Joe Rogan Calmly Obliterates Jordan Peterson 

juan gomez Hey man, I smoke a ton of weed, and I... Shiiiiit, that *is* a pretty sick burn.

The Ghost of Flekk Bone Gnawer PERST MERDERNISTT!!11!!!!

Classical Liberal sounds eloquent, cultural Marxists sounds evil. How about we start calling Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and their like - Ayn Randists.....or....cultural Randists.

The Ghost of Flekk Bone Gnawer Marxist marxist marxist merxist merxist murxxist merxshist mrxst mrsx mrx mrmrx MURXXXXX Wow, now that you mention it "12 Rules for Life" IS brilliant! Thanks, friend! *Autofellatio*

tbh Rogan is doing better poking holes in some of these guys than others and I think it is because he just kind of does it in this chill way where it doesn't look like he's trying to pigeonhole them .

Only for a bunch of pathetic repugnant incels.

🤣...IDW, Peterson promotes the ‘Intelligent Distribution of Women’.

noticed this too rip

thats why i clicked on this vid, after about 2 dozen 3 hour jordan peterson and ben shapiro oil fracking billionaire funded propaganda sessions joe has fully become a reactionary idiot who has lost touch with anything involving reasoning

@deedeetops the ignorance is strong in this one.

They just blow each other now

Also notice how he doesn’t appear to be on steroids whereas it’s very obvious he is today

BS

@@blackfrancis55 Oh? Please show me where Jordan Peterson talks about how these things are huge problems for kids growing up then? If what I'm saying is BS, you should have no trouble producing the evidence.

@@Pierre-gk5ky Your "evidence" is that he doesn't talk about it, so therefore that is what he believes?!? 😆 That's a joke dude. That's why it's BS. You would have us believe that Jordan P. doesn't believe people should have food, housing or healthcare? 😂 Whatever...

@@blackfrancis55 What you (or in this case JP) decide to talk about is pretty solid evidence for what you believe, and what you believe is important. If you decide to bring up a parent's promiscuity as a problem and talk about it on political talk shows, but don't talk about the issues I mention above, then you clearly believe the one you brought up is more important than the other. And if you actually think that promiscuity is more important than healthcare, housing or food, then you're a moron. Like Jordan Peterson.

@@Pierre-gk5ky That makes no sense at all. It's BS, and I think you know it. You're attributing false beliefs to him. It's a devious trick, but a highly transparent one 😂!

Exactly, it’s equality vs. equity.

@@salzshakes4895 Basic minimum is not equity either.

Was literally just about to write a 500 word paragraph on this. I love how these guys have to sink to extremes to argue. Fucking idiots.

There are very very few people who argue for equality of outcome though. Even most hard lefties argue for building a stronger worker cooperative sector and well funded local public services like housing, education, healthcare, and utilities. You pay for it by taxing the gains on the people who have the most advantages in our system (and having an efficient budget obviously). Changing the justice and immigration system to ruin less people's lives is another one. All of these things effect outcomes. Again, total and complete equality of outcome is rarely mentioned in my experience with the Majority Report, Jacobin, Chapo Trap House, the DSA, and the Dig.

@@evanferreira8606 also those are libshits who think that progress is more female drone pilots

i'm stealing that

Nice lol.

I support JP but that’s gold my friend.

Touche

🤣🤣🤣

Cause it's true

Yo biotch ok

Michael Brooks lol he has great one liners like that whenever JP is discussed.

🙄

Yeah. It's long in the past now

​@@annnee6818Still fun to watch.

​@@imjstmichael86 Sad because your lobster boy was shit on?

now he just lets anyone spew miss-information and just sits there looking amazed no matter who or what is said. Its a bummer.

Because right wingers like to use it to mean "equality of opportunity"and like to pretend everyone to the left is a a communism.

Same reason Obama never said he wanted to kowtow to his donors... not smart to say but obviously seen.

As big a strawman as “Open Borders”

Because you don't know that you are advocating for equality of outcome.

Michael brooks literally had a video on this channel saying he wanted to cap yearly income at 20 million. that is the beginning of equality of outcome.

From what I've seen the problem is they use so many different ways to play videos there's no way to give him a pause button. Not even like a giant button that presses "spacebar" would work all the time.

SuperWolfkin just give him all the buttons packed into one really big button. Like, cmon. You know this.

At this point, they should've done this year's ago 😂 I guess they didn't want to have to fired anyone

@@chilli1472 this ain't Staples

so the others would be almost useless, I mean other than licking his balls.

well said 100%

That makes no sense because he wasn’t sober when this took place. He was popping valium. He’s allegedly sober now.

He's not a psychiatrist.

That's what happens when you're a benzo addict and too pussy to detox, so you go to Russia to get put into a coma for 8 days so you don't have to be awake for withdrawals. He literally fried his own brain. He is, in the most BASIC sense of the word, NOT a smart man.. for a guy who claims to be super intelligent and alpha, he sure doesn't drink his own Kool-ade

​@@googlegoogle9712so j.p was high , what a life j.p has .

I would suggest you watch the full 2 hour JRE show before making your assumptions based on cherry picked video clips that were cherry picked for the sole purpose of making JBP look as bad as possible. Make up your own mind instead of letting these loons tell you what to think.

Mr somebody you said cherry!

@@SilverCanary1 what no i didn't. Pics or it didn't happen!

@@skulleliete anytime you put someone in front of JP and take the time to analyze what he says you can notice he is making a fool out of himself.

@@skulleliete watch 2 fu*#@* hours??? Are you crazy????

Seriously, that’s the one line that always comes to mind when I think of Sam lol

@@patrickgallagher3934 I totally respect that. Thank You.

@@patrickgallagher3934 people ruined it, you can like now

second that...

Hate that so much

Yeah I’m quite upset that he can say such stupid shit, don’t get me wrong he’s great at his job and everything, but well, the environment has nothing to do with psychology.

Or just people with common sense judging it accordingly

@@lampseven4894 Please feel free to elaborate. All of us dullards with no common sense are mindlessly waiting for you to usher us onto the path of wisdom.

@@TheNaqoyqatZ yeah that’s about the level of discourse I would expect around here lol

@@lampseven4894 So you have nothing. Got it. That's totally what I would expect from someone with a "nail in coffin" argument! Cheers.

lol nail on the head.

It really is though.

"Speak clearly" is one of his rules for life. LOL

He IS taken out of context. Lots. Got it? Good! Now go put on that dunce cap on and sit in the corner

could it be because he actually is being taken out of context?

smart

@@sophiasanders8321 yes, I can't stand Peterson, but the host is absolutely attacking a straw man, completely misstating the point. It's very annoying because it is possible to critique what Peterson is actually saying.

Exactly. Well said. This guy kn the glasses can barely string a sentence together. I think this guy is about 80 IQ points below JP and thats his problem perhaps

@@PZBrooklyn great explanation by you and that other guy on why what jordan peterson said was super smart, ACTUALLY it was a very convincing argument and i for one am sorry i doubted the lobster lord's gigantic brain for even a second

RIP. Too bright. Too young.

Amen

Wait dude died

@@Str1ek0 unfortunately yes, something quick like an aneurysm, he will be missed.

@@federicomorra2323 May he Rest In Peace

Rational Reality ACCURATE LOLOLOL HOLY SHIT

Lmao

I actually laughed out loud, thank you!

Unless you think about it it’s not like that at all, nice joke

Lmao!

Because if everyone has enough to live the number of people willing to work hard to live out their dreams will greatly diminish. It’s fucked up but hard times breed strong people. Strong people live long and fulfilling lives.

@@johnnybaxter1953 so they want everyone to be equally mediocre?

@@johnnybaxter1953 You have some evidence to back up your assertion that ensuring peoples basic needs are met would cause an epidemic of apathy? We've had 40 years of 'trickle down economics' since Reagan, and we still await the emergence of strong people. We have a small selection of extremely rich people, and an ever growing population close to subsistence. Life already provides hard times for people, free of charge, what we don't need is organisations ensuring that only a few can ever transcend them.

@@2262f3 I just look at the world we live in. Most people are poor, but they don’t do anything to change their situation. They go work their shift at McDonald’s, come home, take a bowl, and watch Netflix. I think having a universal basic income would just become a way to make people even more dependant on the establishment than they already are. If you feed a geese bread everyday, it will die in the wild because it doesn’t know how to feed itself

​@@johnnybaxter1953actually, if people don't have to worry about surviving their more likely to follow their dreams, or attain them in the first place. No one said give everyone a mansion, but if everyone had a house, it would provide incentive for better communities. Are their people who would take advantage? Yes, but that's true in any system. I would much rather someone have a house than be on the street where they could be a danger to others or in trouble themselves. The reduction in money paid to the police alone would pay for most of it. I would also point out that many countries already have a version of this, and it seems to be working for them

Yep

Cool it with the antisemitism

@Warren Higgins the difference between enforcement from government, and enforcement from individuals is superficial. It doesn't change the consequences.

Warren Higgins the mental gymnastics Peterson fans have to do in order to defend such a nonsensical point. Any person with common sense will see through it.

@Warren Higgins Ummm.....Neo- Nazis, Antifa, and radical Islamists have sex.Quite a few of them are married or in some kind of sexual relationship. Neo-Nazis especially have a very sexualized culture as do ISIS and Boko Haram. That's one of their recruiting tools. The peeps in Antifa get laid all of the time. They go to protests and settle down with a partner for the duration of the protests or they are already in a relationship. Obviously, not all of them have sex. Not all of them want to. Ijs, it's incorrect to use those groups as an example. Even if sexuality if somewhat repressed like it is in Right Wing Christianity people still have sex. Why do you think so many of these people marry so young?

@Warren Higgins if Peterson or you knew anything about the Holocaust, about the Genocide, you'd know your point makes no sense.

@Warren Higgins also, since you live under a rock. There are many societies that have monogamy. In Pakistan, the Middle East even though re marrying is allowed in Islam there is a culture of monogamy. Also there is no relationship between women being strong and "fucking guys". This comes from yours and Peterson's extremely poor understanding of feminism. Extremism is caused by many factors but you have absolutely 0 data to support the claim that it comes from sexual frustration. The reason Peterson picks this is because otherwise he will have to address hierarchies, concede that hierarchies being corrupt actually stabilize society i.e mysogny, slavery, racism and so on, and then have to retract his point when he characterizes identifying oppressive hierarchies as complaining or playing indentity politics.

What's so funny about this example is that they show him receiving a criticism, *acknowledging that it's a valid criticism*, *and taking time to think it through*. What a sad state we're in, when acknowledging a criticism without an immediate response ready is a sign of being wrong. Because if you ask me, the people who are willing to do that are far more likely to be right than those who seem "immune" to criticism.

@@joealias2594 Yes, you can tell peterson is having these discussions in the genuine pursuit of truth and therefore recognizes when there's a valid point being made

@@joealias2594 Yes, he acknowledges the criticism and takes time to think it through, but he just waves it off and doesn't actually address it. And, it is a sign of being wrong, sorry. Just because I can acknowledge a criticism when someone points it out to me and I think about it doesn't mean I wasn't wrong. Peterson didn't produce a counter-argument to what Rogan was saying and just claimed that his point and Rogan's weren't contradictory. Then he moved on to another topic.

This guy watches the video before commenting, unlike the Lobster virgins cult.

@@joealias2594 he is wrong but he didn't ultimately concede his point so he is being intellectually dishonest - no reason to glorify that

what a lazy uneducated response

It’s easy to do when you understand what Peterson is doing. He cannot condense his ideas. He MUST be vague, convoluted, and complicated so that his opposition feels intimidated. I’ve seen several videos of him being asked very simple questions like “Do you believe god exists”, and Peterson said “Well, that’s a very complicated question. What do you mean by “you”, what do you mean by “god”, what do you mean by “believe”? He skirts around the point so that he doesn’t have to actually explain anything. He sounds very profound to people who don’t realize what he’s doing.

Do you think you'd beat him in a debate?

"intellectually dim web" made me laugh. I'm gonna start using that

This channel also has a video saying that Rogan is enabling right wing extremists apparently, and yet has a lot of videos of him ‘destroying’ people who come onto his podcast. So they’re praising the guy they think does that?

Caleb McFarland the two aren’t mutually exclusive. He argues well with some of these reactionary dolts at the same time as enabling them by having them on so often (thereby giving then disproportionate airtime). He should have on Sam or Michael

@@KristianKumpula me too!

When? And in what way? I’m curious.

Lol, if only haha

Sam is a communist.

Completely agree, he is clueless

@@alfonzomma Explain?

He really doesn't, and his whole argument is built on his complete misconception of equality of outcome. Sam is seeing this debate through a very different lens to mine.

@@outofworkactor3033 How so? And why does JP equivocate?

Which existing problems does he refuse to aknowledge?

Did he create the Black Pill and partly MGTOW ideology in his mind just there?

RARAYAYA RAA can you give me an example of systematic racism?

@@forretressrex9519 Remember when Harvard discriminated against asians? I honestly don't know a lot in this area so eh. Dont take this seriously I'm just that dumb guy in the back guessing an answer because theres noone else answering

InteryCreeper it’s alright bro, and you’re right. That’s actually is a good example of institutional racism that ironically was caused by schools using affirmative action to fill in enrollment spots. I was hoping for more government related but given the fact that affirmative action derived from the government, it was a good example.

6:45 is my favorite.

lame and juvenile.

Absolutely hilarious

@@scottbarr2889 hahahaha

Classic

Facts

Rogan wasn’t even arguing with him, he just asked basic questions and destroyed JP’s stupid points.

it's concerning and embarrassing...

You have ratios? Please do share! As a non conservative or fanboy, I'm unsure where I fair in these ratios; I heard both sides of the argument and Perterson makes very good arguments. Could it not be said that anyone posting a comment are there to show their feelz.

@@michaelbennett8981 Not all points he ever makes are bad but the ones in this video are , and they are very conservative views not to mention dishonest. There are centrists and folks with left leaning views who fall for some of his conservative views as well as the "fanboys" and conservatives but it's hard to justify the like to dislike ratio on them because it's easy to fathom a agenda can corrupt peoples judgement more than people defending his sophistry because his points are good because this video broke down why they are riduilous.

@@michaelbennett8981 blah blah, spare me your bs.

feels over reals mydude.

Jordans is about to explain his point.... "pause it" and let me insert my idea -sam seder

Holy fuck I know right

People who don't understand the message love to say that

@@jovaransguplar3019 I understood the message. it just could have been condensed better, it was repetitive and seemed emotionally charged. So who knows

@@haizi7179 thats the issue though. Think about how frequently he gets misrepresented despite his efforts to clarify things. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if he didn't make things that clear. Essentially he is just answering questions that would inevitably be asked anyway. He's being preemptive about it to avoid the headache, and so there's zero excuses for people who do misrepresent his position. I get it.

@Umberto Eco ok bud

mack whitz Why would you watch the MR commentary video instead of the JRE podcast itself if you aren’t interested in commentary?

@@swagulationstation5278 to listen to his perspective is why, I just happened to find it to be shit

@@mackwhitz5312 I also wanted to see how perverted Sams perspective on this would be. These guys are quacks. People should watch the actual podcast not this garbage. Chopped so much it means nothing, this guy pretends to understand the words JP is saying but its clear hes just puttin his own narrative. Gotta watch the original podcast.

@@AdrianDWolfe I have watched the podcast and that's why I know this moron is just twisting short clips so he can shine his armor and be the swj white knight nobody asked for

He never does lol. Too bad it’s too late

Absolutely, he just want to fix the only problem his incels wealthy white followers have, sex.

+Sadiq Ghazy Absolutely, 13:13 they mentioned that too.

I think maybe the argument should be what the definition of basic, income, health care and housing is. There's government section 8 housing, and basic cheap food. Matter of fact I've never seen a poor person that wasn't fat. there's health programs for the poor but they're not well funded. Maybe we need to upgrade what "minimum" or "basic" actually is because believe it or not the "minimum" already exists.

All that matters is whether or not you can force women to have sex with you

Peterson is for basic income, healthcare and housing jeez... would you please stop taking things out of context and spread wrong things? Just imagine being him

RIP

i didn't know, how sad

@@kssgpv i didnt know till recently either. And i still dont know how.

He died during the pandemic (shut down), from a circulatory problem. Very shocking.

:(

He also puts words in people's mouths and conforms his argument based on it

@@nexya26 yes, I swear it's like 90% of his political or philosophical discussions are purely based on straw man arguments

@@nexya26 so the exact thing whoever made this video is doing, putting words into his mouth and saying “so this is his argument” y’all are so ignorant and lack so much self awareness it’s almost unbelievable

@@zwoptf I didn't make the video, I didn't even mention it so saying I lack self awareness is quite ironic isn't it

When JP talks about equality of outcome he is talking about having a % of employees be of X race or X gender , equality of outcome in that case will lead to a worse work force because the employer needs to fill in a quota instead of actually getting the people for the jobs . So yes in this case from the first 4 mins he is arguing against something JP doesn't even stand for or mention. I used to like JP but i have my reasons to hate him now , however i do not respect someone pinning ideas on the guy when he never mentioned them just to "hate" on him coz its cool.

that's exactly what he is

JP is Rubin's daddy.

Insofar as they both are looking to ca$h in on the stupidity of right wing audiences even if it means saying shit they don't believe or care about...yes. Yes, he is.

Life coach, or rather lie coach.

Miranda N Hey O!

I believe that would be the Koch Bros

Who’s Petcov says the incel little beta bitch

Where?

I love the Dislikes. It shows how pathetic the Incel Peterson fanboys are. This video was GREAT

@@native307 "GREAT" is a little hyperbolic.

@@screechingonions2365 very intelligent argument (not)

First time I've heard the term too!

THANKYOU that's cos it's not a thing.

'to each according to his need' means the same thing, no?

@@sidarthur8706 no, it much more approximately means equality of opportunity, a base line of decency we all adhere to. But Marx had a critique for equality of outcomes and recocgnized you could never reach true "equality" bc there will always be situational exemptions or disparities. JBP's analysis of marxist postmodernists (a term ive only ever heard used by him and his followers given the two terms individually are largely incompatible) is flat out wrong on just about every level.

Petah Runs the jewels what, marx meant that the way i'd means equality of opportunity? so he had no socialist welfare state in mind?

proud to be first like 👍

We know his daughter likes Red!

Peterson makes more sense than this, C'mon! Haha.

@@karmveer36 Well that depends on what you mean by sense and the word more.

Well that depends on what you mean by Dr. Peterson..

He would never do it. He's a coward with his big tears for all incels.

@@JM-ev9gh idk where this whole “incel hero” idea came from, he has many videos where he speaks directly about incel types telling them they need to stop blaming women or society for their misery and shape themselves up. Seems like the exact right message.

@@ang3latos He literally says that men who identify as incels should be able to have sex with women through enforced monogamy. That equality of opportunity should apply in the sexual realm.

Incels love him and that should say a lot

@@JM-ev9gh I think you’re mischaracterizing his points with an intent to discredit him, because I know the talking point you’re referencing. “Enforced” here doesn’t mean legally, the context is that societal enforcement disapproves of infidelity, and that healthy monogamous relationships are encouraged. The type of incel man who feels entitled to sex should instead channel energy into sorting their lives out in order to become desirable by women, which is a perfectly reasonable and healthy thing to do. To say incel men look up to JP is really to say that they are finally hearing an encouraging message to fix their own lives. We shouldn’t just cast these people out, they need help to see what they’ve been doing wrong.

Lol, not even remotely. He literally said it means no one should starve. Talk about confused.

Who, Joe? Ikr?

@@arkadihughes4893 nah, the person hosting/ commenting on the Jordan Peterson video. I guess his name is Sam

@@mattshalash awwww you tried.

Because Sam isn't attacking the silly strawman that Peterson throws out. Nobody actually believes in equality of outcome as an ideology except a couple of 19 year old college dumbfucks.

BadReligion9 lol fuck off beta bitch

@@screechingonions2365 this is the saddest comment lol. Conservatives trying to be insulted is neverending amusement.

@@Ciph3rzer0 not true. Sam Seder trying to be smart is amusing. I lied, its fucking torture.

lmaoooo

@@Knekten666 oh yes in pieces. You are SOOOOOOO right. Lol i guess people who call Sam on his nonesense makes them Jordon fanboys. Wouldnt that make ya'll Sam-cucks?? Or some other label thats trendy.

DeadMan the Hekatonkheire : It’s the Best!! How could it BE any clearer?! I love this video! 🤣

Peterson is not smart enough to outwit joe rogan...nevermind sam seder lol.

You know you are dealing with a cult when things like this happen.

Sam stated that Equality of outcome is a nice, compassionate, notion where its all "basic". He and you can shut the fuck up. The major issue in the discussion is that him and you can't seem to ever want to draw the line of your righteous nonesense. The basic minimums always fucking change and its always ALWAYS common in this shit is that its one group can dictate the rules or standings of others and actual force them from those who step out of line.

Kurai Kenshi: You didn't address any of the 3 arguments the OP mentioned, let alone pose any counter argument. All you did was claim to know how they think and what lines they draw and when. Must be awesome to have such insight into complete strangers entire thoughts and feelings on everything across the political spectrum simply from a comment on RU-vid. Very impressive skill set, sir. Maybe you should use it for good, and not ignorant nonsense lacking actual counter arguments. But to each their own.

arsenelupin123 his comment sections are arguably the most intelligent regions of discourse on the entire RU-vid platform

arsenelupin123 it becomes very clear that the average individual within his fanbase is AT LEAST 5-10 points above the average IQ, with many being well above that even

Intelligent lol, your all blind followers who follow a self help guru verbatim without actually thinking for yourselves

Your'e*, and we do think for ourselves, which is why we study intently the advice of a renowned psychologist with a classical education. According to your logic, anyone who seeks to help others is a "self-help guru", as if self-help is something unworthy of our attention. His followers, including myself, do think for themselves...what makes you think you can claim that? So tell me Temi, how is that YOU think for yourself and we don't? What are the parameters that separate us? I'll wait

Temi Fakeye he's not a guru he is well renowned professor.

I love it!

Or when Jordan Peterson's actual comments are so absurd you think its Michael doing an impression .

@@Michael_Paul585 Translation, you can't debate Peterson so you resort to absurd generalizations. The bigotry on the left ...

@@johnnastrom9400 Is it bigotry to make a joke? I thought jp fanboys were free speech die hard, absolutists.

@@johnnastrom9400 Everytime Peterson debates someone knowledgeable he gets destroyed, what are you talking about? His arguments crumble.

Did you listen to his words? He specifically qualifies his statements with “think” or “I believe.” He’s actually super aware of how little he understands which is one of the reasons why he has struck with so many people. Then, Sam and his crew only speak in statements of truth with their ideology being the most right and most righteous. Nowhere can you find qualifiers of “I think” for they are not aware of their own fallibility. You can not like JP, but don’t mischaracterize who he is to avoid engaging with the concepts.

@@FuddlyDud That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right. But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice. With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias. But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?

@@jakublizon6375 "That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right." Thank you Jakub for being open to my argument! :) "But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. " I would say that is on you, unfortunately. :P Honestly, I am a bit of a JP fan and even read his 12 Rules for Life. There are many times he talks with authority, although it is always for a linguistic effect, something he actually specifies in his book. And, when he is talking in absolute terms, it is always on topics JP really does understand. "Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice." If you have any specifics, I am more than happy to go through them! :) Also, as a bit of background, JP inspired me to be more open and honest with myself. So, when I see someone like Sam says JP never has thought about these things, it couldn't be further from the truth and dismisses JP's whole mission. :/ "With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. " I rewatched it and JP made it a point about tilting society to serve those less fortunate, ultimately children, but he reconsidered his statement due to his phraseology and needing to think. He didn't have a prepared response because it was an open dialogue and he tries to be precise, something Sam could learn from JP. :P For, as Sam claims JP was thinking in terms of "outcome" and people having less, JP is clearly trying to give children, the primary reason JP brings up the conversation of enforced monogamy, an equal opportunity by having two parents, one of the most important determinants of success. Sam ignores this though and gleeful claims JP doesn't want to help the less fortunate...like what? 0_0 "Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias." We all have biases of all sorts. Some are more of conscious than others. JP is super conscious, and Sam is totally oblivious. You and I are likely in-between. :P "But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?" I totally do. However, bias does not mean I can't make a competent analysis. JP is one of the few people willing to have open conversations and, ironically, even talks about how outcomes have to be discussed in the last clip, for he knows all of this requires deep and carful dialogue. Sam, however, claims it is a "shtick" and insinuates JP is a dishonest actor. So, while I do have biases, I can support the more good faith individuals over the bad faith ones. I think I am doing an ok job of that for now, but I have plenty of work to do! :P THanks for the chat, see you in the next reply! :)

@@FuddlyDud he talks a certain way to cover his ass , he’s a total narcissist IMO.

@@357-swagnumultramagax9 Have you ever heard him talk about why he talks the way he does? It actually is far deeper than what you just described and I'd be more than happy to explain it if you are open to listening! :)

Please

Sam Seder is too stupid to actually understand what Peterson talks about. He takes everything he says literally, even though most of what Peterson talks about is either hypothetical or grounded in evidence. Even though Peterson may claim that various forms of equal outcome may be beneficial in some ways, he still stands by his opinion that equal outcome is dangerous, which it is.

yeah I find it interesting for people to have these sides but never speak to the person themselves.

Liam Hansen Very very true.

@@PogDuncher fucking facts! lol its so easy to interpret. blows my mind how they take his word and make it seem so bad. Sam seder takes it way too literally and his bias really stands out when he does.

+LowStuff I guess "equality of outcome" is one of those strawmen that the right love to use, because it's difficult to persuade people that universal healthcare is evil.

Of course no one advocates for it by name, just for policies that call for it, like diversity quotas. A diversity quota requires an organization to select applicants based on inherent characteristics rather than competency. This sounds like equality of opportunity since competency is not an excluder for entry under this system, but once the quotas take effect the competency comes back into play, because now the overall performance of the applicants is diminished compared to applicants chosen only for competency. If the organisation is a corporation, ineffectual people often get promoted rather than fired because there's a lot of them and so they don't do any damage to the operational systems of the business or cost unemployment money, if the organisation is a school academic standards will decrease so the majority of students don't fail and ruin the orgs reputation. In both cases, no one is allowed to fail and everyone above average is being incentivized to mediocrity because their competence has no diversity value. This is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. The left argues for diversity all the time, just because they don't call it by name doesn't change what it is

A Stranger In Paradise ....that's to counteract racism sexism and bigotry

skyblaze eterno and it does so by encouraging racism sexism and bigotry! Just ask the group of Asian students suing Harvard, or Denise Young Smith, former Apple diversity chief who pointed out that 12 white guys can be diverse and got fired for it. Positive racism is still racism.

You've never seen feminists calling for 50% representation of women in government?

😢

Lucas Gonzalo salazar Peterson: I can have my cake and eat it too

ChitownBlue exactly.

That idiom basically sums all of this up. Sad.

I think it's more likely that you dont grasp the concepts he brings up

Mannie Fresh Sounds like a flat earthers defense.

Martyjowa sadly most feminists are too fucking stupid to understand this simple premise

ProArcades false. Stupid comment though 👍🤣😎

Mark Phillips prove it wrong then, if you’re so sure. What’s your case, bitch? Speak up.

But "equality of outcome" is a strawman, not something the left actually advocates. As Seder explains in the video. (The left advocates making a certain set of basic social benefits something that everyone is entitled to unconditionally. That's not "equality of outcome"; it's just a question of what counts as a universal right and what counts as an earned privilege.)

@@macdeus2601 seder is an idiot, who keeps bringing up racism to quash any of Peterson's ideas.

Your connecting to points that have now connection.

Man has a wife and kid

@@blackfangofargentina by some hilarious accident. Can you imagine a woman that loves the unstable directionless fruitloop of a husband that is this guy?

@@armstrem poor lady. I bet they're glad he's touring all over the US instead if back home in Canada

@@125loopy Peterson tours with his family. They are highschool sweethearts.

@@impancaking that explains how she could be with him -- she doesn't know she's made a mistake yet, because it's the first one she's ever made. :D

Right?! I was just thinking the same thing lol

Not really lol. Most of the comments here are going against Peterson

why dont you educate us

Lol

lol

oh. my god ☠️☠️☠️

Awesome

Dead on

Well put

agreed

So fucking true this is a constant on this RU-vid channel. I dont lean either way it just pisses me off when I see people trying to push one trail of thought on people and clearly omitting information and being completely bias.

great explanation. even though its here for all to see, but its just your feels that are hurt 😢

I watched it all and it's a total misrepresentation of Jordan Peterson's point of view. And I know that because I actually watched the whole Joe Rogan interview with JP. And I'm a liberal..

Actually if this clown (whatever his name is) was honest, he wouldn't pause every 2 seconds. What's he afraid of? Isn't it just a battle of ideas? Let's hear both sides and see what's he debunking, instead of this straw man beating. If JP is as ignorant and stupid as this guy wants us to believe, why not show the whole part where JP is explaining the idea that this guy is trying to take down? Oh, that's right. Because he's a conman.

@@MrMITOOS I don't agree with everything Sam does and says, however I do agree that Jordan Peterson is a joke in political circles.. Not trying to be rude but maybe you're young or just getting into politics... or he tells you what you want to hear

@@Onus6688 I can't care less what both guys have to offer but I just hate demonizing people because they stand on the wrong side. Watched a lot of people like this guy trying hard to label JP and insult him in all different ways and call him alt right and nazis and all nonsense and can't remember one time that JP trying to insult people for their stance. So at least honesty and respect is in his side. All I'm saying is. When you call someone an ALT right and all the smearing BS and they respond with respect because all they care about is to get their points heard, THEY WIN! Smear tactics are evil. You think someone is wrong, show it.

@@MrMITOOS you should call in today in the fun half and share your views with Sam directly. The show starts at noon. (Edit, noon American Eastern standard Time that is)...

Brandon Scienski I think Rogen is a smarter guy than most people give credit. That makes it doubly disappointing that he fluffed vacuous nitwits like Rubin and Peterson in the first place, but he seems to be tearing them down now.

Despicably Irascible Rapscallion I don't think Joe Rogan is dumb like most people do. however he is very chill and laid back and doesn't really tear into people.

I think he heard critics who rightly denounced him as an alt-right doormat and is trying to prove he isnt.

I am from the UK, but what is the hype about Joe Rogan? I have watched a few of his podcasts but all I see is a egocentric presenter that will absolutely try to rationalise viewpoint that are dear to him but will attack others for views that are dear to them.. lol

Joe doesn't get enough credit for his intelligence because people still think weed makes you dumb

Who would a thought that taking a short clip of someone might not represent their entire view? Derp.

Are you denying that Peterson got pretty well tripped up by the cage fighting expert?

Don't forget that we have to read Jung, Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky; or else we're just not sophisticated enough to understand simple logic !

But remember, you don't have to read a word of Marx or Adorno to shit all over marxism!

I don't consider myself a fan of Peterson. But.. the definition he's using of forced monogomy doesn't come across in this video. So they're slightly mischaracterizing what he's trying (and failing) to say. But apart from that, yes. Sam et al are absolutely right

Shared custody is not single parenting.

​​@@w.s.soapcompany94 but Jordan Peterson didn't talk about single parenting lol, he talked about families were the parents weren't together

Some men do it well. Nick Cannon and all his kids come to mind.

He did a great impression of Sebastian Gorka as well. I'm going to really miss that guy.

whaaaaat? Omg I didn't realize he died this year! At 36 holy shit.

TYT is trash

This one is a classic

@@icorrectly SHUT the fuck up, bitch.

Communism

Equality of opportunity is democratic socialism. Equality of outcome is communistic socialism.

Kimmminem West 🤦🏽‍♂️

@Kimmminem West Ummm... At no point does he suggest or insinuate such a thing. He is commenting on how imbalances in heirarchies ("become too steep") can destabilize society over time. He uses the sexual domain as an example for where imbalances occur. I would agree that he stumbled a bit, but the context was with regards to putting guardrails on extreme views (in either direction, left/right) to offset the risk of a destabilizing society, as a whole, across the span of generations. Hence "bad for children." JP is speaking from a meta-view (generational) and JR is speaking from a more "personal" viewpoint (that person over there.) There are a multitude of reasons that would cause any group to become so discontent that a revolt would take place. JP doesn't talk about that here. Nor would he lay such a thing at the feet of a single issue, sex or elsewise. Again, it was an oversimplified example. Generally, he speaks against extreme individualism (tyranny) as well as against extreme collectivism (communism).

Kimmminem West equality of opportunity is you and your friend have equal chance of being hired at a factory, and equal chance of getting a raise. Equality of outcome is you faster at making a product in the factory than your friend, so the factory owner forces you to slow down, or pays you less per work done to equalise it. The first one is good, the second one is damn evil.

I think JP is a quack, but this idea that EVERYBODY must be given something to eat and a place to live. Who is supposed to give it to them and why ?

Yes the analogy of sexuality and inequality of outcome doesn’t work. However that does not mean his whole inequality of outcome premise is invalid in all situations. If I tell you we should allow ALL people to have an equal chance to succeed that is equality of opportunity. Most people agree on that. If I tell you we HAVE to make sure 50% of woman are successful because 50% of men are that is equality of outcome. If I tell you 50% of the stem fields should be represented by woman despite the fact Men show more interest on avg in those fields, that is problematic, and has real consequences. If you don’t believe so why don’t you go look at some of these big companies that have fallen apart and see how bad all aspects have gotten because they put people in positions that shouldn’t be there. So instead of you laughing because someone got tripped up, why don’t you tell your arguments on how everyone having an equal representation, across all fields, no matter what their qualifications, benefits our society??!!