apple has an allegorical meaning summarizing a very deep truth. It's not the same as just connecting with a story-its a conviction that our interpretation fundementally agrees with reality in some way.

@mr-h6x

Ай бұрын

@@RuthvenMurgatroyd but not reality as in eve actually ate an apple. you mean reality as in the themes have application in reality. you're equivocating to hide that.

His impression of Peterson at 9 minutes in had me dying

I found out about Alex very recently and he’s the ONLY dude I’ve seen hold Peterson’s feet to the fire. Everyone just lets him get away with convoluted word salads.

I cant understand how can someone listen to JP after his debate with Dillahunty. JP is a joke.

@Mglunafh

Ай бұрын

Wasn't that a debate where Dillahunty got trashed?

@Macheako

Ай бұрын

@@Mglunafh Dillahunty is always getting trashed. He’s a great role model for dudes over 30 who like living in their family’s basement ❤

@Macheako

Ай бұрын

Same way I can’t understand why you like Destiny so much ❤

@gitstanfield2863

Ай бұрын

What do you mean he got trashed?

@andrewsneacker1256

Ай бұрын

@@Mglunafh Give one example when he got trashed in that debate.

You missed the most important part of the interview where he says the resurrection probably happened.

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

Then Christianity is not true.

@potmeetkettle

Ай бұрын

@@mariomario1462 How did you come to that conclusion?

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

@@potmeetkettle if the resurrection did not happen the entire theology is not true. This isnt hard to understand..

@potmeetkettle

Ай бұрын

@@mariomario1462 No I understand that. But here’s the issue. The original person said: “…resurrection probably happened” You say: “Then Christianity is not true” You must have mis-read his comment, because your reply now contradicts this.

@mariomario1462

Ай бұрын

@@potmeetkettle "probably" implies there's a chance it didn't. If it didn't then Christianity is not true.

what did you do this morning ? J. Peterson: what do you mean by that??, There are no exact times for when morning begins, however, morning strictly ends at noon, which is when afternoon starts, and is usually when I defecates. As you know, we release faecal matter as an act of reflex action in our bowels, sometimes without the voluntary control of the external anal sphincter, even though, faecal matter or f-e-c-e-s, are connected to the metaphysical primordial being who produces it, meaning that part of yourself is reflected and sometimes embedded in this excretory modeling compound as stated in the ancient Roman literature, also well documented in the Greek mythology, widely discussed from Socrates to the Colossus of Rhodes

What he says you'd do in Phil 101 for the entire class is what you do in the first week or two.

Jordan peterson is certainly one of the thinkers of all time

@HUGEFLYINGWHALE

Ай бұрын

😂

@Prof.X918

Ай бұрын

Yeah he thinks so much that he doesnt understand himself anymore.

@thereccher8746

Ай бұрын

He outpaced himself intellectually.

"I hate this debate strategy of heading them off on their argument." Proceeds to pause repeatedly and head off every argument that JP says and skip the video.

I like to play a drinking game where I take a shot any time Peterson says postmodernism or Jung. I died.