He basically has an issue with category systems all together. You can name 100 things that can be categorized as "a sitting place". Now because they don't share any other characteristics he wants to eliminate categories and call everything a construct. I could sit on a table, stairs, stump/log or a bean bag. I wouldn't sit in a rose bush.
He, most definitely, would argue that age is not a sicial construct, if ALL Americans instantly started drawing Social Security because they feel like they are 67 years old.
It doesn’t have an effect on society but only on medias. Close deleted your social medias and get rid of your TV and everything is still very fine. People that are worth your time do not buy into division. If they do, you should surround yourself with people that aren’t as easy to manipulate
@benoitbrouillette6481 buddy denying the cultural change weve seen the last few years is about as tone deaf as it gets. It's everywhere but to you it isn't, so long as you surround yourself with other people who also feel the same dillusion? Weird, distopian, and pretty cowardly. "Lalalalalalala I can't hear you 🙉 lalala" is essentially your answer.
@@benoitbrouillette6481they’re teaching this shit to children though. So yes, it does effect our society. Children are the future. You can’t just turn a blind eye to these whack jobs
@@betacuck3145 yeah I remember the terrible working conditions that people faced in the industrial revolutions... those were hard times created by leftists then the workers formed trade unions for an 8 hr day classic right wing movement y know.
I truly thought i was the only one who thought this, and i said to myself, “maybe i havent heard enough of Jordan Peterson, and this gentleman has something of interest to say,” and he proceeded to quote Dr.JBP with flawless precision 😂😐
*walks into a hospital and tries to perform open heart surgery on someone* “Yo you can’t do that! You’re not a doctor!” “Doctors are just a social construct. I can be who ever I want to be!” *patient gets attacked by crazy person*
@brad chadley the simplest way to become an intellectual is to lock yourself in a room, preferably full of books and/curios and then release a massive bean induced gasser and inhale deeply while being totally satisfied with yourself.
The problem I have with postmodernists is that they can't seem to differentiate between calling the discription of the concept a social construct, and the actual concepts itself that's being described. The categories may be made up, but they're there to represent and simplify real, tangible things that happens. Categories aren't there to cater to everyone of your ever so important attributes, they're there to represent groups of similar or related concepts, depending on the subject, and make communication easier yet more effective by adhering to commonly set rules and definitions.
He's confusing human language being a social construct (which it is) with the things it describes being social constructs (which they usually aren't). It's like if I pointed at a table and said that the table is a social construct because it's really just a bunch of atoms put together and the idea of "table" only exists in my head. That's definitely one way of looking at things but we are going deep into philosophy, it's not very useful in everyday practice and it's definitely not the only way to look at things. One can of course look at what it is we're describing with our words and if that thing exists and can be observed in reality, then it's not a social construct. The table exists so it's not a social construct. So it goes for race, so it goes for gender. He gives past discrimination as reason for this ideology because, as he puts it, these "divisions" always lead to discrimination. He's basically saying the only way to not be misogynistic is if there is no such thing as men and women at all which is just plain stupid.
But that's what they seem to be pointing out though, that these simplifications have been created for the people in power to make controlling individual freedoms easier. I don't know, seems super far fetched but if i play devils advocate i can kinda grasp where the dude is coming from though i don't see how it would liberate anybody especially within then confines of our current cultural boundaries and even if they did change it i don't think he's really thought about the potential cultural repercussions of pushing forward with these kind of ideas.
@@AntiGuru498 Yeah but you can understand how someone thinks without it meaning you agree with the sentiment or that it makes sense. What he thinks doesn't make sense peactically and he's wrong that it leads to discrimination. That's just one of many possible outcomes. Our philosophies and actions is what determines if we subject others to discrimination, not the categories themselves. So, it's like the dude above said, get rid of all the categories! It's a dumb solution to a problem with a root he doesn't fully understand.
And also, this is what these ppl have tried to do and continue to try to do and I have to say the following: I am 32 years old, and I honestly do not think I have ever met one intersex person. FACTS. It’s not common and don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise. And I don’t know any men who were born infertile either.
I'm not sure I agree with this guy, and his point can be a little bit hard to follow along but once you get it doesn't sound as stupid as it does at first.. I do think he's over intellectualizing it, but I also find his point to be interesting. That being said I don't think I will ever find myself willing to date a trans person, social construct or not.
It's not hard at all to follow, and no it does not make sense, not even a little bit. Every mammal on earth has a male/female dichotomy and there is absolutely nothing socially constructed about that. You can argue about the roles associated with male and female, but you can never argue against the male/female dichotomy within mammals without being factually wrong.
This man would have us speaking whole sentences to state something that could be said with one word. All because universally agreed upon defintions are meaningless apparently.
“Hey if I put on this policeman costume I am now a cop.” *proceeds to try and arrest someone* “Yo you can’t do that!” “Why not? Police officer is just a social construct anyways. I can be who ever I want to be!”
@Trade Bum Simmons I don't know, man. I think a good amount of college students think that, because it's coming from a professor, that it must have some truth to it. They just don't think about it. Phones/weed/alcohol/porn/video games/netflix/etc...
@Trade Bum Simmons I have to listen to this kinda stuff at uni (psychology) and i wouldnt dare question it as i want to be excepted into honours and masters. Sadly the system is built for conformity.
What if the academic person can answer it after a nights sleep? Or do you feel that if you have learnt something through academia you should be able to answer any question on the spot or else you don't know the topic?
No, his argument is: “There are different kinds of circles, therefore circles don’t exist… _And the reason I know that they don’t exist-is precisely because ‘It’s impossible for me to know that they don’t exist._ _And we shouldn’t be focusing on ‘absolutely horrific things that millions of people have to deal with around the world-every single day… and we shouldn’t be worrying about death, famine, poverty, education, crime, or medicine - We should be focusing on ‘stopping people from acknowledging the possible existence of ‘shapes’…_ _’Shapes’ don’t exist, even though, if they do-they still don’t-and since I can’t know if they do-or don’t-or can-or could-exist-I can’t know if they do or don’t, but I do”._ That’s his argument. It’s much dumber than what you said.
What did he warn you about? The man just has stupid ideas that are fundamentally wrong. He should admit that he is not right and move on. Not at all what JP "warned us about"
@@kaloyankolev9804 well in some sense he is warning us about this nihilistic viewpoint since it’s becoming popularized to some extent by the left, media outlets and to a certain extent education systems. We all know that Jordan Peterson is a big proponent of order and acknowledges the utility of hierarchies, objective realities, value systems etc while also being able to criticize those same ideas for the negatives that they also bring. I worded Thaddeus as “the guy Jordan Peterson is warning us about” bc he is the embodiment of nihilistic post-modernism who believes basically everything is a social construct and that objective realities don’t exist.
Nate Miller dihydrotestosterone is a male androgen responsible for male pattern baldness. It is the most androgenic hormone that is produced. Males have high levels of testosterone.
@@coryclark6167 There are tons of "women" that have higher levels of testosterone than "men". For example look at Ronda Rousey and tell me that she doesn't have more testosterone than the average guy 😂
Summary.... Thaddeus: The way we label things is wrong. They're just 🏷 tags we stick on things. We can change the tags! 😃 Joe: But those tags are linguistic placeholders for our tangible reality, and that reality does not interact in the way you wish to re-do the tags. 🧐 Thaddeus: 😶🥺
*Goes to a zoo and gets into the lion cage* “Hey man you can’t do that! That lion is gonna eat you!” “I identify as a lion. Humans are just a social construct. I can be who ever I want to be!” *proceeds to be mauled by lion*
It is creepy but also not too hard to understand how he got there. If you really accept that categories we invented for communication only serve to harm people rather than actual utility, it kind of makes sense to think we should just change the categories. Except, my problem is: 1. I think he is very dismissive of the actual utility of traditional man/woman categories. It's certainly more useful than he gives it credit for and is used many times a day. 2. If we change the category to appease those who are unhappy with the category, we will then need a new word for the old category. We would then probably revert to using the old category under its new name. 3. Unless he also believes all categories which make someone unhappy should be altered, this is a double standard. Many short people are not happy about the short/talk category. Yet I don't imagine he would defend breaking that down.
@@kobefurness4746 Sometimes very smart people can believe in obvious nonsense, because their focus on a particular issue is laser-tight. If you just hard focus on the issue of oppression and victimhood, I mean it's easy to end up thinking like a neo-Marxist. The problem isn't even necessarily that the facts are wrong, just incomplete. Too many relevant things left out of consideration.
This is probably the most widely watched video depicting social construct theory, and people in this audience just decided they despise it. Without taking a moment to understand where it’s coming from, or the evidence for and against it. At least it seems that way. I think Thaddeus’ main flaw here is that he’s not making a distinction between the connection of these social theories and how we live our lives on a daily basis. There’s assumptions baked in to daily life, which are beneficial or harmful. People should criticize constructs and understand that they don’t have to live within them if it doesn’t actually make sense in the long run. The focus on categorization is a waste of time IMO, because it is inevitable and has a long history.
No he is just trying to change what we know to be TRUE so that the argument cant be said that you have to be born one way or the other! That destroys there argument!
@@kurtnaugle Yeah but why do we have to be so extreme about it? Why does EVERYTHING have to be a social construct? Why can't we say, OK these things are constructed and these things are tied to gender and so on... When you make blanket statements it just seems like an agenda
@@alleras46 He's totally wrong. His argument is that because things exist on a broad spectrum that categories are useless. I wonder if he thinks the words hot and cold are useless because temperature is such large scale.... Just because the category of race/sex are more complicated spectrums doesn't mean they aren't useless..
@@alleras46 well...maybe he doesn't know it which would make him srupid. But if he does know it, that makes him full O' shit. Regardless, I'm embarrassed for him that he is a professor.
This guy, yes guy, made the crucial mistake of assuming Joe was dumb, and spoke to him as such. The only reason he can say what he says so confidently to Joe is because he probably lives in an echo chamber of other likeminded friends who believe the same. Based on his tone of voice and the way he reacts to Joes counter arguments you can see his narcissism shine through. Well said Joe 👏🏽
This is our entire country tho... How many times are you chillin with people completely opposite of you?m. Maybe some coworkers, but you arent hanging out with them.
It’s incredible how this guy brought up the Kinsey study. Kinsey used s3x offenders, homeless people, pro$titutes and prisoners in his study. Hence why the numbers are so high! 😂
Thaddeus is extremely confused and contradicts himself… The reason why you feel like your brain is dissolving like a slug in salt can be put to the lack of logic and basic biology being spewed by this guy..
Yeah that's it. And that was even acceptable to an extent, but then he started saying that distinguishing between men and women served the elite and there was nothing positive about it.
David Reimer (22 August 1965 - 4 May 2004) was a Canadian man born male but raised as a girl following medical advice and intervention after his penis was severely injured during a botched circumcision in infancy. The psychologist John Money oversaw the case and reported the reassignment as successful and as evidence that gender identity is primarily learned. The academic sexologist Milton Diamond later reported that Reimer's realization that he was not a girl crystallized between the ages of 9 and 11 years and that he was living as a male by age 15. Well known in medical circles for years anonymously as the "John/Joan" case, Reimer later went public with his story to help discourage similar medical practices. At age 38, he committed suicide after suffering severe depression.
No Peterson is Right because post-modernism is the idea that there's an infinite amount of possibilities and the amount of Truths in every situation and if a person has the gender of a girl of asan defent, can identify as a black man and both of those statements are equally true. That's inaccurate of course because we have sex in the projective truth regardless of what truth you want to take this. The truth is independent of people and their opinion. Frank me house like to call it subjective truth but because postmodern in every possible truth is equal none more so than the other meaning any truth a person believes in the objective truth subjective truth doesn't exist because if you think you're a man show me different REI that is your objective truth and that is post-modernism. Post-modernism destroy the ability of different groups to communicate with each other with different opinion and ideas regarding the objective truth and if you don't have an objective truth there's no way you could discuss anything with anybody... if I claim a woman is one thing and you claim a woman is something else, how can you defeat important women's issues if you can even agree on what a woman is. We know what a woman is a woman has XX chromosome and female sex organ but postmodernist can you come up with a hundred different meanings for a woman and we won't be able to communicate because we don't even know what each other is talking about. Is mathematics is a universally understood language, objective truth exist the same way. Objective truths are just like the international language of mass. Logical people understand that there's only 1 adjectives truth Annie's you with postmodern they think there's hundreds of equally objective truths,
Love the part where he “don’t know where to go from here” and realizes he wasn’t able to brainwash Joe with his nonsense after thinking Joe was with him simply for following along and listening 😂😂
You need guys like Thaddeus to argue absurdities that no self-respecting person would attempt to socialize. Kudos to Thaddeus for sacrificing his dignity to demonstrate how stupidity manifests into an incoherent worldview.
Problem is, what he’s arguing is literally being taught by PHDs at universities and major influencing organizations like mass media, Hollywood and entire political parties.
@brad chadley So every conversation needs to be a tangential four-hour discussion on the nature of being and inherent or divergent properties and personalities? Yeah, I’m good. And so are 99.9% of people in real society/life.
@brad chadley dude, he straight up said Andy Dick and a UFC fighter were different genders because one was more traditionally masculine. It’s insane. In his defense, the premise is absolutely nonsense so by default, his argument will be nonsense.
Thaddeus: "Post-modernism is the supreme achievement of human society." Also Thaddeus: "no, you mean the thing we call a penis doesn't mean the dog is a male."
Also if there are any exceptions to any rules whatsoever we must eliminate those rules completely. 0.2% of people are trans therefore men and women are social constructs
@@obelisk_hd Yeah this guy is either a complete idiot or totally bat shit and I can't figure out which it is - but it's funny how alot of times it's people like that who are so arrogant, close-minded and condescending.
Omg, yes! So smug. I don’t know how Joe kept his cool. And the idea that you’re going to invoke the Kinsey Study as proof of anything is a straight up joke.
@@natemiller6756 Have you never looked at it? The sample set was composed of convicts, prostitutes and self-selected volunteers. You could not pick a less representative sample if you tried. Even Kinsey said the reports were not definitive but only just a beginning.
What a load of absolute bollocks. Not only did he incorrectly summarise the French postmodernist worldview (only to try and skewer JP), he made not one modicum of sense outside of his world of academia.
@@dgp187 He seems to be deep in the well of extremist postmodernism. He doesn't seem to acknowledge that the words we use (man, woman, boy girl etc) are mapped onto common biological realities rather than just arbitrary definitions. He might as well argue that human beings are not mammals and he could make the same claims: 'Mammal' is a social construct'. 'There are various characteristics that are used to define 'mammal'. 'We are told mammals have hair, but dolphins don't and they are considered mammals'.
@@davidgraham8058 dolphins are born with hair but loose it shortly after birth, this is true for whales as well. but yeah, the dude kind of did say that when he said that the sexes of animals are a construct that we have applied to them. i wish joe wouldve pushed a little bit more to differentiate the expression, which is developed after birth and with exposure to the environment, from the biological consistencies, like, obviously a fetus cant be gay or a "wormself" or whatever, but we can observe the physical sexual characteristics long before its fully developed. it seems to me that the idea that this guy is ultimately trying to push is, "when these categories are used to oppress people, THEN it is a bad thing." so... why not just say that instead? rather than, "categorization is harmful, yet necessary, but we have to get rid of it, but we also cant function without it." dude is stuck in a loop hes not nearly as comfortable as he seems, hes afraid to face something thats preventing him from breaking this fallacious circle jerk
He is objectively wrong. The post modernists are not the ones who realized change happened over time with respect to roles. We have known this since the beginning. Its in nearly every creation myth, religion and history
@@natemiller6756 I take you're into postmodernism views. If that's the case, I respect it. And I do am interested to know if you think that there's something, anything, iinherently wrong about White Straight Male
The fact that Thaddeus is so deluded to actually believe that there is no biological difference between men and women is insane. He literally is just closing his eyes and denying reality.
@@natemiller6756 Seeing this name continue to pop up in this specific Joe Rogan video, calling names while amazingly avoiding having an actual argument, I am thinking this is Thaddeus' second account :)
yep, today is my therapy session, it really helps. It cleans the crap out of your brain's logic center.... makes it think more clearly. This segment makes your brain WANT to think more clearly just in order to NOT be like that in any way form or shape...
Holy shit, that is hilarious! I also watch this every few months to renew my hatred for all things "progressive" and as a reminder that freaks like this Thaddeus flamer have taken over our schools and universities and they are brainwashing entire generations with their mentally ill leftist propaganda. Sadly, portions of our cities are currently being burnt down by the useful idiots these people have brainwashed. Leftism is a terminal disease and the evil people promoting it to our kids are 100% aware of this fact. Random piece of advice: Always kill traitors first even before the enemy.
@@natemiller6756 but human didn't say that man exist, it does exist ,wheher we like it or not, is just reality, we don't have anything to do with it, society doesn't have anything to do with it,
@JoJoKiwi I like that. It's so true. Many times you take a person who can really sing, but can't right, can't produce, or even play an instrument. They need a team behind them. Hell, for decades the music industry promoted people who had no talent at all, but looked a certain way. This guy checks all of the woke boxes, so of course he gets a spotlight.
I think he actually made a decent point but I don’t think Joe was grasping his point. And I also think he missed the opportunity to address the biological gender factors. But if you listen closely, he is making sense.
I’m truly curious if Thaddeus considers race a social construct. If so, does he realize the total chaos it would create with a lot of social programs. Also, I would like to hear his thoughts on how his thoughts would play out in the legal world. Eg discrimination cases.
His claims about post-modernist achievements, and what supposedly was the prevailing orthodoxy before post-modernism, are ludicrous. Yet the level of rationality goes downhill from there.
@Michael Washburn hoping Jordan recovers from whatever it is he is going through... not much info out there about his condition... but the one thing this professor is right about and doesn’t know it is that you can’t be a post-modernist and a Marxist, but he doesn’t seem to realize that’s kinda the point Peterson makes, that their own ideologies don’t make sense which is why... we need to “believe all women, and women make less than men” but at the same time, “women can become men.” So is Donald Trump the first female President?
@@user-hw6fr1wl8w Personal freedom is the only thing we have dumbknot. You prefer to have the church to control instead of the sjw? At least now the economy and science has advanced unmesuarably and we are better than any time in history. Go away with your tax evader delusion sellers churches. We are definetely better without them at the helm.
@arniebarb123 Merry Christmas was never replaced by society. It was a handful of retail stores who told their employees to wish their customers "happy holidays" instead of merry Christmas because believe it or not, not everyone celebrates Christmas, so it actually makes more sense to say happy holidays unless you happen to know the person celebrates Christmas.
This is the sound of a person who has never been challenged before. He even admitted it towards the end. "I thought you were with me for the first hour and a half, now I don't know what to say"
Even more likely is "the word "grass" is made up by humans, and the confines of the category "grass" are not strictly laws of the universe, therefore grass is a social construct". Most of this stuff is a semantic word game with absolutely no meat on the bone. Any category, no matter how objectively defined, like animals vs plants for example, could be called a social construct when this is how you look at it.
@@brendant19 that's why this is so stupid. If someones argument is "yeah but humans made up that name and category" no dip. We have to identify our surroundings... we have to group and categorize things so we can navigate the world. Then we all group and agree on what the consensus should be on what terms work and what defines those terms. So that we aren't having to adjust our thinking and speech for EVERY single person because nothing is defined and they can make up their own language and definition at any time.
I agree. I actually agree with a lot of what this guy is saying but I could probably make better arguments than he did. He is not very good at it. The biological differences between men and women is a small portion of all of the traits that we have typically associated with men and women and I think that many of the reasons that we label men and women as we do can do more harm than good.
@@sebastianradlmeier8922 I'm sure you do. Perhaps you just don't understand what I'm talking about. I said biological differences. You're dumbing it down to just genitalia. Maybe you're just simple. There are so many traits that we associate as masculine and feminine other than just biological traits, that aren't actually linked to biology. Clothes, toys, make-up, emotions, speaking, roles, careers, colors, sports, television, music......it goes on and on. There are so many more. Why do women, for example, typically shave their legs and armpits, and even facial hair, which is more common than you probably realize? Is that biological? Is pink biologically feminine? Is crying biologically feminine, or do men usually prevent themselves from crying in public because they think it's feminine? Just a few examples.
@@Mike_C-79 So you are talking about biological stuff? So am I. "Dick, pussy", he shouted. Well, that sounds pretty biological to me. And what kinda genitalIa - as you may call it - you are born with and who you wanna fuck has a huge impact. It influences the clothes we wear, whether you put on make-up, the careers we choose, the sports we play, the music we listen to, whether you shave your legs and armpits, and so on. If it's not a difference directly rooted in biology, it oftentimes is indirectly (meaning, people do their best to appear as fuckable as possible.). But, who knows, maybe I am just simple.
Joe calling him out for calling them “Guys” is priceless. His whole existence is based on saying men and Women don’t exist but he doesn’t even know what to call them when referencing them. You can’t make up this sort of stupid.
‘Woman’ may be a social construct insofar as the connotations in a modern social setting. ‘Female’ is not. It’s a scientific, binary gendering that we all fall under the rubric of on the level of DNA and primary and secondary sex characteristics. Biology does indeed infer and influence a lot of the life decisions we make.
His discourse perfectly outlines what it means to be ideologically possesed and to be willing to warp reality in all sorts of ways just to make your ideology work. This is properly ridiculous.
that would be the most ironic moments in debate history. a postmodernist debates a post-postmodernist. "hey all truths are equally real". "erm no...moral truths are MORE REAL than scientific truths"
How can you even ‘trans’ from something thats not a biological base point? What are you transitioning from? The arbitrary ether?? The guy makes no sense.
Yeah it's a common critique of postmodernism, that it's basically a form of luxury theorising that emerges from excessively comfortable living conditions
@@boorhaave5880 and what's wrong with that? And the cultures I'm talking about aren't rich at all. Some Navajo and Hawaiian tribes had agender and non-binary identities but of course they didn't call it that, they had different names but basically they still identified as neither boy or girl.
@@natemiller6756 I don't think that is the issue. He seems to know what postmodernism is, but points out that somehow Neo-Marxists have hijacked it (even though he points out that is contradictory).
@@alpha_raven Next you'll be telling me Christians don't actually follow every facet of the bible. Forget the wool over your eyes, you've completely gouged out your entire optic nerves if you can't see how postmodernists have almost always been unhinged marxists.
The definition of a male: someone with XY chromosomes in the nuclei of every cell in their body. The definition of a female: someone with XX chromosomes in the nuclei of every cell in their body Every anatomical statistic and character trait that is not mentioned above, exists completely 100% outside of the definitions of male and female. Saying that having a soft, feminine demeanour makes you a female, or that being athletic and mildly egocentric makes you a male, is like calling this 👆 direction “red” and this 👇 direction “blue”. It makes no sense to assign colour names to directions, because direction and colour are two completely unrelated concepts. And for the exact same reason, it is wrong to assign the names for genetically-programmed reproductive roles to arbitrary social personas, because they are two fundamentally unrelated concepts (at least according to most pro-trans’ers)
Abnormalities in chromosomes do exist though. The issue with this is it’s impossible to classify almost anything in a black and white fashion- but people like this woke guy hear this and let it absolutely destroy the fundamentals of their worldview and suddenly lose touch with any grounding in reality.
The ‘man’ who says he’s a man denies he was born a man. 🤣 “What does that mean anymore..” there’s the question that sums up that this “man” lost his testicles when someone else told him he wasn’t a man. AKA bully (gov or otherwise).
