@@haveabanana2930 No, that's because they are creating false hope by promising to steal wealth from others unjustly and giving it to others equally unjustly. No one has any right to the wealth that anyone personally accumulates through legal means.
I remember a joke by Chris Rock some 20 years ago ...he mocks white people saying "we're losing the country, we're losing the country, we're losing the country!" and He response "Well if you're losing, Who's winning?! Cause its not us!" (referring to blacks &/or minorities) ...and like i said, that's a 20 year old joke
But it is appropriate. Rock could go onto say that sure White working class men ain't winning, but when the fuck were the working class ever winning? The point is surely that apart from the 1% we're all losing, just at different rates. Sam Seder is actually saying that Peterson and Shapiro and Rubin are correct. White men are losing their status because of the advancement of women and minorities. This is a dangerously wrong argument, and that is why we confront these spurious arguments from the Right.
@@sequorroxx Every race had their own society and home until white people raided across the globe invading every land and culture they came across. They clearly didn't _want_ their own land back then. That said, none of the other races want to separate. That certain contingent of white people are the only ones fixating on that nonsense and projecting it onto everyone else because they're so terrified of non-whites they can't imagine *not* wanting to get rid of everyone outside your own race. 😒
@@sequorroxx You sound triggered hick boy. Sad that you are losing your status when you never earned it in the first place? Keep crying, your hick tears are delicious!
One thing I very much like about this show is that there is genuine challenging of ideas like, even though Sam's name is in the name of the show, it's not just his point of view reiterated three times, it's Sam and three other genuine voices and I appreciate that
I really like that on this show no person and topic is off-limit. Sam even gives random callers 15 to 25 minutes to debate. But those libertarian callers have disappeared once the rise of open exchange people gain strength, because it was never about challenging ideas. It was finding their own safe space.
What are they challenging exactly? I heard no arguments other than "white guys losing their status and thats why they vote for trump". Which is a typical leftist way of thinking. Good luck in life.
+chokinonashes61 Why do you consider Gerald Weyland to be racist and misogynistic? He merely asked what 'they' were challenging and what their argument was for doing so. Why assume he is not among the good and decent American people? Seems like you are making the unwarranted assumption that someone at the opposite political spectrum can only take that position based on racist and misogynistic motives.
Really excellent conversation. Really helpful hearing you guys disagree and debate it out. Not even sure where I land on a lot of these issues... the cause and what we should do in response... but good stuff to think about here. Thank you
I love all four of you - you're all brilliant and you're all correct: 1) Sam is correct that most of these Peterson followers are just insecure, whiny jackasses who are bitter about the fact that - by definition - they will HAVE to lose social status/recognition in becoming a more diverse/egalitarian society. 2) Jamie is correct that the "original sin" here is capitalism, which pits us against each other; and that it's important to consider that - in a socialist scenario where we can all "win" - we might find that humans are NOT programmed for power grabs 3) Michael is right that - in scenarios where we're debating or trying to win over right-wing white dudes - it probably isn't helpful to rub it in their faces that it's a zero sum game and that we as leftists are here to emasculate them; sure it's all true, but persuasion strategies are important in a democracy. 4) Adorable Matt is correct that what we're seeing w/ the Peterson following is not some sudden increase in resentment/economic anxiety, rather, the backlash from right-wing white males only seems more ugly/apparent **now** because the "game"/tide has actually begun to turn substantially; Added together, you've got an extremely robust/nuanced set of arguments & suggestions, which I personally find very edifying, i.e. I appreciate having these ideas on my mental "back-burner" when dealing w/ discussions/debates in my own day-to-day life. Thank you MR!!
I definitely think that Jamie is hitting the most important point. If you take this discussion outside of the capitalist narrative then a lot of the other arguments fade away to a degree.
This was a really interesting discussion, as a former libertarian who became a socialist and an anarchist I can say the fact that I dropped any attachment to what sam calls “status” (representation in media, institutional power over others, career position) was a liberating experience and one that definitely took place as I moved to the left. That’s not to say that all forms of social status are molded by patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy, but I do feel the toxic ones Peterson and his ilk tap in to have their roots in that and I agree with Michael and Jamie that things can change. It can be tough to think in truly radical terms about large changes in society but I think the left needs to to win.
The sparring between all the hosts was awesome. Everyone made excellent points. Michael's really full-bodied, zoomed out analysis will always be missed. Going through these old videos to hear him is somewhat sad but very valuable.
At around 20 minutes in, Matt (thankfully) summarizes the argument concisely enough, for us to be able to agree that Sam's basic point is right and that Michael's point about rhetorical framing is also right! Peterson simply represents the classic conservative ideas of hierarchy but dressed up in his weird psycho-babble that is deliberately designed to avoid any real critique of his own analysis of things like "Cultural Marxism". Peterson should stick to Psychology, he clearly doesn't understand post-modernism or Marxist thought, anyone who has studied Philosophy can see that.
I hate when people on the left misinterpret Bruce Springsteen songs. He’s on our side! Glory Days isn’t a song about Bruce waxing nostalgic, it’s a sardonic little song about small town deadenders who can only reminisce on their past because they have no future and the lives they lead are stagnant and disappointing. It’s like a much nicer version of “2nd Childhood” by Nas.
"when you're used to having the whole pie and, all of a sudden, you have to share it, you're going to get less pie." (can't remember where i read that)
vulcanfeline if you could never eat the whole pie, sharing it wouldn't actually mean having less than you had in the first place. It's all about perspective. Not everyone is greedy.
Sam’s millennial co-hosts really just can’t quite get it. Sam is spot on. His point is simple. It’s not hard. Matt, Jamie, and Michael can’t wrap their heads around a simple point. They are trying to write a grad thesis in the origins of this type of thought and most people aren’t that complicated. It’s a zero sum game. Period.
I wish the caller after waiting thirty minutes in silence whilst they argued said, “... But what I actually called in to talk about was why you keep misquoting Sam Harris. Hello?”
This is classic ideologues versus the real world. If we installed a socialist's utopia there are people who will always think "that black woman doesn't deserve her share". The idea racism is purely economical is naive.
When I first came across Jordan Peterson, I hadn't really heard much about his politics. I heard a clip from somewhere where he was talking about gaining meaning through responsibility. As a self-confessed lefty hippy, raised by hippie lefty parents, it's the first time I had ever heard it being told that way. I was going through some personal problems at the time, lacking direction and he told me something I needed to hear at the time. And I actually found his advice very helpful in sorting out some stuff. But when I looked into the rest of his stuff, looked a little deeper, I was horrified; I'm a political person, a socialist, a member of Momentum (in the UK I imagine you know what that means) so I had the background to decode the crypto-fascism JP was espousing. But I know that had I not had this background, if I was a little more gullible I can understand how this perspective might be very compelling, especially to a person who found some small part of what he said useful in their personal lives.
Peterson got his foot in the door with his self-help books, which are NOT the best ones out there by a long shot. It is just that there hadn't been any for a while so his books seemed novel when they came down the pike. If you've read them, you know that he states the rule and then goes off on a tangent which usually doesn't even relate that well to the rule. (I encourage everyone to watch Cass Eris critique of his 'Rules.' She goes through them with a fine-tooth comb and then you don't have to waste your money buying them.) Peterson's rules are just a rehash of what is contained in many other self-help books that are written in more understandable language and provide much better examples of how to actually apply those rules. If you are discerning and even a little smart, you know that Jordan Peterson is just filling pages with the gibberish after each rule because longer books can exact a higher price tag. Then he got some minutes of fame when he misrepresented C-16. His fan base is beginning to scrutinize his pontifications with more discernment, so hopefully he will soon fade into obscurity.
Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?
Not all racism is overt or even conscious. You also have to factor in culture as well. I see people all the time online talking about how they need to preserve the culture otherwise we will all turn into a bunch of Communist Islamic Nazi Marxists. Hell, just look at the release of the Black Panther movie. There were people who hated the movie because it supposedly tried to make black people look good. I am not saying everyone is like this, or even most people. However, there is a small, concentrated segment of whites that feel very strongly about this.
Jonathan Green Well to be fair a lot of working class whites are feeling further alienated. They turn on their TV and see rich, corporate dems who are the embodiment of white privilege, get on their high horse and chastise them, telling them to “check your privilege” while they struggle to make ends meet. Meanwhile Trump comes along and pushes all the right buttons to fool these gullible people into voting for him. So really all of it falls back on the dems failure to run likable candidates who actually support the working class and don’t resort to identity politics to gain support.
>This point cannot be refuted. It's a basic, definitional issue Which is why I'm not trying to refute it. >Being "okay" with losing your advantage is different from recognizing that the advantage exists, which again, is all sam is doing here Not sure what you mean by this. How does that tie in with the question of the caller? >The idea of innate racism is not ridiculous at all - if you were born into this country, you were born into a culture that was formed AROUND a system of racism and misogyny - therefore by virtue of being American, we have inherited the legacy of racism. White supremacy has been under significantly more threat in the past than it is now, largely because white supremacy was simply more prevalent. You can't claim that the things we're seeing today are the same old racism, since we know some variable has to be changing. That is the variable which counts. That's where you're gonna have these conversations.
How do you imagine them comparing themselves with other minorities like that? To me it seems not so much the measurable shifts in status, those are hardly perceivable to the individual. It is rather the process by which we "identify, call out, and work to reverse inequality." This is what triggers them. Why? Because they don't feel like they're experiencing the benefits of the (to them merely alleged) bigotry. They feel like shit about themselves and worry deeply about their future. They've been raised to treat women and black people as equals, and in their minds always kept to that principle. Now people are coming along telling them that they're the beneficiaries of sexism, racism, and whatever other distant evil. It doesn't make sense to them. That's the issue. They're told to make place for others, while they don't even know if they have place to begin with. All these other groups are given these great narratives of self-liberation. And against who? Them somehow. The outcast at school. The white kid with no social life who spends his time playing video games and posting on image boards. Do you see why this seems incredible to them?
I feel like there's truth in each perspective. In Sam's argument, he stated that people don't like to lose or give up their status and their privileges. Michael and Jamie argue that they have in the past and would, but I think it all comes down to primal human nature and emotion. As Jamie said, economic anxiety is not always based in reality. Fear is a huge driver for people, and if human beings feel threatened, we tend to try to protect ourselves by hoarding resources as a survival response. This is why many rich people actually do advocate for a higher wealth tax, they feel secure in their assets and abilities/positioning. If someone is insecure about their own ability to compete against others in an increasingly inclusive and competitive workplace atmosphere, and if they already haven't formed a secure attachment on their wealth and their position in society (especially those hyper sensitive alt right people who feel threatened by virtually anything, for example the "war on christmas" as Sam mentions) they will fight against this movement. I think the key here is to move past this individualistic culture, to demonstrate the universal far-reaching benefits in a more socialist society, and at some level, preach love and unity instead of hate and fear. Once you feel your safety, your family, your way of life is threatened, that leads to the desperation that Sam is talking about. In a world where we see all people on Earth as a part of our human family (by cultivating empathy and intelligence about other cultural contexts/histories/mindsets and re-connecting the working class to the ruling class) we would be naturally moved to eradicate the inequality that leads to higher crime rates, traumatized and parentless children, addiction, untreated mental/physical illness, crumbling infrastructure and homelessness etc., when every person can see in a real world scenario how these policies and societal changes benefit every single person, privileged or not, they will gain the sense of safety and personal responsibility to give up their power over others. Sam nailed the current-day mindset of some of these people, but Jamie and Michael are bringing the kind of empathy and understanding necessary to truly corrode these primal and problematic (in modern human society) instincts.
I don't see Peterson, Rubin, or any of the other people in their circles trying to shut down the speech of others or threatening to get anyone fired. This video makes no sense.
Shalom O'Neal dude Peterson has said he wants entire fields shut down on colleges because he doesn't like what they say, students should leave and boycott classes that use words he doesn't like like equity. He is working with programmers to create a database of all professors who he disagrees with so students can avoid being exposed to those ideas. And he has said art with political messages shouldn't be made.
Shalom O'Neal Three leftists channels i know have been shutdown by right wingers who disagreed with them. One them had been swatted muitlple times. Also MLK,Malcolm X and Rosa Luxembourg all leftists all murdered for being leftists,and not to mention all the murders the alt-right have committed recently.
5Amigos32 that wasn't the purpose of the database. The purpose of the database was to grade professors on a left-right ideological spectrum so that students could decide if they wanted to support that ideology. Also, he cancelled the project because it could cause a chilling effect on freedom of speech from the left...
20 years ago they flocked to Ann coulter and Rush Limbaugh The interesting point is how easily the "hero" of the right wing is forgotten. Nobody remembers the butler.
Sam was right. Michael and Jamie were butthurt at the framing, but Sam is not on a campaign trail. I don't like how Jamie and Michael were so combative and were trying to have Sam frame it as if he's from a pulpit trying to trick people with pretty words. He's never done that and that's not what this show is about. If he's convincing anyone, it's with the cold hard facts. When Matt agreed with Sam but also interrupted his own agreement to state he didn't know what the argument was about, I totally agreed. It just came off as them trying to curve Sam's language and then Jamie screaming "capitalism capitalism" as identity politics suddenly don't exist at all. Sure, class and economics play into them as well, but not 100%, because like Sam said, people like to see themselves. Human psychology shows that this fear of the unknown and the other is something real, even primal, in terms of our survival instincts. Fear is not a social construct and the fear of losing status is not just a repercussion of economics. That these supposed leftists could deny such a thing is quite concerning.
This was a great video. I happen to agree with Sam and Matt(?) that social status is separate from economic anxiety, and I don't subscribe to the idea that if we can "solve" economic anxiety (if that is even possible), the loss of social status will become more palatable. Medicare for All will not stop police from harassing black people; Eisenhower tax rates will not end the attempts to restrict reproductive rights; a federal jobs guarantee will not prevent laws prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom. "Economic anxiety" is used too often as an excuse for why some in the white working class want to oppress people who have it even worse than they do.
Admittedly, I haven't watched a ton of this show but I've certainly dabbled. I found this to be one of the more interesting segments that I've seen. I really enjoyed absorbing this debate. Fascinating and informative.
This was such a great discussion, I appreciated every minute of it. I also agree with Sam and think MB is making a separate point that is unrelated to SS's point. Yes, it is zero sum.
I could be wrong, but its how its largely presented in the UK today, that we ended our slavery voluntarily after a ship of slaves sank killing everyone on board and changing the tide of public opinion on the subject. Of course, people fought for this change too, and there were, of course, economic factors including boycott, but the story we're told is that we chose to stop having this power over others as a society because we could no longer stomach it. Slavery, of course, was very different in the UK and the US in terms of public meaning as in the UK slavery was something (as I understand it and again I'm no expert) happened "over there" rather than right in our homes.
Thats because the Boers are more productive. Google boers farm transition. The Bantu are not handling the farms well. Just like after White farmers in Zimbabwe were driven off their homes for generations, South African farmers and other workers are in the hands of those who best use those resources. Stealing it from them will lead to starvation.
Im a gay girl and i used to be a huge fan of JP. It was not because of social status for me (i think). It was just a lack of life experience/accurate info. I didnt think gender inequality was a thing, neither for gay people. While in the meantime i didnt even want to get out of the closet. It was because of school and the way teachers talk about oppression etc. Only through state lense, not an economic one. In my country there are no laws that i know of for the inequality of women or gay people etc. But ofcourse other things cause it, such as socio-economic factors. For me during those times leftist looked like crybabies arguing for rights they already had. But i hadnt felt oppression etc myself so i just couldnt see it that wat especially when you are taught meritocracy in school. So i mixture of homophobia and ignorance of politics and economics etc. Made me a jp fan
I thought that was an extended dig at Jordan Peterson. 'well first off you have to define' status'. Then of course you will need to define 'define' and 'you' in the non-literal sense and blah blah blah blah blah. "
Love this episode. A simple question turned into a far ranging studio debate in which they showed a lot of themselves in an honest manner. As regards peterson I think his main trait is that he is very conservative and he thinks people are very conservative and people do not like change. A lot of people do see life as a zero sum game.
In general, I like this show, but I don't think that the host constantly interrupting and shouting down his co-hosts with rather generic talking points counts as an 'honest debate.'
John Redberg but their argument was ridiculous, people in this country ARENT voting out of fear over lost dominance?? They are, Sam was completely correct.
This is the most interesting video I’ve seen from the Minority Report yet because it’s an actual, constructive discussion between Sam and Michael and not just the usual circle jerk over some external video clip. Really enjoyed it! (Though Sam should really let others finish speaking instead of raising his voice over theirs)
As a leftist and humanist I'm optimistic, but as a realist I must say that the power of white supremacy is strong. Race, politics, and economics have always been intertwined in this country. I agree with Sam. Be bold and resolute in the truth. All it will do is offend those who already want to be offended, so you might as well speak truth to power. It is a zero sum game in a capitalist frame, which is why we should be questioning capitalism and forging better solutions that isn't an ethno-state or more of the same. “If you don't understand white supremacy/racism ,everything that you do understand will only confuse you..” -Nelly Fuller Jr.
Bill Barry I actually agree, I don't think it's a plague like in the sense of the rise of Nazis in Germany... at least I hope it isn't. In fact, attitudes towards race have changed drastically among the populace in a relative short period of time in this country, it's just the wealth, policy, and the justice system hasn't followed suit in some major ways when it comes to race. What we are witnessing, I think, is a reaction to the fracturing of American Identity. To divorce white supremacy from that identity and to not address it is folly despite how much many want to hide it under a rug.
Bill Barry >>Dylan Roof went into a black church, killed innocent men and women, young and old and was treated kindly and gently by the cops because he's white but a calm black man can be gunned down in the street for doing nothing at all, and many whites are okay with it and try to find justifications for such acts rather than just saying it is wrong. >>The Freedman's bank was authorized by President Lincoln to give freed slaves an economic base, but after he was assassinated, the bank was hijacked and much of the wealth was embezzled; destroying potential generational wealth black people could have accrued and influencing black poverty even today. Despite this and many other wrenches thrown into back economics over the last two centuries, many whites still say blacks should work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps when scores of farming tools, plundered land, and doles were given out to whites to start their generational wealth but the government didn't even attempt to bail out a bank that was set up to help freed slaves . Essentially forms of socialism is good for whites, but when blacks are for it, we are commie bastards. >>Black people have to be afraid of having the cops called on them when doing mundane things like having a cookout in a public park, fall asleep while studying in a Yale common room, or accidentally touching a white person sitting next to them on a plane. >>Confederate generals are honored with statues and monuments even in Washington DC even though they were racist traitorous scum, and the only way blacks could get a Martin Luther King day in many southern states is if there were also Confederate holidays honored...essentially a white supremacist slap in the face. >>Slave owner faces adorn the side of Mt. Rushmore and money. >>Blacks are 75% more likely to get a mandatory sentence for committing the same crime as whites. >>Cops are more like to be killed by whites, but blacks are more heavily policed and unfairly treated. >>Black poverty and white privilege can be directly traced back to not only slavery but more recent Nixonian policies of benign neglect and municipal disinvestment which is directly related to gentrification policies today, not to mention the fact that blacks were primarily left out of New Deal policies/reforms that created the white middle class, particularly when it comes to home ownership, the foundation of middle class wealth. >>Whites in many places adorn themselves or their property with the confederate flags which to most black people is synonymous with wearing a swastika. >>Blacks are often told to change their behavior, political rhetoric, or work ethic to succeed, but even when they do succeed they are called uppity or ungrateful when they speak on an issue that white people are uncomfortable dealing with. >>Black people are often called racist for simply bringing up racism. >>When black people complain about being brutalized or murdered unjustly by cops whose salaries are paid by their taxes, white people say focus on black on black crime before you criticize public servants, but when black people and others say 911 could have been avoided if white imperialist criminals weren't committing crimes like overthrowing governments, assassinating leaders, and funding multiple sides of conflicts, you call us unpatriotic. >>Many white people say that blacks should stop having a victims mentality, but won't acknowledge that blacks as a whole are victims of white supremacy and racism. When some blacks actually throw off victimization by doing non-violent things like marching and civil disobedience to redress their grievances, many whites call it complaining and unlawfulness. >>When few blacks truly throw off victimization and even talk about taking up the gun to protect themselves and their communities from race soldiers, many whites call them reverse racist, black nationalist, or my new personal favorite... black identity extremist. >>Blacks are often criticized for rioting for legitimate reasons, but when whites riot after sports events, the media is very gentile in their reporting of it. >>Poor black youth are often thrown into the criminal justice system for “gang activity” for simply wearing the wrong colors, throwing up signs, or posting rap lyrics on social media, but hardcore white supremacist gangs are far more violent towards cops, subversive, and terroristic; but they are largely left alone by authorities and are even defended under the guise of free speech, though an apparent gang sign isn't. >>Black depression, identity issues, and the various issues that come with poverty are hardly ever brought up when black commit even misdemeanor crimes, but when whites commit very heinous crimes the media often finds a way to humanize that person. >>George W Bush was a imperialist war criminal, and Obama wasn't much better and continued much of dubbya's policies, yet the conservatives criticized him to no end for often ridiculous reasons. >>The FBI warned ten years ago of white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement, and in fact law enforcement historically has had racist in charge or wielding power, yet some of us are still trying to deny white supremacy exist in various aspects of American society especially in an area that has a profound affect on people and communities. >>I see it in many other places too, but I'm tired and want to got to bed. Perhaps I'll do a part 2 tomorrow.
Why is he an asshole ? After attending many of his courses at the University of Toronto, I can honestly say that he is one of the best individuals I have ever met !
the lady off camera says at 25:19 we live in a system where people are identified by [their] work but then says at 26:16 that you [should] be careful about making blankets statement about human nature .
I'll answer, since I'm roughly in the same boat as sbcurley (never found any value in Rubin, but echo the sentiments on Trump and Bernie). For one, he helped me get my shit together, so I appreciate him for that. I also see some value in conservatism and individuality, especially relating to personal responsibility and order, and I think JBP is not at all mean-spirited on these issues, unlike US republicans. I don't like identity/victim politics --- even though I recognize that some groups of people are more victimized than others, I don't think it's productive to see the world through the black-and-white of victim and oppressor. It's far more complicated than that. I'll include the caveat that I don't agree with him on religion (not sure about his cultural marxism thing, either, though I AM alarmed by what's going on in American universities), and I'll also say that his logic is somewhat twisted on this topic, but I don't think he's dishonest. Most people are guilty of this when they set out to defend their sacred values. Lastly, JBP is remarkably gentle, considering the grief he gets from angry lefties and disappointed alt-righters. He's a force for good and a de-radicalizer of both far-left and far-right.
I like the if you want to improve the world start with yourself stuff. I know it's not original to him but I found him motivating to take that idea seriously, and I like the religious symbolism stuff. I don't care for how casually he throws around the phrases Post-Modernist, and Cultural Marxists its a little conspiratorial for me. Even if some of his complaints related to those things are worth considering. I have a bunch of complaints about how he handled certain interactions like the vice interview, which I think was easily misinterpreted because he was being too stand-offish, and more egregiously the incident where he said he'd slap that guy. I also wish he'd do more to criticize the far right, though he's gotten a little better at pissing off alt-right types. Those are probably my general criticisms of him. At the moment I can't think of others, but I feel like I'm forgetting a thing or two from this list.
Jordan Peterson's dishonesty on US imperialism and Marxism is in of itself part of his echo chamber ! they never debate Chomsky, Parenti , and Zizek is paramount to the fact that people like Chomsky are fully versed and patient with Peterson's smugness
Talking about your status in society... "This is a zero-sum game" .... he obviously has NO CLUE on Peterson's views, and is a perfect example of his post-modernist power game viewpoint.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The insight is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the degeneration of western civilization most of the jokes will go over a typical recipiants head. There's also Jordan's chauvnistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal PhIloSoPhY draws exclusively from psychology literature, Carl Jung for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ramlbings, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CULTURAL MARXISM. As a consequence, people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the self-help in Jordan's existential catchphrase "Clean Your Room!" which itself is a cryptic reference to Molyneux's epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those post-modern simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Petersons genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them.
Tijtij shut up Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual and the fact that you think he's brilliant merely exposes your lack of 'intellectual capacity', you do not have to have a high iQ to understand Peterson in fact if you have a low IQ you would be more likely to like him because you clearly cannot think critically about the bullshit he spews, he believes all people with a developed moral compass must be religious because he cannot conceive of a moral atheist so assumes they all deep down believe in god but don't even know it which is Fucking ridiculous
If you haven't already, I recommend you, read James Baldwin's 'On Being White...And Other Lies', from Essence Magazine, April 1984. I think it gets to the heart of what you all are talking about here.
Alien Well, since your an alien, I guess you don’t know that many people. Can you back that statement up? Because I listened to him too and we’ll, he nailed the logic dude. What did he say that you can’t get your head around?
Matt Nice He lives in a politics bubble, he thinks Jordan Petersons driving force is political which is where the confusion lies. Peterson has been talking about this stuff since the 90s but he is Canadian and only got American and international attention recently.
Alien Political ideology exists in your daily life. Mine too. But especially for someone like Peterson who has gotten very rich and famous talking about his ideologies. Politics isn’t limited to passing bills and foreign diplomacy, politics is the process through which we pass policy and we do that based on what our country’s ideology is and we hold national elections every few years so that the country can debate and decide what its ideology is. Don’t be fooled, Peterson is very knowingly tapping into the political angst and zeitgeist of the public. We’re discussing him here, on a political show and this isn’t the only one. That’s not a coincidence. He says he’s not political because it allows him a back way out. It doesn’t matter what country you live in, there are conservatives in all of them and liberals too. Ideologies don’t respect borders. Peterson knows that there’s a lot of money to be made on this stuff. He’s a conman. I see it. Maybe you will too eventually.
Matt Nice I’m getting anxious reading that because it turns out you’re a mind-reader or telepath. All that Jordan Peterson does is help people, give good advice and he puts his lectures up for anybody to watch for free. If you care about helping others and creating a society where everybody lives without hatred or violence or a republican government attacking Jordan Peterson isn’t going to help you or anyone and as far as I can see it’s almost all vitriolic and ignorant. He isn’t forcing you to buy anything, he is a clinician who really does understand how to fix people and he has done a more effective job than any political activist or show host.
I've attended two Jordan Peterson events, both in Toronto, both extremely diverse - not only in gender, but race, and ethnicity. Sam, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about.
Sargon’s Black Grandfather His audience is MOSTLY young white and male, but not entirely. The diverse members of his audience usually support his specific message of free speech, political tolerance, and refuting specific social justice ideals, believing them to be authoritarian. I agree that Peterson's overall message is that the current system of hierarchy - fuelled inequality is somehow just because it is "natural", and that any attempt to aid it through appropriate government policy would either a) only go to service those in power and bring tyranny to the individual b) somehow "degrade" civilization culturally Or c) go against the natural order and destroy itself over time through major backlash. I obviously disagree with such a sentiment. Those who support Peterson usually disagree that the vast majority of inequality is necessary or just. I wouldn't be surprised if most support Bernie Sanders economically. They simply agree with his opinion that the preposed solutions by social justice warriors, which they have been disingenuously led to belief represent the left in the mainstream, are authoritarian in nature. As well as the fact that governments may use these authoritarian social policies to crack down on the population, with public support, despite remaining economically conservative and using progressive social policy as a shield. This is ESPECIALLY relevant in the sphere of Canadian politics; where Peterson hails from and remains most popular. Where the current Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau has given billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia, nowhere near met their Climate accord requirements whilst speeding up billions of barrels of oil production, has refused to raise taxes on the rich whilst placing a carbon tax on the CONSUMER and not the producer, has championed free trade including the TPP, has lied on multiple main campaign issues including electoral reform, has kept the government from being transparent, and much, MUCH more. This whilst championing feminism and gay rights, but ONLY domestically. (at least, claiming to whenever a camera is on and then doing nothing for the actual public.) Literally every second Trudeau gets the spotlight he cries, has a 30 second, VERY fake speech detailing nothing of substance given through an earpiece, and then behind closed doors runs the nation as a business for the benefit of wealthy oil tycoons. This whilst Feminist, Post-Colonialist, and Marxist literary theories are new, mandatory subjects to be taught in high school, which many view as a push towards nonsensical propaganda (something I do not necessarily agree with). This is what drives Peterson's theory of "Cultural Marxism"; that students are taught to look at things from an ideological lens which he views as dangerous and authoritarian. Whilst the concept of Cultural Marxism may originate from the nazis, I don't believe he is using it in a dogwhistle-like fashion. He simply needs to clarify his position (which again, I do not necessarily agree with) and use a DIFFERENT phrase (ie cultural revolution etc). For the record, I disagree with the VAST majority of Peterson's message (ie: his religious dogmatism, his right-wing sympathies and his view of ONE aspect of human nature driving, or ideally driving, social policy). Though share 2 things with the majority of his SUPPORTERS. The notion that focusing purely on progressive social policy without putting responsibilities on the government to respect freedom of speech, to be completely transparent, and represent the people economically, would be a disastrous direction allowing the government to crack down on opposing views (which will only push them underground) and thus become more authoritarian whilst remaining corrupt, business loving war mongers. The second being that social justice warriors often DO go too far in dismissing opposing views outright. Debate people who already have a large audience, regardless of how ignorant or disturbing you may find them. Just don't prop up such actors if they do not ALREADY have a large audience. You may be able to reach that audience rather than increase it through appearing authoritarian. Also, debate those in your life who you have the opportunity to sway. One last thing; pointing out privilege or power structures existing AS A SIDE POINT to your argument isn't a bad thing. It only empowers your opponent when you become lazy or frustrated and decide to claim "well you can't understand this..." or "well you should feel ashamed of..." your privilege. The majority of people ALREADY AGREE that white people (Americans in particular) do not face the same level of police brutality as their fellow black citizens. There may be disagreement as to why that is the case ie: drug war paired with systemic racism or "they just commit more crime" which is obvious nonsense, but you must POINT OUT WHY or else they appear to win to their audience, reinforcing that draconian belief. Claiming that the MAJORITY of Peterson fans agree with his very complex and somewhat hidden underlying viewpoint is disingenuous. Many agree that furthering equality and increasing the standard of living for all is right, they just have more libertarian social views.
jordan peterson's facebook group's cover photo is him smiling with his hands over a diverse selection of students, like five white boys and two black girls. always lol at it. so diverse. go clean your room buckoo!
Erynn Gillian This is just an absurd statement. Sam may be making an assumption based on what he's seen online or what his own biased may be, but your views are no better. Not only are you apparently biased in favour of the man, but you're also using just two events that you personally have attended as though it's "proof" of something greater. These are tiny anecdotes that, without any further clarification or data, are literally useless in this conversation. They disprove nothing.
The fact y'all have a miniature debate over this guy vs what the conservatives do is hilarious in comparison. I would love any conservative to try and debate any of you, at any time. Love you guys.
Michael you're dead wrong on that it seems that you forget when he Mandela wrapping tires around people and lighting them on fire apartheid was definitely not given over without a fight
I think I agree with Sam. Centuries of learned/reinforced biases from a larger system and construct of whiteness CAN be completely and wholly divorced from economic anxieties, and thus could persist even through an egalitarian economic emancipation. Like the cashier calling the cops on people who look like me for waiting in a Starbucks isn’t inextricably linked to that cashier’s economic anxiety.
Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?
James Baldwin Sam’s way of doing things are harmful to the progressive left movement. His words mostly serve to further alienate these on-the-fence working class whites who could easily be won over. When Sam says things such as “people only voted for Trump because they’re racist”, that just confirms everything right wing pundits have been telling them. Just like Michael said, the way to convert those people is to address the economic issues they’re facing instead of just looking down on them and shaming them for making bad decisions. After they’ve been converted in their economic views, everything else eventually falls into place. They shed their bigoted, racist, and sexist beliefs and next thing you know they’re voting progressive. I really believe it’s that easy.
Sean King You sound a lot like the people on Fox News Business with that last paragraph. How many people do you think can afford to take out loans and pay it back without going into debt? Again, I’m not talking about well off conservatives who will always vote republican no matter what. I’m talking specifically about working class whites who are economically depressed that voted for Trump partly because of his false promises of better economic security. Those aren’t the people who can necessarily afford to take out loans as many of them can barely make ends meet as is. That’s the base progressives need to be targeting, but as long as establishment dems keep playing identity politics while selling out to corporations behind the curtain, nothing will give those people any incentive to vote democrat in upcoming elections.
Tell me if I'm being too narrow, but I don't think it's a zero sum game. Example: If we create social conditions where non-whites and non-guys can compete equally for, say, doctor jobs, then I may get a better doctor than I have now. I'd say that counts as a gain for patients, including white guys like me. Similarly, if the social conditions for business means a small company can finally compete fairly against Amazon, then I win (through lower prices, better books, faster delivery, etc.) even if the people running that company aren't white dudes like me. If these markets work better, I don't see how my social status could cause me anxiety. Correct me if I'm wrong or missing something.
It's called "using clickbait to draw in views" you dingus. How long have you been on youtube? You would probably have an aneurysm if you were around in the good old days of this site.
The "merry Christmas" thing is entirely "I'm used to this and I'm annoyed by people asking me to change something I do." It's just people's feelings being hurt by not being able to do whatever they want without people asking them to make an effort to consider other people. It's just hurt feelings. That's all.
I’m a college conservative trying to see the bigger picture from both sides, and I listen to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and the like not because I feel my social status is in danger and that I should take a side, but that the modern political discussion is too vitriolic and they seem like the ones that take the argument in the most logical terms. I would love to see a conversation between you and Dave Rubin, be it on his channel or yours. I do think he’d be open to it, as he started his channel was started for that purpose. I may be wrong, but I doubt he’d be reluctant to talk to you. Maybe it’s a difference in the frame in how both sides view Peterson’s rise to fame, but I don’t believe people listen to him because they’re worried about losing their white privileged social status (at least most of them, though I can’t speak for everyone). I hope a conversation can be had, maybe between you and Peterson or Rubin in the future, as I think real progress can be made to bridge this divide.
Hunter Cannan lol Sam’s been asking him to be on his show for the past year and Dave refused. Dave only gets on conservatives and far righters and maybe the off “liberal” but only if they’re riding the anti SJW gravy train.
Hunter Cannan I'd highly suggest you attempt to break out of the idea that speaking calmly and using common sense makes a person reasonable. Much of what we'd define as common sense falls apart under further inspection, and little public policy can be based on anything so minimalistic. Appearing calm says far more about a person's age, brain chemistry, and learned characteristics than it does their correctness. When evaluating who is worth listening to, I believe it best to go to whoever has the most facts or the strongest data. When we on the Left criticise Rubin, it's often because his apparent predisposition towards being "reasonable" acts as a sort of cover. The majority of his guests are Libertarian-ish thinkers pushing one type of worldview, and those who are not are often pushed on topics of agreement rather than disagreement. This creates a sort of echo chamber wherein one ideology is pushed forwards without considering the contrary evidence. This may appear reasonable, but it's not really hard to appear reasonable when 90% of what is said is agreeable, and the only conflict is around minor points and slight ideological differences. Also if you're mostly interested in calm, reasonable, cogent arguments that don't offend your sensibilities, I'd suggest you check out Shaun and Jen, Three Arrows, and Contrapoints. They're all cultural, but I think Peterson and Rubin are too, so it shouldn't be an issue. Cheers
Douglas Lain of Zero Books, a marxist, reached out to Peterson to have conversation/debate with him - and Peterson turned him down and then went on Rogan saying that the marxists etc, dont want to talk to him - sooo Peterson is full of crap, disingenuous right winger who perhaps knows he is out of his depth if he were ever to actually debate someone who actually knows anything about marxism, or history, or philosophy, or economics for that matter (and sometimes i wonder if Peterson even knows Nietzsche and Jung that well too)
aes0p give me one example where socialism worked. And European countries are not socialist they have free markets and social programs not the same thing, not to mention they have the US military backing them
ANYONE actually knowledgeable in anything can wipe the floor with Peterson, from David Harvey to Richard Wolff to Tariq Ali to Chris Hedges to Cornel West. On & on & on.
Richard Wolff or Noam Chomsky. Socialism works Italy and Spain, where they have a form of anarcho syndicalism alongside Keynes-Capitalism. Sincerely, a capitalist
That poor caller! They said they wanted him to "have the last word," and once he starts to make his point, they all interrupt him 😞 Oh well, really good conversation!
Ok, sorry....Um this has to be click bait or something because how is jordan peterson terrified of honest debate? rofl.....have you seen ANYTHING with him? pretty much the whole reason anyone is discussing jordan peterson IS because people DID start debating nonsense with him in which they were trying to enforce things and how people would relate to them....yada yada.
He has had multiple Marxists reach out to debate with him and he has refused them and then claimed no Marxist ever tries to discuss with him. He is a liar. Anyone can win a debate against college students. The fact that Peterson refuses to debate Zizek, Wolff, etc makes him a liar.
Russian Bot High Servitor How is he connecting dots that don't exist when it's pretty well known multiple Marxists have reached out and he's turned them down and then he's gone on to say no Marxist don't wants to debate with him? You're trying to defend the indefensible, but at least you tried I guess.
Hoopla10 Because you're acting as if he is dodging marxist debate when in fact (for example) a potential debate with Lain is still tenable. Peterson has routinely gone on programs that disagree vehemently with his POV such as Vice, channel 4 UK, 60 minutes, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty etc. That's what he does. So no, nothing I am saying is indefensible.
So just to clarify you're making an equivalency with people who may actually know a thing or two about Marxism with some guy from Vice, a unprepared woman on channel 4 news where he coached all his stuff in the usual bollocks, Sam Harris etc???? "for example" and potential isn't the same as doing it. And given people have offered out a hand to debate with him on it then you got to wonder why he hasn't taken them up on it. Even more so when he's out right said they don't want to debate him. When somebody doesn't question it I have to then wonder why.
I love that the caller has been on the line that entire time.
extreme stamina
He is probably just like.... soooooooooooooõøōòôöóœ......
The scary part is ... he's been on the line ever siiiiiii-iiiince!
(Oh, and he's dead. I forgot to mention that part.)
@@mattzed11 bwahaha lol
Hahahah!
When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression
@Anton Chigurh Then you go to therapy like a big boy.
This isn't equality. Leftist philosophy is fraught with double-standards.
Lol, that's why the idea of Bernie getting elected is making billionaires cry and giving the poor, working class hope :)
@@Jianju69 list some of them
@@haveabanana2930 No, that's because they are creating false hope by promising to steal wealth from others unjustly and giving it to others equally unjustly. No one has any right to the wealth that anyone personally accumulates through legal means.
*He was on the line the entire time*
Patience of a saint that caller 😅
To this day…
I remember a joke by Chris Rock some 20 years ago ...he mocks white people saying "we're losing the country, we're losing the country, we're losing the country!" and He response "Well if you're losing, Who's winning?! Cause its not us!" (referring to blacks &/or minorities) ...and like i said, that's a 20 year old joke
And white unemployment is not low as well? Also this: i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160809195225-racial-wealth-gap-780x439.jpg
But it is appropriate. Rock could go onto say that sure White working class men ain't winning, but when the fuck were the working class ever winning? The point is surely that apart from the 1% we're all losing, just at different rates. Sam Seder is actually saying that Peterson and Shapiro and Rubin are correct. White men are losing their status because of the advancement of women and minorities. This is a dangerously wrong argument, and that is why we confront these spurious arguments from the Right.
John Barron : Brilliant!
Lose-lose is a thing. One need not always win for others to lose.
@Aaron Boone that don't mean a goddamn thing! When equal opportunity is not available.
Man, this generation of the crew will always have a special place in my heart ❤
Dave Rubin might as well be a Ken doll with a string his guests can pull that just says "That's so true" or "That's the problem with the left"
LMAO I want that to exist in real life now.
He’d probably look like less of an idiot.
Ken's looking rough...
So MaNy HiGh LeVeL IdEaS
And when powered down he would say "My brain is now going into recovery mode from taking in so many high level, important ideas", it would be a hit
Equality feels like oppression to those with unearned privileged.
Leftist equality: every race except whites get their own society and home!
@@sequorroxx Every race had their own society and home until white people raided across the globe invading every land and culture they came across. They clearly didn't _want_ their own land back then.
That said, none of the other races want to separate. That certain contingent of white people are the only ones fixating on that nonsense and projecting it onto everyone else because they're so terrified of non-whites they can't imagine *not* wanting to get rid of everyone outside your own race. 😒
@@sequorroxx You sound triggered hick boy. Sad that you are losing your status when you never earned it in the first place? Keep crying, your hick tears are delicious!
@@sequorroxx /pol/ talking points, very original. Garbage tier reactionaryism.
What's wrong? Did your Big White Brain IQ crap out on you?
Hamadee Jalloh this ^^^ exactly
Caller calls up asks something and we get an epic rant between all hosts. lol I loved this lol
It was really nice seeing a discussion like this, to see that you don't always agree with each other. It's refreshing, thank you!
One thing I very much like about this show is that there is genuine challenging of ideas like, even though Sam's name is in the name of the show, it's not just his point of view reiterated three times, it's Sam and three other genuine voices and I appreciate that
We suck at podcasting so you should watch us.
ruclips.net/channel/UCiT8pkijkFEtkH7JaoBnKUAlive
I really like that on this show no person and topic is off-limit. Sam even gives random callers 15 to 25 minutes to debate.
But those libertarian callers have disappeared once the rise of open exchange people gain strength, because it was never about challenging ideas. It was finding their own safe space.
What are they challenging exactly? I heard no arguments other than "white guys losing their status and thats why they vote for trump". Which is a typical leftist way of thinking. Good luck in life.
Gerald Weyland If you want to challenge them, you can always call.
+chokinonashes61
Why do you consider Gerald Weyland to be racist and misogynistic? He merely asked what 'they' were challenging and what their argument was for doing so. Why assume he is not among the good and decent American people? Seems like you are making the unwarranted assumption that someone at the opposite political spectrum can only take that position based on racist and misogynistic motives.
When Matt said "I'm not quite sure I'm following the argument"
I felt that
Really excellent conversation. Really helpful hearing you guys disagree and debate it out. Not even sure where I land on a lot of these issues... the cause and what we should do in response... but good stuff to think about here. Thank you
I love all four of you - you're all brilliant and you're all correct:
1) Sam is correct that most of these Peterson followers are just insecure, whiny jackasses who are bitter about the fact that - by definition - they will HAVE to lose social status/recognition in becoming a more diverse/egalitarian society.
2) Jamie is correct that the "original sin" here is capitalism, which pits us against each other; and that it's important to consider that - in a socialist scenario where we can all "win" - we might find that humans are NOT programmed for power grabs
3) Michael is right that - in scenarios where we're debating or trying to win over right-wing white dudes - it probably isn't helpful to rub it in their faces that it's a zero sum game and that we as leftists are here to emasculate them; sure it's all true, but persuasion strategies are important in a democracy.
4) Adorable Matt is correct that what we're seeing w/ the Peterson following is not some sudden increase in resentment/economic anxiety, rather, the backlash from right-wing white males only seems more ugly/apparent **now** because the "game"/tide has actually begun to turn substantially;
Added together, you've got an extremely robust/nuanced set of arguments & suggestions, which I personally find very edifying, i.e. I appreciate having these ideas on my mental "back-burner" when dealing w/ discussions/debates in my own day-to-day life. Thank you MR!!
I definitely think that Jamie is hitting the most important point. If you take this discussion outside of the capitalist narrative then a lot of the other arguments fade away to a degree.
This was a really interesting discussion, as a former libertarian who became a socialist and an anarchist I can say the fact that I dropped any attachment to what sam calls “status” (representation in media, institutional power over others, career position) was a liberating experience and one that definitely took place as I moved to the left. That’s not to say that all forms of social status are molded by patriarchy, capitalism, and white supremacy, but I do feel the toxic ones Peterson and his ilk tap in to have their roots in that and I agree with Michael and Jamie that things can change. It can be tough to think in truly radical terms about large changes in society but I think the left needs to to win.
The sparring between all the hosts was awesome. Everyone made excellent points.
Michael's really full-bodied, zoomed out analysis will always be missed. Going through these old videos to hear him is somewhat sad but very valuable.
At around 20 minutes in, Matt (thankfully) summarizes the argument concisely enough, for us to be able to agree that Sam's basic point is right and that Michael's point about rhetorical framing is also right! Peterson simply represents the classic conservative ideas of hierarchy but dressed up in his weird psycho-babble that is deliberately designed to avoid any real critique of his own analysis of things like "Cultural Marxism". Peterson should stick to Psychology, he clearly doesn't understand post-modernism or Marxist thought, anyone who has studied Philosophy can see that.
Watch him debate slavoj zizek. Zizek totally exposed him. At one point jp basically admits hes a postmodernist
It was a nice way of tying it all up
This is a great summary, and my exact perspective on Peterson. Cheers!
You guys need to add Sam saying "I'm the Homecoming Queen" to the sound board.
BOOST
25:47 lol
I wish this kind of debate could be on a TV show - instead of, you know, The Price is Right reruns.
PurushaDesa thanks to baby boomers. They need their boob tube idiot shows while sitting in their diapers.
"Go Ahead... Thats was Michael", of course it was. That's why everyone is laughing.
Sam's point is reflectivist and the other 2 are arguing from a constructivist perspective. There shouldn't be an argument.
But it was so entertaining. I love the way they hashed it out, or at least tried to, on the spot. This clip was FANTASTIC
The caller is like Marvin in Pulp Fiction who is just quietly sitting in the backseat of the car while Jules and Vincent argue
I hate when people on the left misinterpret Bruce Springsteen songs. He’s on our side! Glory Days isn’t a song about Bruce waxing nostalgic, it’s a sardonic little song about small town deadenders who can only reminisce on their past because they have no future and the lives they lead are stagnant and disappointing. It’s like a much nicer version of “2nd Childhood” by Nas.
Art is more than the artists interpretation.
SOMEGUY7893 Yeah but he just missed the point. Do you think Born In The USA is jingoistic, too?
yeah Bruce Springsteen is like Billy Bragg, Jimmy Barnes and Midnight Oil. I am sure i have heard him singing the International too somewhere
@Starfish Coffeehouse My point was just that people can view it differently even if it's not the artists intention.
I remember seeing a Trump rally where they were playing This Land Is Your Land, as if it were a patriotic song.
Great conversation. One layer left out though. Maybe we’ll talk about it on air one day.
Did you ever talk about it? I'm down to see that. Jordan Peterson has 12 new rules, these conversations might unfortunately become more relevant
Great discussion. Thanks to the caller for sparking a fascinating interchange
Why does Peterson have a monopoly on making declarative statements about human nature?
Ronnie Sinclair his mother was a lobster you see
He doesn't. The ideas are persuasive.
thelittlegumnut to simpletons
@@bonemeringue9464And his father smelled of elderberries.
Looking at some old MR clips. Independent right wing media could NEVER have conversations like this lol
Too nuanced for the average hog viewer
Sorry about your divorce. That's hard, even when you know it's right for both of you.
"when you're used to having the whole pie and, all of a sudden, you have to share it, you're going to get less pie." (can't remember where i read that)
vulcanfeline if you could never eat the whole pie, sharing it wouldn't actually mean having less than you had in the first place. It's all about perspective. Not everyone is greedy.
Luckily economics isn’t a pie
Well said Angela. I totally agree.
This bit encompasses everything I love about this show.
Sam’s millennial co-hosts really just can’t quite get it. Sam is spot on. His point is simple. It’s not hard. Matt, Jamie, and Michael can’t wrap their heads around a simple point. They are trying to write a grad thesis in the origins of this type of thought and most people aren’t that complicated. It’s a zero sum game. Period.
I wish the caller after waiting thirty minutes in silence whilst they argued said, “... But what I actually called in to talk about was why you keep misquoting Sam Harris. Hello?”
This is classic ideologues versus the real world. If we installed a socialist's utopia there are people who will always think "that black woman doesn't deserve her share". The idea racism is purely economical is naive.
When I first came across Jordan Peterson, I hadn't really heard much about his politics. I heard a clip from somewhere where he was talking about gaining meaning through responsibility. As a self-confessed lefty hippy, raised by hippie lefty parents, it's the first time I had ever heard it being told that way. I was going through some personal problems at the time, lacking direction and he told me something I needed to hear at the time. And I actually found his advice very helpful in sorting out some stuff. But when I looked into the rest of his stuff, looked a little deeper, I was horrified; I'm a political person, a socialist, a member of Momentum (in the UK I imagine you know what that means) so I had the background to decode the crypto-fascism JP was espousing. But I know that had I not had this background, if I was a little more gullible I can understand how this perspective might be very compelling, especially to a person who found some small part of what he said useful in their personal lives.
I had a very similar experience, but lacked the background you have, and had to slowly learn it on the fly with some help from this program
I'm glad you both dodged that bullet. Good on ya :)
Peterson got his foot in the door with his self-help books, which are NOT the best ones out there by a long shot. It is just that there hadn't been any for a while so his books seemed novel when they came down the pike. If you've read them, you know that he states the rule and then goes off on a tangent which usually doesn't even relate that well to the rule. (I encourage everyone to watch Cass Eris critique of his 'Rules.' She goes through them with a fine-tooth comb and then you don't have to waste your money buying them.) Peterson's rules are just a rehash of what is contained in many other self-help books that are written in more understandable language and provide much better examples of how to actually apply those rules. If you are discerning and even a little smart, you know that Jordan Peterson is just filling pages with the gibberish after each rule because longer books can exact a higher price tag. Then he got some minutes of fame when he misrepresented C-16. His fan base is beginning to scrutinize his pontifications with more discernment, so hopefully he will soon fade into obscurity.
Sam has hit the nail on the head, why does his 'team' keep trying to prove that he's not got the answer, very frustrating...Sam, you hit it.
Agree with Sam.Feel like Michael and Jamie are being obtuse.
Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?
Not all racism is overt or even conscious. You also have to factor in culture as well. I see people all the time online talking about how they need to preserve the culture otherwise we will all turn into a bunch of Communist Islamic Nazi Marxists. Hell, just look at the release of the Black Panther movie. There were people who hated the movie because it supposedly tried to make black people look good. I am not saying everyone is like this, or even most people. However, there is a small, concentrated segment of whites that feel very strongly about this.
Jonathan Green Well to be fair a lot of working class whites are feeling further alienated. They turn on their TV and see rich, corporate dems who are the embodiment of white privilege, get on their high horse and chastise them, telling them to “check your privilege” while they struggle to make ends meet. Meanwhile Trump comes along and pushes all the right buttons to fool these gullible people into voting for him. So really all of it falls back on the dems failure to run likable candidates who actually support the working class and don’t resort to identity politics to gain support.
>This point cannot be refuted. It's a basic, definitional issue
Which is why I'm not trying to refute it.
>Being "okay" with losing your advantage is different from recognizing that the advantage exists, which again, is all sam is doing here
Not sure what you mean by this. How does that tie in with the question of the caller?
>The idea of innate racism is not ridiculous at all - if you were born into this country, you were born into a culture that was formed AROUND a system of racism and misogyny - therefore by virtue of being American, we have inherited the legacy of racism.
White supremacy has been under significantly more threat in the past than it is now, largely because white supremacy was simply more prevalent. You can't claim that the things we're seeing today are the same old racism, since we know some variable has to be changing. That is the variable which counts. That's where you're gonna have these conversations.
How do you imagine them comparing themselves with other minorities like that? To me it seems not so much the measurable shifts in status, those are hardly perceivable to the individual. It is rather the process by which we "identify, call out, and work to reverse inequality." This is what triggers them.
Why? Because they don't feel like they're experiencing the benefits of the (to them merely alleged) bigotry. They feel like shit about themselves and worry deeply about their future. They've been raised to treat women and black people as equals, and in their minds always kept to that principle. Now people are coming along telling them that they're the beneficiaries of sexism, racism, and whatever other distant evil. It doesn't make sense to them. That's the issue.
They're told to make place for others, while they don't even know if they have place to begin with. All these other groups are given these great narratives of self-liberation. And against who? Them somehow. The outcast at school. The white kid with no social life who spends his time playing video games and posting on image boards. Do you see why this seems incredible to them?
I feel like there's truth in each perspective. In Sam's argument, he stated that people don't like to lose or give up their status and their privileges. Michael and Jamie argue that they have in the past and would, but I think it all comes down to primal human nature and emotion. As Jamie said, economic anxiety is not always based in reality. Fear is a huge driver for people, and if human beings feel threatened, we tend to try to protect ourselves by hoarding resources as a survival response. This is why many rich people actually do advocate for a higher wealth tax, they feel secure in their assets and abilities/positioning. If someone is insecure about their own ability to compete against others in an increasingly inclusive and competitive workplace atmosphere, and if they already haven't formed a secure attachment on their wealth and their position in society (especially those hyper sensitive alt right people who feel threatened by virtually anything, for example the "war on christmas" as Sam mentions) they will fight against this movement.
I think the key here is to move past this individualistic culture, to demonstrate the universal far-reaching benefits in a more socialist society, and at some level, preach love and unity instead of hate and fear. Once you feel your safety, your family, your way of life is threatened, that leads to the desperation that Sam is talking about. In a world where we see all people on Earth as a part of our human family (by cultivating empathy and intelligence about other cultural contexts/histories/mindsets and re-connecting the working class to the ruling class) we would be naturally moved to eradicate the inequality that leads to higher crime rates, traumatized and parentless children, addiction, untreated mental/physical illness, crumbling infrastructure and homelessness etc., when every person can see in a real world scenario how these policies and societal changes benefit every single person, privileged or not, they will gain the sense of safety and personal responsibility to give up their power over others.
Sam nailed the current-day mindset of some of these people, but Jamie and Michael are bringing the kind of empathy and understanding necessary to truly corrode these primal and problematic (in modern human society) instincts.
Sam has it 100%.
No Michael was right.
I don't see Peterson, Rubin, or any of the other people in their circles trying to shut down the speech of others or threatening to get anyone fired. This video makes no sense.
Shalom O'Neal dude Peterson has said he wants entire fields shut down on colleges because he doesn't like what they say, students should leave and boycott classes that use words he doesn't like like equity. He is working with programmers to create a database of all professors who he disagrees with so students can avoid being exposed to those ideas. And he has said art with political messages shouldn't be made.
Shalom O'Neal Three leftists channels i know have been shutdown by right wingers who disagreed with them. One them had been swatted muitlple times. Also MLK,Malcolm X and Rosa Luxembourg all leftists all murdered for being leftists,and not to mention all the murders the alt-right have committed recently.
Yeah, Peterson would never threaten violence on the writer of an unflattering piece on him.
Oh wait..
5Amigos32 that wasn't the purpose of the database. The purpose of the database was to grade professors on a left-right ideological spectrum so that students could decide if they wanted to support that ideology.
Also, he cancelled the project because it could cause a chilling effect on freedom of speech from the left...
Then why won't he debate Seder? That's the point of the video. Not him trying to shut speech down. He is scared of open discussion.
20 years ago they flocked to Ann coulter and Rush Limbaugh
The interesting point is how easily the "hero" of the right wing is forgotten.
Nobody remembers the butler.
I'm not sure I follow what you are saying?
Sam was right. Michael and Jamie were butthurt at the framing, but Sam is not on a campaign trail.
I don't like how Jamie and Michael were so combative and were trying to have Sam frame it as if he's from a pulpit trying to trick people with pretty words. He's never done that and that's not what this show is about. If he's convincing anyone, it's with the cold hard facts.
When Matt agreed with Sam but also interrupted his own agreement to state he didn't know what the argument was about, I totally agreed. It just came off as them trying to curve Sam's language and then Jamie screaming "capitalism capitalism" as identity politics suddenly don't exist at all.
Sure, class and economics play into them as well, but not 100%, because like Sam said, people like to see themselves. Human psychology shows that this fear of the unknown and the other is something real, even primal, in terms of our survival instincts. Fear is not a social construct and the fear of losing status is not just a repercussion of economics.
That these supposed leftists could deny such a thing is quite concerning.
This was a great video. I happen to agree with Sam and Matt(?) that social status is separate from economic anxiety, and I don't subscribe to the idea that if we can "solve" economic anxiety (if that is even possible), the loss of social status will become more palatable.
Medicare for All will not stop police from harassing black people; Eisenhower tax rates will not end the attempts to restrict reproductive rights; a federal jobs guarantee will not prevent laws prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom. "Economic anxiety" is used too often as an excuse for why some in the white working class want to oppress people who have it even worse than they do.
Admittedly, I haven't watched a ton of this show but I've certainly dabbled. I found this to be one of the more interesting segments that I've seen. I really enjoyed absorbing this debate. Fascinating and informative.
This was the best episode of MR I have ever seen. Unbelievable. It was worth going through all those other episodes to get to this one.
This was such a great discussion, I appreciated every minute of it. I also agree with Sam and think MB is making a separate point that is unrelated to SS's point. Yes, it is zero sum.
"Woman are like air America" lmfao
I could be wrong, but its how its largely presented in the UK today, that we ended our slavery voluntarily after a ship of slaves sank killing everyone on board and changing the tide of public opinion on the subject. Of course, people fought for this change too, and there were, of course, economic factors including boycott, but the story we're told is that we chose to stop having this power over others as a society because we could no longer stomach it. Slavery, of course, was very different in the UK and the US in terms of public meaning as in the UK slavery was something (as I understand it and again I'm no expert) happened "over there" rather than right in our homes.
South Africa didn't give up as much power as you think, the economy power is still in the same place it always was.
Thats because the Boers are more productive.
Google boers farm transition. The Bantu are not handling the farms well. Just like after White farmers in Zimbabwe were driven off their homes for generations, South African farmers and other workers are in the hands of those who best use those resources. Stealing it from them will lead to starvation.
@@sequorroxx Don't confuse political power with economical power.
Im a gay girl and i used to be a huge fan of JP. It was not because of social status for me (i think). It was just a lack of life experience/accurate info. I didnt think gender inequality was a thing, neither for gay people. While in the meantime i didnt even want to get out of the closet.
It was because of school and the way teachers talk about oppression etc. Only through state lense, not an economic one. In my country there are no laws that i know of for the inequality of women or gay people etc. But ofcourse other things cause it, such as socio-economic factors.
For me during those times leftist looked like crybabies arguing for rights they already had. But i hadnt felt oppression etc myself so i just couldnt see it that wat especially when you are taught meritocracy in school.
So i mixture of homophobia and ignorance of politics and economics etc. Made me a jp fan
You guys just spent 10 minutes disagreeing on each other's definition of "status" lol
Thats not really what the debate was about lol
I thought that was an extended dig at Jordan Peterson. 'well first off you have to define' status'. Then of course you will need to define 'define' and 'you' in the non-literal sense and blah blah blah blah blah. "
lol pretty much what i said. mostly a debate on the focus of their definition of loss/gain, i don't think anyone was particularly wrong.
Political power was negotiated away by De Klerk. Economic power was retained
I'm South African
Like usual Sam's analysis is pretty spot on.
There might be the odd individual who gives up power voluntarily, but I think history shows that power, generally, has to be taken.
Love this episode. A simple question turned into a far ranging studio debate in which they showed a lot of themselves in an honest manner.
As regards peterson I think his main trait is that he is very conservative and he thinks people are very conservative and people do not like change.
A lot of people do see life as a zero sum game.
This is what honest debate looks like.
debate Nick Fuentes you cowards
lmao Fuentes would body them..
Slippery Nick? Lmfao even Destiny BTFO that little weasel! Get him to call in that would be the funniest thing ever.
2:22 Nick Fuentes takes calls unscreened, more reason to debate lol
Please tell me you've grown up and aren't still a fuentes fan lmao
I remember laughing out loud the first time I heard this, and realized the caller had been on that *whole* time.
In general, I like this show, but I don't think that the host constantly interrupting and shouting down his co-hosts with rather generic talking points counts as an 'honest debate.'
www.google.com/search?q=sam+seder+debates
That was a discussion not a debate.
John Redberg but their argument was ridiculous, people in this country ARENT voting out of fear over lost dominance?? They are, Sam was completely correct.
Brooks is always trying to talk over Sam which is very rude. it's Sam's show. Brooks would like to think he's smarter than Sam. He isn't.
This wasn't a debate buddy. It was a conversation...
That poor caller lmao
This is the most interesting video I’ve seen from the Minority Report yet because it’s an actual, constructive discussion between Sam and Michael and not just the usual circle jerk over some external video clip. Really enjoyed it! (Though Sam should really let others finish speaking instead of raising his voice over theirs)
As a leftist and humanist I'm optimistic, but as a realist I must say that the power of white supremacy is strong. Race, politics, and economics have always been intertwined in this country. I agree with Sam. Be bold and resolute in the truth. All it will do is offend those who already want to be offended, so you might as well speak truth to power. It is a zero sum game in a capitalist frame, which is why we should be questioning capitalism and forging better solutions that isn't an ethno-state or more of the same.
“If you don't understand white supremacy/racism ,everything that you do understand will only confuse you..” -Nelly Fuller Jr.
Brian McMurray you dont know anything STFU aint no damn plague of white supremacy.
Bill Barry
I actually agree, I don't think it's a plague like in the sense of the rise of Nazis in Germany... at least I hope it isn't. In fact, attitudes towards race have changed drastically among the populace in a relative short period of time in this country, it's just the wealth, policy, and the justice system hasn't followed suit in some major ways when it comes to race. What we are witnessing, I think, is a reaction to the fracturing of American Identity. To divorce white supremacy from that identity and to not address it is folly despite how much many want to hide it under a rug.
Brian McMurray seriously where do you see any white supremacy???
Bill Barry
>>Dylan Roof went into a black church, killed innocent men and women, young and old and was treated kindly and gently by the cops because he's white but a calm black man can be gunned down in the street for doing nothing at all, and many whites are okay with it and try to find justifications for such acts rather than just saying it is wrong.
>>The Freedman's bank was authorized by President Lincoln to give freed slaves an economic base, but after he was assassinated, the bank was hijacked and much of the wealth was embezzled; destroying potential generational wealth black people could have accrued and influencing black poverty even today. Despite this and many other wrenches thrown into back economics over the last two centuries, many whites still say blacks should work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps when scores of farming tools, plundered land, and doles were given out to whites to start their generational wealth but the government didn't even attempt to bail out a bank that was set up to help freed slaves . Essentially forms of socialism is good for whites, but when blacks are for it, we are commie bastards.
>>Black people have to be afraid of having the cops called on them when doing mundane things like having a cookout in a public park, fall asleep while studying in a Yale common room, or accidentally touching a white person sitting next to them on a plane.
>>Confederate generals are honored with statues and monuments even in Washington DC even though they were racist traitorous scum, and the only way blacks could get a Martin Luther King day in many southern states is if there were also Confederate holidays honored...essentially a white supremacist slap in the face.
>>Slave owner faces adorn the side of Mt. Rushmore and money.
>>Blacks are 75% more likely to get a mandatory sentence for committing the same crime as whites.
>>Cops are more like to be killed by whites, but blacks are more heavily policed and unfairly treated.
>>Black poverty and white privilege can be directly traced back to not only slavery but more recent Nixonian policies of benign neglect and municipal disinvestment which is directly related to gentrification policies today, not to mention the fact that blacks were primarily left out of New Deal policies/reforms that created the white middle class, particularly when it comes to home ownership, the foundation of middle class wealth.
>>Whites in many places adorn themselves or their property with the confederate flags which to most black people is synonymous with wearing a swastika.
>>Blacks are often told to change their behavior, political rhetoric, or work ethic to succeed, but even when they do succeed they are called uppity or ungrateful when they speak on an issue that white people are uncomfortable dealing with.
>>Black people are often called racist for simply bringing up racism.
>>When black people complain about being brutalized or murdered unjustly by cops whose salaries are paid by their taxes, white people say focus on black on black crime before you criticize public servants, but when black people and others say 911 could have been avoided if white imperialist criminals weren't committing crimes like overthrowing governments, assassinating leaders, and funding multiple sides of conflicts, you call us unpatriotic.
>>Many white people say that blacks should stop having a victims mentality, but won't acknowledge that blacks as a whole are victims of white supremacy and racism. When some blacks actually throw off victimization by doing non-violent things like marching and civil disobedience to redress their grievances, many whites call it complaining and unlawfulness.
>>When few blacks truly throw off victimization and even talk about taking up the gun to protect themselves and their communities from race soldiers, many whites call them reverse racist, black nationalist, or my new personal favorite... black identity extremist.
>>Blacks are often criticized for rioting for legitimate reasons, but when whites riot after sports events, the media is very gentile in their reporting of it.
>>Poor black youth are often thrown into the criminal justice system for “gang activity” for simply wearing the wrong colors, throwing up signs, or posting rap lyrics on social media, but hardcore white supremacist gangs are far more violent towards cops, subversive, and terroristic; but they are largely left alone by authorities and are even defended under the guise of free speech, though an apparent gang sign isn't.
>>Black depression, identity issues, and the various issues that come with poverty are hardly ever brought up when black commit even misdemeanor crimes, but when whites commit very heinous crimes the media often finds a way to humanize that person.
>>George W Bush was a imperialist war criminal, and Obama wasn't much better and continued much of dubbya's policies, yet the conservatives criticized him to no end for often ridiculous reasons.
>>The FBI warned ten years ago of white supremacist groups infiltrating law enforcement, and in fact law enforcement historically has had racist in charge or wielding power, yet some of us are still trying to deny white supremacy exist in various aspects of American society especially in an area that has a profound affect on people and communities.
>>I see it in many other places too, but I'm tired and want to got to bed. Perhaps I'll do a part 2 tomorrow.
RUclipsrs talking about Jordan Peterson...who seem to know absolutely nothing about Jordan Peterson.
That’s true but I know an asshole when I hear (Peterson) one.
Lmao
Good joke
CountJimbo Well, you certainly wouldn't come to that conclusion after watching this video.
Why is he an asshole ? After attending many of his courses at the University of Toronto, I can honestly say that he is one of the best individuals I have ever met !
the lady off camera says at 25:19 we live in a system where people are identified by [their] work but then says at 26:16 that you [should] be careful about making blankets statement about human nature .
I'm a fan of Peterson. Rubin is a little grating to me. Can't stand Trump voted for Clinton would have voted for Bernie.
sbcurley
Honest question here.
What do you like about Peterson’s ideas?
Do you have any criticisms of him?
I'll answer, since I'm roughly in the same boat as sbcurley (never found any value in Rubin, but echo the sentiments on Trump and Bernie). For one, he helped me get my shit together, so I appreciate him for that. I also see some value in conservatism and individuality, especially relating to personal responsibility and order, and I think JBP is not at all mean-spirited on these issues, unlike US republicans.
I don't like identity/victim politics --- even though I recognize that some groups of people are more victimized than others, I don't think it's productive to see the world through the black-and-white of victim and oppressor. It's far more complicated than that.
I'll include the caveat that I don't agree with him on religion (not sure about his cultural marxism thing, either, though I AM alarmed by what's going on in American universities), and I'll also say that his logic is somewhat twisted on this topic, but I don't think he's dishonest. Most people are guilty of this when they set out to defend their sacred values.
Lastly, JBP is remarkably gentle, considering the grief he gets from angry lefties and disappointed alt-righters. He's a force for good and a de-radicalizer of both far-left and far-right.
I like the if you want to improve the world start with yourself stuff. I know it's not original to him but I found him motivating to take that idea seriously, and I like the religious symbolism stuff.
I don't care for how casually he throws around the phrases Post-Modernist, and Cultural Marxists its a little conspiratorial for me. Even if some of his complaints related to those things are worth considering.
I have a bunch of complaints about how he handled certain interactions like the vice interview, which I think was easily misinterpreted because he was being too stand-offish, and more egregiously the incident where he said he'd slap that guy.
I also wish he'd do more to criticize the far right, though he's gotten a little better at pissing off alt-right types.
Those are probably my general criticisms of him. At the moment I can't think of others, but I feel like I'm forgetting a thing or two from this list.
Thank you, guys. I appreciate you taking the time to answer and I appreciate your honesty.
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.
Those who condemn people for their privilege are NOT the ones that we should be listening to on issues of inequality, equality or justice.
Jordan Peterson's dishonesty on US imperialism and Marxism is in of itself part of his echo chamber ! they never debate Chomsky, Parenti , and Zizek is paramount to the fact that people like Chomsky are fully versed and patient with Peterson's smugness
Sam starts the call with a big smile on his face and then it all goes down from there lmao
Lol this was a nice chat. Somewhat awkward at the end
Talking about your status in society... "This is a zero-sum game" .... he obviously has NO CLUE on Peterson's views, and is a perfect example of his post-modernist power game viewpoint.
nothing in your post indicates that you have a clue about petersons views either...
Lol wth the guy was still on the line?! Finished with a solid last point. Being famous is a drug.
Discussions like this is why I always tune into this show. Keep up the good work.
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Jordan Peterson. The insight is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of the degeneration of western civilization most of the jokes will go over a typical recipiants head. There's also Jordan's chauvnistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal PhIloSoPhY draws exclusively from psychology literature, Carl Jung for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these ramlbings, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about CULTURAL MARXISM. As a consequence, people who dislike Jordan Peterson truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the self-help in Jordan's existential catchphrase "Clean Your Room!" which itself is a cryptic reference to Molyneux's epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those post-modern simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Petersons genius unfolds itself on their computer screens. What fools... how I pity them.
This needs to become a copy pasta, it's great.
chokinonashes61 Poe' s law...
Top meme application. This is that Rick and morty copy pasta.
Tijtij shut up Jordan Peterson is a pseudo intellectual and the fact that you think he's brilliant merely exposes your lack of 'intellectual capacity', you do not have to have a high iQ to understand Peterson in fact if you have a low IQ you would be more likely to like him because you clearly cannot think critically about the bullshit he spews, he believes all people with a developed moral compass must be religious because he cannot conceive of a moral atheist so assumes they all deep down believe in god but don't even know it which is Fucking ridiculous
Tijtij 👋👋
If you haven't already, I recommend you, read James Baldwin's 'On Being White...And Other Lies', from Essence Magazine, April 1984.
I think it gets to the heart of what you all are talking about here.
Sam Seder is one of the most confused people I’ve ever seen.
Alien
Well, since your an alien, I guess you don’t know that many people. Can you back that statement up? Because I listened to him too and we’ll, he nailed the logic dude. What did he say that you can’t get your head around?
Matt Nice He lives in a politics bubble, he thinks Jordan Petersons driving force is political which is where the confusion lies. Peterson has been talking about this stuff since the 90s but he is Canadian and only got American and international attention recently.
Matt Nice It’s great that his blood and bones are made out of politics but he projects politics where it doesn’t belong or exist.
Alien
Political ideology exists in your daily life. Mine too. But especially for someone like Peterson who has gotten very rich and famous talking about his ideologies. Politics isn’t limited to passing bills and foreign diplomacy, politics is the process through which we pass policy and we do that based on what our country’s ideology is and we hold national elections every few years so that the country can debate and decide what its ideology is. Don’t be fooled, Peterson is very knowingly tapping into the political angst and zeitgeist of the public. We’re discussing him here, on a political show and this isn’t the only one. That’s not a coincidence. He says he’s not political because it allows him a back way out. It doesn’t matter what country you live in, there are conservatives in all of them and liberals too. Ideologies don’t respect borders. Peterson knows that there’s a lot of money to be made on this stuff. He’s a conman. I see it. Maybe you will too eventually.
Matt Nice I’m getting anxious reading that because it turns out you’re a mind-reader or telepath. All that Jordan Peterson does is help people, give good advice and he puts his lectures up for anybody to watch for free. If you care about helping others and creating a society where everybody lives without hatred or violence or a republican government attacking Jordan Peterson isn’t going to help you or anyone and as far as I can see it’s almost all vitriolic and ignorant. He isn’t forcing you to buy anything, he is a clinician who really does understand how to fix people and he has done a more effective job than any political activist or show host.
Honestly props to Sam for surrounding himself with people who disagree with him (from the Left)
21:34 sam's out of context true feelings.
He is the homecoming queen
Sam! She wasn't talking about where it comes from. It was explicitly about where it's going.
I've attended two Jordan Peterson events, both in Toronto, both extremely diverse - not only in gender, but race, and ethnicity. Sam, it seems you have no idea what you're talking about.
Erynn Gillian even Peterson admits his fans are mostly young white and male.
Sargon’s Black Grandfather His audience is MOSTLY young white and male, but not entirely.
The diverse members of his audience usually support his specific message of free speech, political tolerance, and refuting specific social justice ideals, believing them to be authoritarian.
I agree that Peterson's overall message is that the current system of hierarchy - fuelled inequality is somehow just because it is "natural", and that any attempt to aid it through appropriate government policy would either
a) only go to service those in power and bring tyranny to the individual
b) somehow "degrade" civilization culturally
Or c) go against the natural order and destroy itself over time through major backlash.
I obviously disagree with such a sentiment.
Those who support Peterson usually disagree that the vast majority of inequality is necessary or just. I wouldn't be surprised if most support Bernie Sanders economically. They simply agree with his opinion that the preposed solutions by social justice warriors, which they have been disingenuously led to belief represent the left in the mainstream, are authoritarian in nature. As well as the fact that governments may use these authoritarian social policies to crack down on the population, with public support, despite remaining economically conservative and using progressive social policy as a shield.
This is ESPECIALLY relevant in the sphere of Canadian politics; where Peterson hails from and remains most popular. Where the current Liberal government led by Justin Trudeau has given billions in weapons to Saudi Arabia, nowhere near met their Climate accord requirements whilst speeding up billions of barrels of oil production, has refused to raise taxes on the rich whilst placing a carbon tax on the CONSUMER and not the producer, has championed free trade including the TPP, has lied on multiple main campaign issues including electoral reform, has kept the government from being transparent, and much, MUCH more.
This whilst championing feminism and gay rights, but ONLY domestically. (at least, claiming to whenever a camera is on and then doing nothing for the actual public.)
Literally every second Trudeau gets the spotlight he cries, has a 30 second, VERY fake speech detailing nothing of substance given through an earpiece, and then behind closed doors runs the nation as a business for the benefit of wealthy oil tycoons.
This whilst Feminist, Post-Colonialist, and Marxist literary theories are new, mandatory subjects to be taught in high school, which many view as a push towards nonsensical propaganda (something I do not necessarily agree with).
This is what drives Peterson's theory of "Cultural Marxism"; that students are taught to look at things from an ideological lens which he views as dangerous and authoritarian. Whilst the concept of Cultural Marxism may originate from the nazis, I don't believe he is using it in a dogwhistle-like fashion. He simply needs to clarify his position (which again, I do not necessarily agree with) and use a DIFFERENT phrase (ie cultural revolution etc).
For the record, I disagree with the VAST majority of Peterson's message (ie: his religious dogmatism, his right-wing sympathies and his view of ONE aspect of human nature driving, or ideally driving, social policy).
Though share 2 things with the majority of his SUPPORTERS. The notion that focusing purely on progressive social policy without putting responsibilities on the government to respect freedom of speech, to be completely transparent, and represent the people economically, would be a disastrous direction allowing the government to crack down on opposing views (which will only push them underground) and thus become more authoritarian whilst remaining corrupt, business loving war mongers.
The second being that social justice warriors often DO go too far in dismissing opposing views outright. Debate people who already have a large audience, regardless of how ignorant or disturbing you may find them. Just don't prop up such actors if they do not ALREADY have a large audience. You may be able to reach that audience rather than increase it through appearing authoritarian. Also, debate those in your life who you have the opportunity to sway.
One last thing; pointing out privilege or power structures existing AS A SIDE POINT to your argument isn't a bad thing. It only empowers your opponent when you become lazy or frustrated and decide to claim "well you can't understand this..." or "well you should feel ashamed of..." your privilege.
The majority of people ALREADY AGREE that white people (Americans in particular) do not face the same level of police brutality as their fellow black citizens. There may be disagreement as to why that is the case ie: drug war paired with systemic racism or "they just commit more crime" which is obvious nonsense, but you must POINT OUT WHY or else they appear to win to their audience, reinforcing that draconian belief.
Claiming that the MAJORITY of Peterson fans agree with his very complex and somewhat hidden underlying viewpoint is disingenuous. Many agree that furthering equality and increasing the standard of living for all is right, they just have more libertarian social views.
jordan peterson's facebook group's cover photo is him smiling with his hands over a diverse selection of students, like five white boys and two black girls. always lol at it. so diverse. go clean your room buckoo!
Horsemanray That's not what I said but okay, lmao
Erynn Gillian This is just an absurd statement. Sam may be making an assumption based on what he's seen online or what his own biased may be, but your views are no better. Not only are you apparently biased in favour of the man, but you're also using just two events that you personally have attended as though it's "proof" of something greater. These are tiny anecdotes that, without any further clarification or data, are literally useless in this conversation. They disprove nothing.
Good discussion. I agree with Sam. ZERO SUM GAME!
i agree with micheal and jamie, it’s always important to throw in a broader based socialist movement just to keep it front of mind
The fact y'all have a miniature debate over this guy vs what the conservatives do is hilarious in comparison. I would love any conservative to try and debate any of you, at any time. Love you guys.
C........R.........I..........N...........G.........E...
Michael you're dead wrong on that it seems that you forget when he Mandela wrapping tires around people and lighting them on fire apartheid was definitely not given over without a fight
You use the worst ad hominems against people like Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and then cry when they don't want to debate you.
I think I agree with Sam. Centuries of learned/reinforced biases from a larger system and construct of whiteness CAN be completely and wholly divorced from economic anxieties, and thus could persist even through an egalitarian economic emancipation. Like the cashier calling the cops on people who look like me for waiting in a Starbucks isn’t inextricably linked to that cashier’s economic anxiety.
I agree with Sam.
Definitely disagree with Sam here. This idea that these people are in essence reacting to the zero-sum game being changed is nonsensical. First of all, you have to consider that this implies there are two groups of people in society. Those who feel like this zero-sum game being changed is an issue, and those who don't feel that way. Clearly both kinds of people exist. You have both Sam Seder and Jordan Peterson. Thus there must be forces determining whether someone will turn into a Sam Seder or Jordan Peterson. If Sam were right they would be innate racists. It would be in their genes or something. Completely ridiculous. Does Sam feel like he's another species from them?
Farco sounds like you misunderstood Sams point.
Please explain Sam's point to me then.
James Baldwin Sam’s way of doing things are harmful to the progressive left movement. His words mostly serve to further alienate these on-the-fence working class whites who could easily be won over. When Sam says things such as “people only voted for Trump because they’re racist”, that just confirms everything right wing pundits have been telling them. Just like Michael said, the way to convert those people is to address the economic issues they’re facing instead of just looking down on them and shaming them for making bad decisions. After they’ve been converted in their economic views, everything else eventually falls into place. They shed their bigoted, racist, and sexist beliefs and next thing you know they’re voting progressive. I really believe it’s that easy.
Sean King You sound a lot like the people on Fox News Business with that last paragraph. How many people do you think can afford to take out loans and pay it back without going into debt? Again, I’m not talking about well off conservatives who will always vote republican no matter what. I’m talking specifically about working class whites who are economically depressed that voted for Trump partly because of his false promises of better economic security. Those aren’t the people who can necessarily afford to take out loans as many of them can barely make ends meet as is. That’s the base progressives need to be targeting, but as long as establishment dems keep playing identity politics while selling out to corporations behind the curtain, nothing will give those people any incentive to vote democrat in upcoming elections.
Tell me if I'm being too narrow, but I don't think it's a zero sum game.
Example: If we create social conditions where non-whites and non-guys can compete equally for, say, doctor jobs, then I may get a better doctor than I have now. I'd say that counts as a gain for patients, including white guys like me. Similarly, if the social conditions for business means a small company can finally compete fairly against Amazon, then I win (through lower prices, better books, faster delivery, etc.) even if the people running that company aren't white dudes like me.
If these markets work better, I don't see how my social status could cause me anxiety.
Correct me if I'm wrong or missing something.
(gripping of microphone stand intensifies)
this channel is a joke lol
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
something a Sam Harris stan would post in 2013
I love it when they disagree. Adds some spice 🤣
The title is hilarious !
Matt K has NOTHING to do with the clip as per usual.
It has everything to do with the clip actually.
Weaselwords in the title.
It's called "using clickbait to draw in views" you dingus. How long have you been on youtube? You would probably have an aneurysm if you were around in the good old days of this site.
The "merry Christmas" thing is entirely "I'm used to this and I'm annoyed by people asking me to change something I do." It's just people's feelings being hurt by not being able to do whatever they want without people asking them to make an effort to consider other people. It's just hurt feelings. That's all.
I’m a college conservative trying to see the bigger picture from both sides, and I listen to Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and the like not because I feel my social status is in danger and that I should take a side, but that the modern political discussion is too vitriolic and they seem like the ones that take the argument in the most logical terms.
I would love to see a conversation between you and Dave Rubin, be it on his channel or yours. I do think he’d be open to it, as he started his channel was started for that purpose. I may be wrong, but I doubt he’d be reluctant to talk to you.
Maybe it’s a difference in the frame in how both sides view Peterson’s rise to fame, but I don’t believe people listen to him because they’re worried about losing their white privileged social status (at least most of them, though I can’t speak for everyone).
I hope a conversation can be had, maybe between you and Peterson or Rubin in the future, as I think real progress can be made to bridge this divide.
Hunter Cannan lol Sam’s been asking him to be on his show for the past year and Dave refused. Dave only gets on conservatives and far righters and maybe the off “liberal” but only if they’re riding the anti SJW gravy train.
You probably meant delusional kook, but nonetheless, I like the idea of a delusional cook :) Gordon Ramsay on DMT? Other than that, totally agree.
Hunter Cannan I'd highly suggest you attempt to break out of the idea that speaking calmly and using common sense makes a person reasonable. Much of what we'd define as common sense falls apart under further inspection, and little public policy can be based on anything so minimalistic. Appearing calm says far more about a person's age, brain chemistry, and learned characteristics than it does their correctness. When evaluating who is worth listening to, I believe it best to go to whoever has the most facts or the strongest data.
When we on the Left criticise Rubin, it's often because his apparent predisposition towards being "reasonable" acts as a sort of cover. The majority of his guests are Libertarian-ish thinkers pushing one type of worldview, and those who are not are often pushed on topics of agreement rather than disagreement. This creates a sort of echo chamber wherein one ideology is pushed forwards without considering the contrary evidence. This may appear reasonable, but it's not really hard to appear reasonable when 90% of what is said is agreeable, and the only conflict is around minor points and slight ideological differences.
Also if you're mostly interested in calm, reasonable, cogent arguments that don't offend your sensibilities, I'd suggest you check out Shaun and Jen, Three Arrows, and Contrapoints. They're all cultural, but I think Peterson and Rubin are too, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Cheers
Orange Pekoe Thank you for the input! I’ll definitely check them out. And hopefully make some sense of the political discussion of today
' take the argument in the most logical terms' LOL okay. What makes you think that? Because they claim to be 'objective'?
Same in any life.Any loss is devastating and serves as a reminder.
Sam really needs to read some theory.
Omar Omar what?
Like general theory of lobsterism and quantum lobster theory.
The IRONY 😂😂😂
Sam is based
Terrified of an honest debate? That’s hilarious, I would love to see a leftist socialist debate Peterson
Douglas Lain of Zero Books, a marxist, reached out to Peterson to have conversation/debate with him - and Peterson turned him down and then went on Rogan saying that the marxists etc, dont want to talk to him - sooo Peterson is full of crap, disingenuous right winger who perhaps knows he is out of his depth if he were ever to actually debate someone who actually knows anything about marxism, or history, or philosophy, or economics for that matter (and sometimes i wonder if Peterson even knows Nietzsche and Jung that well too)
aes0p give me one example where socialism worked. And European countries are not socialist they have free markets and social programs not the same thing, not to mention they have the US military backing them
ANYONE actually knowledgeable in anything can wipe the floor with Peterson, from David Harvey to Richard Wolff to Tariq Ali to Chris Hedges to Cornel West. On & on & on.
Stoner Bear Clown
Richard Wolff or Noam Chomsky.
Socialism works Italy and Spain, where they have a form of anarcho syndicalism alongside Keynes-Capitalism. Sincerely, a capitalist
That poor caller! They said they wanted him to "have the last word," and once he starts to make his point, they all interrupt him 😞 Oh well, really good conversation!
duhhh why is the white guyz like havin' powah?????
lol, isnt it pathetic?
these guys are communists
Strawman, not an argument.
Gerald Weyland nice profile pic dude, brings me back to 4chan in 2016. Nothing pathetic about clinging on to the one victory you'll ever have in life.
Hindsight 20-20, Seder seems to have nailed it.
Ok, sorry....Um this has to be click bait or something because how is jordan peterson terrified of honest debate? rofl.....have you seen ANYTHING with him? pretty much the whole reason anyone is discussing jordan peterson IS because people DID start debating nonsense with him in which they were trying to enforce things and how people would relate to them....yada yada.
He has had multiple Marxists reach out to debate with him and he has refused them and then claimed no Marxist ever tries to discuss with him. He is a liar. Anyone can win a debate against college students. The fact that Peterson refuses to debate Zizek, Wolff, etc makes him a liar.
Goobernational you're trying to connect dots that don't exist, but at least you tried.
Russian Bot High Servitor How is he connecting dots that don't exist when it's pretty well known multiple Marxists have reached out and he's turned them down and then he's gone on to say no Marxist don't wants to debate with him? You're trying to defend the indefensible, but at least you tried I guess.
Hoopla10 Because you're acting as if he is dodging marxist debate when in fact (for example) a potential debate with Lain is still tenable. Peterson has routinely gone on programs that disagree vehemently with his POV such as Vice, channel 4 UK, 60 minutes, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty etc. That's what he does.
So no, nothing I am saying is indefensible.
So just to clarify you're making an equivalency with people who may actually know a thing or two about Marxism with some guy from Vice, a unprepared woman on channel 4 news where he coached all his stuff in the usual bollocks, Sam Harris etc???? "for example" and potential isn't the same as doing it. And given people have offered out a hand to debate with him on it then you got to wonder why he hasn't taken them up on it. Even more so when he's out right said they don't want to debate him. When somebody doesn't question it I have to then wonder why.
"We are the ones that wanna choose, always wanna play but you never wanna lose."