Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand Nazism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 май 2018
- Listen up bucko
=Support me via=
► Patreon: / danarrows
► TipJar: ko-fi.com/threearrows
► Merch: www.teepublic.com/stores/dan-...
=Other Stuff=
► Twitter: / dan_arrows
► Instagram: / dan.arrows
► Twitch: / dan_arrows
AskHistorians: / askhistorians
=SOURCES=
Johann Chapoutot - "Das Gesetz des Blutes"
Boaz Neumann - "Die Weltanschauung des Nazismus"
Lorna Weddington - "Hitler's Crusade"
Enzo Traverso - "Moderne und Gewalt"
Gerd Krumeich - "Der Nationalsozialismus und der Erste Weltkrieg"
Gerhard Paul - "Die Täter der Shoah"
Christopher Browning - “The Origins of the Final Solution”
Christian Gerlach - “Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord”
Jordan Peterson - "12 Rules For Life"
www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/03/...
www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/...
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_...
Estimation on jewish asserts: jcpa.org/article/restitution-o...
=USED CLIPS=
Joe Rogan Experience #958 - Jordan Peterson: • Video
2017 Maps of Meaning 11: The Flood and the Tower: • 2017 Maps of Meaning 1...
How Hitler was Even More Evil Than You Think - Prof. Jordan Peterson: • How Hitler was Even Mo...
=Paintings used=
Edith Birkin - Whats this smoke?
David Olere - Selektion
Bart Vromans - Never Again
Anton von Werner - Kronprinz Friedrich Wilhelm an der Leiche des Generals Abel Douay
Jordan "why does everyone keep asking me about jews" peterson
Jordan "I have jewish friends thus I am not antisemitic" peterson
I feel that he reads those aloud to grift. After the 20th JQ at what point do you just ban or ignore the poster?
Why do they
@@jackreece1143 they just want him to
A. Validate their beliefs.
B. Avoid explicitly denouncing the question, thus strengthening their belief that there is a conspiracy to silence people who know the truth.
"Nazis just need a father figure"
A friend of mine gave me my favourite quote regarding Jordan Peterson:
"In reality, the longer you're away from the internet, the less important Jordan Peterson actually is"
Reason and logic really do take all the fun out of anecdotes, don't they?
But people like him still are important though, because they change the viewpoints of people (voters).
@@GIDEONgame You're aware that Donald Trump is the President of the US, and therefore is extremely important, in his function, even without internet?
@@GIDEONgame For domestic policies, that is true (for the most parts), however Trumps foreign policies do affect the rest of the world, and thus the individual life of everyone outside the US, even if it's not immediately clear how it does.
A good example would be his policies on trade and environmentalism. Sometimes these policies also just take a lonnger time to be felt by the common people.
Indeed.
How long does he stay away from the internet in 2019?
Peterson teaching us that psychology professors and history professors are not the samething.
Peterson isn't even a good source on psychology (lol @ the Jungian bullshit), yet he consistently talks about stuff completely outside his field of expertise, and unlike other scholars clearly hasn't bothered to learn about them.
I know quite a few profs in the hard sciences whose greater curiosity and intellectual integrity make them better sources on the social sciences, history and politics than Peterson.
@@KyussTheWalkingWorm do any of those professors have a youtube channel I can take a look at?
Every german 9th grader knows more about the holocaust than peterson.
FluorineWizard - "Help! Help! I didn't bother to do any research and I can't understand something! It must all be bullshit!"
You hit on a good point here. Peterson is a clinical psychologist. But his real passion is to come up with a grand unified theory of how people think. He tries to incorporate everything from biology to history to religion. Needless to say, it leaves him spread a little thin.
His first book "Maps of Meaning" I believe illustrates this obsession. Don't get me wrong, I've learned a lot from Peterson and respect his heart for helping people.
"addressed the lobster in the room"
I died.
I didn't get that reference
May you explain it?
@@appleslover jordan peterson made a comparison that equated human social structures with lobster's social structures
@@mihaicraciun8678 😂😂😂
@@mihaicraciun8678 not quite
Who said Germans don't have a sense of humor? Germans are fucking hilarious! The language barrier makes their jokes sound boring and weird, but if you understand a bit of German you'll see how clever their humour actually is. Also, many Germans play into the stereotype to make you laugh so they'll give you some dry ass humor in English on purpose just to annoy you. I've had German friends in the past and I even have German relatives (not blood related).and they all do the same thing lol
There's something so hilarious about Jordan Peterson's livestreams getting frustrated at being spammed with "Address the Jewish question!"
Know whats even more hilarious?: leftists getting frustrated for never managing to properly, through any substantive means, articulate the claim that JP is in any way morally, prescriptively or pragmatically the equivalent, or the adjacent, of the far right or the National Socialists. Seems like they can only beg the question or point out ridiculous non sequitur such as what other people asked him about half a dozen times in his hundreds of lectures and interviews that spam for more than a decade, even before he got famous.
And in that regard, 3 Arrows' entire attempt at doing exactly that, at the end, is absolute evidence of his limitless stupidity: "Peterson criticizes an ideology that is ruining society. The Nazis criticised an ideology that they thought ruined society. Ergo Peterson Nazi". Its nothing short of that low IQ mental gymnastic.
Its propagandistic. Nazis criticized an entire demographic, and tied to it a false ideological premise (something the wokes do all the time against certain demographics, but someone like Peterson never does that, as he explicitly denounces "identity politics", he criticizes positions, not tying them to identities of demographics).
Also, lets not forget that communists and progressives like 3 arrows also have their equivalent of the "jews" = the rich (but if we go to cultural marxism territory, then it can be the whites, the males, the cis, the colonizer, etc.). 3 Arrow's criticism is empty and can be applied to himself or pretty much to any ideological position that stands to have any opposition to any other ideological group. Its actually worse since wokeism notoriously presupposes biases and malice to people based on gender, race, etc. (CRT is a clear example of this).
Another cardinal difference being ignored is how Peterson can demonstrate how what he criticizes 1) exists and 2) is wrong. The Nazis never managed to demonstrate the existance of anything they called "jewish bolshevism".
And lets not forget: 3 arrows' greatest dishonesty here in equating Peterson to "nazi" is in that Peterson's approach to solving societal issues is through debate, dialogue, scientific enquiry, and a fair treatment, without coercion, for all involved. This was not the Nazi way. 3 Arrows' side however is very quick (and intellectually weak) to proptly call for the use of force or a means of cancellation against their ideological opponents, much like the Nazis. 3 Arrows is closer to the Nazis than Peterson could ever be, his cherrypicking notwithstanding.
@@sedoskovelha123 Why do your parents continue to let you use the internet. If you don't stop with this behavior im gonna have to call up your mom and tell her what you've been up to.
And you know what that means if I tell her. No more internet, no more fortnite and your friends cant come over anymore. You dont wanna get paddled again do you?
It's forbidden to question the chosenites. He will be shut down.
@@sedoskovelha123 That's the biggest straw man I've ever seen, how you represent Three Arrows' video here.
man i sure do wonder why he doesnt want to answer a dumb question
"Leftists and progressives are Nazis"
Which leftist policies would the Nazis support? California making it easier to vote and giving prisoners voting rights? Decreasing police and military spending to fund social programs? Abolishing selective service? Abolishing electoral college so it's not just Democrats vs Republicans? Pulling more troops out of the Middle East? Being against nationalism? Less strict immigration?
@3rd Degree Burns It's wishful thinking that Nazis would actually do that (well, except for the environmental part) and that they would seek the democratic route (like these damn leftists often do).
@3rd Degree Burns Sorry, I think we were on some kind misunderstanding there. My bad.
Nazis didn't invest all that much into infrastructure or healthcare (watch the "Was Hitler a socialist"-video for that), and it's usually a political exercise to make (modern) leftists and fascists look the same. However, I understand that right-wing parties from other nations might have differences in their programs, and that recent movements tend to intermix and join under one anti-authoritarian roof while following wholly disparaging ideas. It's very complicated 🤨
@3rd Degree Burns Right? The ABSOLUTE GALL of them to improve the lives of ordinary people and IMPOSE on us modern and well designed infrastructure. It's like a DICTATORSHIP where everyone is FORCED to not die due to shitty trains, derelict bridges and a silly cough that turned out to be lung cancer. So I guess what you are saying is a perfect democracy is one in which basic needs are not covered by the state, because that would be TYRANNY.
@@fermintenava5911 'Nazis didn't invest all that much into infrastructure'
Sure, lets ignore the fact that the heart of Germany's autobahn network was built by the Nazi party...
Do you really have to lie to make the Nazis look bad? Because you shouldn't have to. It's pointless lies like that that strengthen the position of the far right as they can point to that and say, correctly, 'hey look at this leftist lying about how bad the Nazis were'. Of course this will then be followed by a lie of their own such as 'they have to lie because the Nazis were actually good'. This is the sort of thing that they do to draw politically ignorant disaffected people to their side.
If you really want to weaken the far right then stop playing their game.
@3rd Degree Burns I don't know that Healthcare for All counts when A. It existed well before the Nazi Party (Otto von Bismarck in 1884) and B. the fact that they willingly denied those same rights to German citizens based entirely on their religious identity and heritage. Or their assumed mental disabilities. Or their being or a certain socioeconomic class.
In other words, you don't have to reverse engineer when you have the blueprints.
But where is the fun then
Well said.
A thumbs up wasn't enough. I had to add this compliment as well. Peterson's interpretation of Nazi "mayhem" is through his own badly biased perspective. The Nazis were very well organized. We can discern the depth of their atrocity partially because they kept such good records! From their perspective, the Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, communists, atheists were the ones sewing disorder. Thus you can demonize and dehumanize anyone who disagrees with your orderly agenda.
It just goes to show that there is nothing Jordan Peterson won't admit to being "the guy" to ask on the subject. He's a psychologist and yet I have heard very little of his ideas on psychology, but rather his OPINIONS on history, philosophy and politics. He's a quack.
@@Zaprozhan *sowing disorder
but it is unsurprising a word the springs from work is unknown to you.
>be me
>click this video in my recommendations
>see the ratio
Ah yes, the lobsters are mad, this is going to be a good video.
It's important to note that it wasn't just the Romani, Jews and disabled that were victims of the holocaust; Slavs, homosexuals, Spanish republicans, leftists and a number of religious groups were also victims. These victims are often overlooked and it's important to remember them.
In my opinion Nazi racial theory and eugenics gives a pretty clear understanding of their motivation and rationale, to say anything else is historically, and academically, dishonest in my opinion. Jordan Peterson makes a terrible historian given that he uses history to support his opinion rather than forming an opinion from studying history.
TY so much· I'm a gay Jew·talian (also part Rom & African & Scottish) - my fam fled to N.America from S.Italy (Nazis slaughtered sooooo many dark & Jewish·Italian citizens •&• then the rogue battalions of Allied soldiers re·slaughtered Italian families • many of whom were Jewish sanctuary homes • cos all Italians are somehow huge fans of the cruelly Monstrous Mussolini) • only for some to then be "interned" in N.America a few yrs (the current Muslim & Mexican *treatment* •a twisted way to justify xenophobia • accuse asylum seekers of *being* the threat from which they flee). Much obliged • You are so kind.💖💖
Plus around the same number of other Europeans during WW1 & WW2. So that's over 100 million in 100 years.
@@davebailey7937 It's a truth that is rarely taught in schools I could not be more thankful for the internet, since once you are able to tell the truth from lies it becomes a most valuable tool.
@@davebailey7937 nice nazi propaganda
Depends on your culture, in german speaking countries these facts are well known, even if people do develop a resistance to the knowledge because of many reasons which are more or less understandable. But e.g. Bonhoeffer is a big name in protestant churches, and very actively remembered.
As a disaffected male with a messy room, I resent to being lumped in with Petersen’s followers
Clean your room kiddo
And I resent the implication that appreciating JP's content makes me a "follower." Good luck with your room. Just cleaned mine a few days ago - 'twas a struggle.
You talking to me? Apparently you can't read.
Okay, but he didn't claim to be a follower... also, calm down.
It's *moron. And you should maybe learn a few more words. Repeating the same insult over and over lessens its impact.
Literally just had to deal with a GCSE student claiming JP is a better history teacher than his current teacher (this kid is currently predicted to fail his final exams).
Yes, in a moronic leftist school, of course.
How do you know the student isn't right? Are you the said history teacher? Might not the teacher in question be teaching in a subject that he barely passed in, while JP aced? And isn't it actually possible that the said teacher is bad at teaching and JP good at it. I have had good teachers and bad ones. Keep in mind that in my opinion the teacher is there to motivate and help make the student understand the subject, not define the subjects meaning. The last would be indoctrination. I predict that the student will pass his final exam, since it seems he has found motivation to study the subject through another teacher.
@@heespeseth It depends on what you mean by "right..."
JP doesn't claim to be a history teacher.
As a GCSE student myself, we are given a far better understanding of how Hitler reached the Final Solution than Peterson is giving his students. Some of his inaccuracies honestly make me cringe. It’s mental that this man can stand there and claim to be a credible source on an issue that he knows close to nothing about.
"For them, victory was impossible without genocide".
A chilling but accurate line. Hate, especially at that level ; that depth; is not rational.
Don't confuse rational - sane with rational - process. Even an insane person engages in a rational process, it's just that the leaps between points are themselves irrational to an outside perspective. In other words, you can come up with a process that goes: I have black friends....so I'm not a racist....but I talk about racism and black advancement alot....and disavow it whenever I can...but I also have black friends....so I'm not a racist.
That actual process is, in and of itself, rational because it describes the exact steps involved in order to reach said conclusion. That's different than being rational ie each point based upon a independent and proven point able to sustain the thought chain throughout. Again, even irrational people's thought processes go through a 'rational' process linking themselves together. Just because you don't agree with their psychological or scientific validity or end result does not mean there is no rationality involved.
PETERSON LITERALLY SAID THAT
@@god-of-war-fan no, peterson said that their actions were irrational. They were actually very logical given the premises they worked with. The premises were irrational though, and the fact that they lead the nazis to do what they did shows how dangerous those ideas are and that's the problem with peterson's misunderstanding; it downplays the danger of that level of hatred.
@@matiasgarciacasas558 and that's the important part. we must understand where such premises can lead.
@@god-of-war-fan calm down lmao
It's almost like he's doing exactly what he accuses the left of doing. And then he cries.
The right is entirely based in projection. Everything they say the left does, they do in some form.
Well his entire argument is sort of sketchy there: the left doesn't want a dialogue (which is categorically incorrect not to mention, that the left isn't all that homogenic), but if they do search a dialogue, then they are being manipulative about that, so it's bad, and if I engage into it, I automatically loose (which is again kinda like "what?" I mean, sure, if I talk to people, I want to convince them of my ideas through arguments and that's how a dialogue works, if you feel manipulated by that, then well it's actually you who deosn't want to debate your ideas)
Can you expand on this?
On what I said about Petersons argument? After reading a bit about him and watching some of his debate, it's kinda like his trademark when it comes to political discussion: simply put he cannot have one unless the person he is talking to, has the same opinion. This is especially showcased when it comes down to LGBT rights and specifically to trans and non-binary people and his straight up refusal to accept them. His argument on this stance - and I assume the clip shown here was also one from a debate about LGBT, feminism and so on, since he throws in the word patriarchy a lot, in a sort of buzz word sense here - is simple refusal. He tries to hide it behind some free speech sort of thing, but in reality the clip where he just sort of yells in frustration "I'm not gonna do this" is exactly what he means: Ressentiment. And especially when it comes down to these topics he portrays the left as an enemy of his, it's like the left would be some hive mind sort of thing and totalitarian in the stance, which might be true for some individuals, like you will find people with authoritarian personalities (Adorno) everywhere, the left is of course no exception, but first of all that doesn't invalidate anything and second, if you really think that they are wrong you could still debate them if you have better arguments at hand, which he ofc doesn't do as explained previously why. So instead he twists his argument around, that if you talk to the hive-minded left, you're essentially courting them and agreeing to their assumptions, that's what he means by playing the game. It's kinda like debating a 9/11-inside-job-conspiracy-theorist under the assumption, that 9/11 was an inside job, in his perspective, which implies, that this patriarchal society thing is for him nothing more then a hoax and probably a lot of other things that come from social sciences. So debating the left is for him, the same thing as giving into their arguments, which is kind of silly really, because this is not a internet conspiracy here we're talking about, but actually academics, unless you have the Thunderf00t syndrome and resent anything but natural sciences as a form of science, although I don't really believe that Peterson would say that.
However his inability to discuss such matters, while hiding behind twisted arguments and straw-manning kinda discredits him as a discussion partner rather then the left, as he portrays that to be the case.
I can't blame many falling for Peterson's BS, depending on the sampling of the "SJW left" they've been exposed to. And of course some people will even nit-pick those in order to generalize either "SJWs" or the left in general. The left-wing's "moral panics" only create a niche for "intellectuals"/celebrities like Peterson. And it may even be somewhat of a self-reinforcing cycle, as hysterical petersonites/right-wingers may trigger more hysterical SJWness and associated leftism.
"should have made the Jews and Gypsies work"
About that, Jordan...
@@Niko0902 The fact that slave labor was widley used in the concentration camps?
@@Niko0902 🦂🦂🦂
@@Niko0902 those are supposed to be lobsters.
@@Niko0902 - Because the video literally addresses that exact axiom and it is those predisposed to fetishize JP that would be predisposed not to get it.
@DM Sullivan The main part, in fact, the main purpose; and though the war was failing, they could at least kill the "problems" they controlled. That part of victory they could hold.
It's strange to me to watch his lecture clips because I went to U of T during that time. It is one of the best institutions for the study of Jewish history in the world. A meer 2 floors above him is the history department where some of the world's strongest Jewish historians work. Any of them would of let him borrow their copy of Arendt's, "banality of Evil" if he had just asked lol
He claims to have read it, I think, but that only goes to show that he's either a liar or has dogshit reading comprehension/ retention.
"By pathologizing perpetrators we assure ourselves we can never become like them." Brilliant. Modern society has a tendency to label nazis or similarly destructive individuals in human history as evil, distancing them, and more importantly, their hate, from us. My belief is that while we most definetely haven't done the things they did, we all hate one way or another. It's a hard thing to do, to look at oneself and recognize the times we've been racist, sexist, hateful in any way. But it's an important thing to do, because we can't fix a problem we don't acknowledge. If we don't recognize the existance of hate within us, we'll never be able to face it, change it. Simply labeling such actions as evil is an effort to ignore their underlying causes and more importantly, an effort to not face them. That, in a way, is the real purpose society gives to the concept of evil; it's an escapegoat from our own demons.
just like nazi germans fought their imaginary enemy 'the jews', peterson also rants on about similar imaginary enemy 'neomarxist something something'
They're not imaginary, your ignorance of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
@@checampbell9247 of course it doesn't. It's just a bogus term for homosexual activist and their sjws defenders
@@checampbell9247 petersons inaginary fight on canadian laws he woefully misinterpreted to accomplish selling incel pies to incels
post modern neomarxism
@@paulg82 Lol, Jordan Peterson critizes Incels all the time, I don't know where people got the idea that he likes them.
That moment when your fans expect you to answer "The Jewish question"....
- That's the point when I reevaluate my outlook and approach....
The5armdamput33 as a Jew I find it to be a vary obscure question and as far as I can tell Jordan Peterson answerd it perfectly.
Itay Shimonov
By not answering it? Is that what you mean. A little weird for a man willing to consider all ideas in the market place of ideas. I wonder why they haven't considered if we should eat babies yet. A lot of starving in the world, that question should be settled
Scoring57 he did. Go on a little research.
No.... It's just funny that it got to a point where people who follow him think that he's with them
in following that doctrine.....
If people who I influenced started floating the idea of ethnic cleansing, I would reevaluate everything
about myself and try to discover why so many Nazi sympathizers are attracted to me in such a positive way....
The5armdamput33 who is he with?
I get weird looks when I’m playing this in my stereo and there’s a super German guy talking about the “Jewish Question” and “International Jewry” 😂
Seriously though thank you so so much for this. I’ve always said when someone knows what they’re talking about it becomes more apparent the longer they talk. You always teach me something new.
I wonder how many of those downvotes actually watched the video, 1%, 2%?
They may have watched the video but they sure as hell didn't listen
@@Nate-wf5hk Yeah, even if you disagree with Three Arrows, he wasn't here just dunking on Peterson and his fans, he argumented his positions very well with sources. This should supposedly be the kind of public debate JP's fans are all about; using free speech to try and fight bad ideas with good ones.
But maybe they aren't about that at all.
@@edmondantes4338 I do like jordan peterson quite a bit myself, but when I first watched the "how Hitler was more evil than you think" video I began to understand the limitations of his own knowledge, it's easy to assume the factuality of something based solely on the speaker but I have to remind myself to always question the ideas presented beyond their own field of expertise
@@edmondantes4338 I would disagree with that honestly. He infers that because Peterson is asked questions about jews that he attracts Nazis and the far right when in fact it's been shown that they loath him (I have friends who were part of those groups and left who can confirm) and try to associate him with those things to discredit him and his arguments against ideological thinking.
@@russellminard2578 can you please explain to me which part of Peterson's lecture showed his lack of knowledge?
"Hitler didn't want to win the war; he wanted to make mayhem because it's an archetypal manifestation."
Blame the dragon of chaos
Why?
@@ianpage2509 kill those you don't like. You then don't have to feed them, clothe them, or worry that they'll ever fight against you.
That was the logic behind what the Nazis did.
@@thunderpooch That’s not what I meant.
A jungian analysis of dead people.
It is a lawyers' adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table.
Thank you for arguing the facts.
You messed up the poetic effect by removing the anaphora. It's actually "If you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have neither, pound the table."
@@kingspamaccount No I am pretty sure it goes: "... argue the table!"
This video is probably one of the most honest and well thought out criticism of Peterson. No wonder they tried so hard to get this video taken down and your account banned.
They? You mean RUclips?
Come on, an algorithm took it down because it was talking about nazis and that's that. Whatever took this video down didn't look even once at the context of who this video was criticising, and arguably the overreactive algorithms are in place to censor people who want to discuss taboo topics such as Peterson, and guess what, that now includes channels this channel as well as other history channels who are beginning to be censored. We're all under attack from the same reckless censors and it's time to stand up together against it rather than continue this pointless finger pointing.
@I Control My Fate Which is completely hypocritcal of them if they want to complain about censorship of Peterson. My point still stands, censorship and abuse of flagging affects both sides, stop pointing fingers.
^^
@I Control My Fate You mean the dumb algorithm by youtube.
Address the lobster in the room 😂
Stand up straight, shoulders back!
This was my first exposure to jordan Peterson as a person. You have no idea how confused that line made me.
The Lobster Question.....
Adolf Lobster
It’s almost like he’s a psychologist and not a historian
Yes, but worse: he's primarily an entertainer now. Just like a "pundit" that amuses people with their opinions. Opinions are his medium of amusement. Just like prancing in a clown suite is Chuckles the Clown's medium. In that regard he's no different than Chuckles, or Lil Tay, Lena Dunham, Alex Jones, Kevin Williamson, Kathy Griffin, Jerry Falwell Jr, Stormy Daniels, or Colin Kaepernick. His opinions about the professional amusement industry (and psychology) are perhaps a cut above. But his opinions about anything else should be viewed as amusingly expressed perhaps, but no more inherently valuable than those of others in the amusement industry.
Niga u r rarted
U do not get the phd to become lil tay.
His opinions aren't meant to be debated, but rather admired and respected. That's not ideal for someone claiming to be a public intellectual
what?
This is such a fucking cop out, hate it when people say this as some kind of defence.
If an alt righter had decided the title, it would have been:
THREE ARROWS GETS TRIGGERED AND SNAPS AT JORDAN PETERSON
MordredTheMightyMetalhead Yeah, thats a pretty stupid title as well.
@MordredTheMightyMetalhead Three Arrows doesn't "rationalize the holocaust", he's just placing it in context. Saying something happened for clearly defined reasons isn't rationalizing; "rationalizing" is making excuses for something to justify ones participation in questionable actions at the expense of admitting the real reasons.. Three Arrows very clearly doesn't do the latter.
The alt right doesn't like Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson should have consulted an actual historian first.
He probably got his History lessons from Sargon of Akkad and Ben Shapiro.
@@InXLsisDeo oh, dear. That's not good.
Ian Kershaw or Richard Evan's are a good start.
@@MichaelCollins1922 You mean so he can teach history to the historian ?
@@martinfossat8820 And here we go...
“Disaffected young males with messy rooms.”
*SMACKDOWN*
Good way to start a video that is supposed to be a factual analysis. Make it personal and mock or insult the people who this is against.
@@brabhamF1 The video isn't "against" disaffected young males, genius. It's against a professor who distorts history to make a political point.
@Who am I? Yeah because it’s so hard to clean your room without daddy Peterson to tell you to right?
@@LisaBeergutHolstlmao He wasnt talking about disaffected young males "genius"..he was talking about Peterson & his constituents.
@@bluesyjazzy-ish3489 (1) "Constituents" is an odd choice. Peterson isn't an elected official. (2) The comment was in reply to the OP joking about "disaffected young males". Can't you read?
As a history buff, The most gut-wrenching and maddening thing to me about this video is that he is misinforming all of those students in his class about the history of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It honestly makes my blood boil.
Use that hate to spread the truth: it will make you feel better
Charles Argyle how is he misinforming his students?
Same. I am also queer and disabled....and am SUPER clear how well I would have fared back then.
@@davidpfeifer9489 start around 13min, he explains very well why killing off those that the Nazis went after was financially beneficial for the Third Reich over enslaving them (which they also did).
I mean, much more of the video goes to answer your question, but since you can't possibly have watched the whole thing and still asked that question, I thought I would shorten it to a sound bite for you.
@@davidpfeifer9489 Peterson doesn't misinform anyone. Socialists have been trying to distance themselves from every failed socialist attempt. Wether fascism, communism or Maoism. 3 arrows even goes as far as makes a claim Stalinism was right wing.
"... I think it was developed by Jung." - as if he doesn't absolutely know that it was derived from Jung and that he has a room in his house devoted to a shrine to him
I came back to this video and something hits me everytime. "We assume that Hitler wanted to win, but that's not a very intelligent assumption, he wasn't exactly a good guy"...
This doesn't make any sense. This is a sentence devoid of meaning. There is absolutely no connexion between the different parts of this thought process. And look at Peterson while he says this, look how convinced he is that he's making a cogent point.
It's incredible.
No, he refers to the earlier part of the sentence. We assume that his goal and psychologial motivation was to make nazi germany some kind of übermensch utopia or at least save it from defeat (because that was what nazis believed he was doing and he himself claimed that was the ultimate goal). Then we assume that he thought that in order to win and create said utopia he has to exploit and kill jews. Peterson suggests that the assumption is not intelligent because there is more to Hitler's underlying psychological motivation.
I still contend that, while you cannot infer motivation from outcomes, you can eliminate potential motives by analyzing reactions to outcomes. For instance, while I would not call Jordan Peterson a Nazi or a fascist, I can infer that he is more concerned with the right to be dismissive than he is concerned that his arguments may support Nazi or fascist Ideology.
Collectivism: Nazism, communism, fascism
@@fuckamericanidiot are you stupid?
I think Peterson is one of those conservatives who legitimately believes that protesters being annoying is the greatest evil in the world, and that one of the greatest tasks a man can undertake is to prove that protesters have nothing to protest about. They just hate people who fight against the status quo, especially the ones who have personally inconvenienced them. I genuinely don't think it's deeper than that. Every development beyond that is just a justification.
"disaffected young males, with messy rooms"
+demigod you sound triggered
@The Demigod. Of course you get triggered. We all get triggered over things important to us.
I think the term for that is strawman
The Demigod
the messy room comment is derived from petersons book where he repackages self help tropes and trojan horses traditionalism, not some direct backhand at the kinds of people who may read him it may seem
The leftist disaffected males are 10x more intelligent than their right wing counterparts. You can still notice them by their grumpy attitude but they actually use critical thinking skills and are more mature.
I think Kermit should sue Peterson for unfair use of his voice.
"A very revolutionary idea btw", you funny.
I died as well
Definitely really nice to get out of the right wing echo chamber I’ve been stuck in kind of refreshing to hear an intellectual challenge some of the views I hear so often :)
o k yeah, i hate admit that this channel comes up with really good counter arguments.
Good for you, listening to the other side
@@stoopgames3199 They are just intuitive arguments to a lot of people, but yes it’s always good to see it laid out bare like this
Yes, I would love the far left will do the same and we would not be in this radical political parties conflict, both parts should calm down.
That´s what JP fanbase is like. A balanced, well-rounded critique of JP´s views, that even encourages the watcher to check the original lecture to make sure it is not taken out of context. And yet, it got more than 3000 dislikes. Since almost all the people hating on this video in the comments are bringing up strawmans that are addressed later in the video, one has no choice but to assume they didn´t watch the video at all. I thought that it was crucial to put everything in context and study the whole amount of someones work to critisize them. You can´t have it both ways, JP fans!
Jirka Zalabák because even though he said that he still misrepresented Peterson at every single opportunity.
He starts the video off by poisoning the well and basically deciding how you’ll enjoy this video. You’re either already with this leftist ideologue or you’re not. He framed it that way and that’s the way everyone is taking it, unsurprisingly.
Jirka Zalabák im not criticizing three arrows I’m criticizing this lazy shit video. So no I don’t need to know all about three arrows but he does need to know everything about JP if he’s going to misrepresent literally his character and almost everything he stands for.
Here´s an advice. Maybe, just maybe, if Peterson doesn´t want to be misrepresented so much, he could use his own advice, and be more "precise" in his speech. I just love the fact that Peterson fans always tell you that you are misrepresenting their Jesus, and that you need to watch more of him to understand him better, but when you ask three people to explain to you how exactly you misrepresented him, or what his real opinions are, you get three completely different explanations. I just don´t think that this would happen with someone who is "precise" in their speech.
I'm not a Peterson fan, but when you try to insinuate that Peterson is alt right erroneously, we are gonna have some issues.
Yeah, which is precisely why he says that he "doesn´t think that Peterson is a Nazi or anything...". Or "he doesn´t make any excuses for Nazis or portray them positively in any way...". You need to watch the video buddy.
The idea of “male” representing “order” and “female” representing “chaos” is a Jungian concept that Peterson is borrowing. “Masculine” and “feminine.” Two polarities. One “positive” and the other “negative.” It’s an idea popular in late 19th century and early 20th century. Probably why it sounds out of place to use it now.
It's also used in Daoism (Ying-Yang-Symbol) and it is not seen as one being positive and one being negative.
@@BobTheTrueCactus to add to your point- it's absolutely correct that yin and yang is the concept of the polarities of thing that are related yet opposed; however, the way that Yin, representing things like coldness, softness, moon and other (more interesting things) like chaos, deception, uncleanliness... became associated with "femininity" and the female reproductive organs still largely reflect the misogynistic quality of Chinese history.
Is not only a Jungian concept, is a commonplace in myths and stories across human societies
The problem being that Peterson never said that order is positive and chaos is negative. When he talks about the subject he always stresses that the best place to be is with one foot in order and one foot in chaos. You need both. The idea that chaos is negative is a projection from other people onto him.
I'm reminded of ancient Greeks writing about women being these society-wrecking forces of nature in spite of not having rights or political power or anything. It has this subtle smack of "I had everything handled and my world was organized and made sense when I was doing all the hard work of making you do all the housework with no recourse while I get to live as a free person, but now you've come barreling into my perfect ordered life like some maelstrom of chaos trying to change things, wanting to also be treated like a human with rights and other garbage like that."
My second Three Arrows vid and I have subscribed. Thanks for the great videos.
My 3rd video and I've become skeptical. Especially when I went into full research mode.
I remember how I first got into contact with the Lobster. It was with his Cathy Newman interview and the Real-Time appearance. Then I watched a bit more and also read 12 rules for life. And while I scoffed at some of the more problematic aspects (I was raised in a social-democratic and socially progressive household in Germany after all), it helped me overcome some issues I had. I'm a biologist and have a healthy working knowledge of most major Stem fields and so when I then heard him talking about climate change I was like ... wow, if he is this horribly wrong on a subject I do understand - not just with his conclusions, but also displaying a clear lack of competence when interpreting basic research data - then how wrong is he, when it comes to subjects I don't know enough about and would just take him at his word. The next thing I saw of him was the video you were addressing and I was like ... holy shit, this is embarrassing. You don't need to be a university student in a history undergrad class, to see how little he actually knows and how grossly he misrepresents Nazi ideology, but just a basic German high school education which makes it even sadder. I paused the video and found yours in the recommendations and it was a cathartic experience. Thanks for doing what you do.
I don't think, I was never in any real danger of going down the Alt-Right pipeline, but I'm nevertheless happy that I realized their bullshit before they got a real opportunity to hook me in. Your videos, as well as Shawn's and many other Breadtubers, made a difference in my life. And that's awesome!
The main problem is with Peterson is he thinks he’s so much more educated than he is even on things like psychology
And his fan base wanking him off doesn’t help by saying he is like 150-160 Iq and stupid shit like that
Can you tell me what part of what he said about climate change was wrong and why? Genuenly interested!
@@keyan1219 More educated than he thinks he is in psychology? Yeah teaching at Harvard is nothing. He doesn't have a CV with a list of publications in high ranking journals the size of a Dovestky novel either. ;) That being said he does sometimes speak outside of his expertise.
@@Daniel-yv6jh I am asking the same thing. He worked with the IPCC. His comments on climate change have been what has posited by many economists for a long time. Bringing people to a certain level of economic wealth allows to worry about the environment and things like clean water over just trying to get water, food, and shelter. It is no coincidence the richest nations in the world are the ones engaging in fighting climate change.
@@johnweatherby8718 But psychology is a larger field than just clinical psychology. Peterson often make highly dubious claims in other parts of psychology, as shown clearly by cognitive psychologist Cass Eris here on RUclips.
about 80% of people that disliked this video did so because they didn't like the title.
How do you know that?
@@anarchowombat5309 cos i used to be a jp fan, we love our god daddy
@@ltstar9612 just because you would have done something doesn't mean everyone else would have.
@shabby arp Most lefties share similar qualities. Both our arguments are over generalizations.
@@ltstar9612 Speak for yourself
Glad you got you're channel back up.
*your
Peterson should stick with cleaning rooms, not to degrade him, but he does it well. History and war on the other hand is a different matter entirely.
Even his "clean your room" tier stuff is framed as political prescription. There is a pretty explicit message in it that you should not engage with large scale change since you can't change the world and would do harm if you tried. Instead you should just focus on yourself and try and be happy with your situation.
It's a pretty fucked worldview, that if you follow it to its conclusion would involve be telling black protestors in mid 20th century USA to sit down and be quiet and just work on themselves. And the same to suffragettes in Europe, or factory workers in the industrial Revolution striking for safe working conditions, or Republicans in France wanting to abolish the injustice of monarchy, or plebians in ancient Rome fighting against the rigid caste system, and so on and so on.
And yet when you look at those things, they are key to the "Western" tradition of striving for equality that Peterson claims to promote. One of his stated beliefs conflicts with the other, and in the end I think it's because neither is true. In reality he's just a bog standard conservative who wants the darn lefties to stop trying to change things, but he's learned that faux self help is a better vehicle for getting that message across to a receptive audience than just saying it would be.
@@Graknorke he did not say that you should not engage in large scale problems but that you should first fix the immediate problems that are surrounding you line perhaps your room.The point is you cant change the world if you do not lay the proper ground work first
@@jtffg7hgfr442
Those are functionally the same. It's impossible to fix all of your own problems, so you would spend forever working on individual level problems before you work on society at large. Apart from the lobster man himself where apparently it's okay for him to tell other people what to do while being a mess.
@@Graknorke he also did not say and me for that mather either that you have to solve ALL of your personal problems but you should damn right have some critical values and issues determined and solved before you set your mind on solving things on a global level.READ THE DAMN TEXT AND LISTEN MORE CAREFULLY
@@jtffg7hgfr442
And who decides at what point you're allowed to start dealing with things beyond yourself? Or is that an "inopportune question" that I shouldn't ask and instead shut up and obey?
Good job getting the video back up Dan!
As spurious and biased this video is it shouldn't have been removed in the first place.
@@jasonwalsh6032 Three Arrows' Twitter handle is Dan Arrows. Could be their real name, I don't know.
Mant111 in what ways is it biased? Of course, everyone’s a little bit biased, but from your comment I assume you’re saying that he’s very biased? And my question is, how is he extremely biased?
@@Mant111 I'd also like to know why the video is spurious and biased.
There were something like 4-5 big instances in which it was obvious the author was pushing for a narrative of what JBP "was" rather than exposing what he actually is. It's been too long since I watched this vid (and I'm certainly not listening to it again) so feel free to doubt my claim. The one I can still remember is when JBP comments about gypsies I think, under the nazi regime, using one of the phrases they used as an example to then dissect of their ideology.... and that the author here treated the comment as if it came out of JBP's own mind and he agreed with it. Bleah.
I will say that the whole "if you can't determine what motivates someone directly, look at the outcome and then infer the motivation is terrible historically." History depends heavily on primary sources, meaning that it requires direct textual or witness-based evidence from someone who was at the event in question or had direct knowledge of that event. Secondary sources look people writing about said event, usually with the support of primary sources. These two types of source, combined together, help build our historical understanding and in the absence of the said two types of sources, we can infer and know nothing. Furthermore, to infer the motivation of a historical figure via the outcome of their actions is very weak methodology for historical understanding. For one, it requires that we assume a historical figure has more control over the outcome of a historical event. In reality, very few exercise such control and even those who do have such control lose it eventually. In most cases, historical figures are not just acting on the world, but also reacting to it and sometimes events happen that they can't predict nor control. It also creates an absurd opportunity for subjective speculation to mix with fact and call itself objective. People are subjective creatures and if they simply infer the motivation via the outcome, they will think not as the historical figure's did within their respective times, but within the confines of their own modern interpretation. Thus, history and historical accuracy is lost. Jordan Peterson may be an excellent psychologist, but he is terrible at history.
I think the clip of JBP talking about the Nazis was the first time I really encountered him and I had very much the same thought, yes this guy is calling the Nazis bad but he's doing it in a way that seems to fundamnetally misunderstand, misrepresent, and over-simplify the Nazis, Hitler, and the Nazi state. So basically, thanks for making this video.
He’s assuming psychopaths are acting logically all the time
@Robert Dimarco His "psychology" on the topic also sucks.
@Robert Dimarco His weird talk on the topic has nothing to do with psychology. It had no data whatsoever so we should call it an opinion.
It's also absurd as an opinion. The Jews were getting slaughtered at the end of the war because "slave labour" is not efficient if you have to feed them and you have no food. It actually takes resources to prevent revolts.
They were also getting killed because the official believe in Nazi Germany is that we are in a racial war. If you kill as many jews as possible you give the biggest chance of your "race" survival. They were the same people that we have now. It's not "chaos" what motivates them. They suffered from the toxic disease of nationalism. They believed they were in a team competing with the other teams. To them it made sense ideologically AND economically.
After having heard him talk at length about Nazis, I'm convinced that he's never once spoken to an actual historian or stepped into a history class. The way he applies psychology to history is just so wrong
Zero substance in this comment - you're just regurgitating what you think original video poster wants you to say for clout.
@Cora Well the thing is, a lot can be inferred about history if you know how people work since people are the ones who make history. However, JP isnt a god, nor does he make himself out to be one like most scholars. Because of that, he makes mistakes. I bet you pry would make similar mistakes in similar situations if you didn't 100% major in history.
@@wantedwario2621 then the responsible and intelectually honest thing to do, specialy from a "scholar" is to recognize when you are totally stepping outside your area of expertise.
@@danito1981 First off, it really isn't that far out of his realm of expertise. When talking about and thinking about people, you have to take into account the history of people. Second, the same can be said for absolutely every single person who hasn't studied a field day after day. Lastly, the only reason you say what you said is because of your clear bias against him, and not because you actually intellectually agree with the idea. If the situation was flipped, you would share my same point that i stated in the previous comment for the sake of defending yourself.
@@wantedwario2621 "Second, the same can be said for absolutely every single person who hasn't studied a field day after day"
Of course, I don't understand why you need to state this. I would expect the same amount of intelectual honesty from any person regarded a as a respectable scholar. It is not just because he is J. Peterson.
"Lastly, the only reason you said what you said is because" Stop right there with your mind reading and your bias divination. I would make the same argument for any "scholar" using wrong facts to prove any point.
And no, I wouldn't use your argument to defend myself because it's based in poor critical thinking. He certainly can make any number of mistakes he wants, I understand he is human, but as a scholar it is not a free card for him to make any claim he thinks correct, specialy when it is far from his expertise.
JP is full of.... feelings. And too sure of himself.
He keeps saying he has "thought about this for over many years, over thirty years" says that about all subjects he mentions, and mentioning it is not even solving it ---it is only describing it.
because these are difficult problems, and his job is not primarily to find a solution but to look at all the factors and deeply inspect the problem to try to understand them fully, it is only when you know the disease that you can start to try to cure it.
@@prime7412
What???
What use is it to mention the issues... we all know the social issues of inequality and men raised by single mothers creating a crisis of masculinity, and femininity, we all already know what third wave feminism is creating, we already know all issues he mentions, including the issue of modern hierarchies naturally occurring because of biology, the lobster thing and all that, so yea these are old old systems; men have been vying for position for reproductive rights and social position forever, we all know those things, so women denying that and at the SAME TIME choosing or preferring those males with high social status and resources, is bullshit, any half wit can notice that... so besides REMINDING us of those things, what NEW issues has he solved or mentioned... even his "self-authoring program" is basic shit, you need to have goals and is better if you write them down, so to do that you have to THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE some, and this issue is also the result of the new soy boys raised by modern feminism... he also mentions the MODERN issue of consent and the issues women have choosing careers over having kids, but we already knew it, he has no SOLUTIONS to it all.. and that is all I said... YOU said his job is to think DEEPLY about these issues, but all that deep thinking over thirty years of reading has given him no solutions??
I really want to hear something new... even the thing about working with women and that being a new paradigm where men don't know exactly how to deal with women and their trespasses at work, since men know where the line is and woman don't, all that is already known, and again NO solution to it other than "we just have to muddle through it..." well, dah!!
I repeat: JP is a very LIKEABLE engaging speaker, and even I would say motivational, so that is not what I am after, he can keep filling stadiums full of people who like motivational speakers, but after listening to all those talks, I still have to ask, OK so we knew those issues existed, what are the solutions?? and we come out with none of that, none. Please tell me a solution he has given that we DIDN'T ALREADY KNOW??
@@prime7412
Hell, he is like the coach in the half game talk trying to inspire the players to go out there and win... but they already want to win, so the talk is reinforcing that, and that is it.
If the coach could tell them HOW to win it, other than they have been playing, that would be helpful, since the players already know the problem specially if they are losing the game. Just telling them "we need more touchdowns" or goals (soccer) is just telling them nothing they didn't already know.
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 look I respect your opinion, and agree with you on most of your points. I too find it frustrating that we don't know the answers to these things and that he or anyone else for that matter hasn't come up with a solution. But I think it is valuable what he does. He brings the spotlight around. Thought you find these things to be a "well duhh" scenario many people don't. And since common sense isn't all that common anymore it is inportant that he says these things and that he is so critical of all "solutions" because lets be honest most of them are poorly thought out.
P.s. big props for writing that whole thing, jesus it was long.
Yes he says that sometimes. He also says “I don’t know” or “I haven’t thought on that long enough “ when he is unsure of something. He must be a white supremacist.
"I think this was derived by Jung" - Jordan Peterson, every video
Aidan Clare Jung was a philosopher-wacko, not a psychologist.
Freud was wrong, but at least he had clinical objectives and was interested in medicine and he got the ball rolling on correcting his errors.
I admit I know jack-all about psychoanalysis, but from Jordan Peterson's description of archetypes and his use of them to justify religion and social darwinism, I'd agree.
Aidan Clare Jung was prone to confirmation bias and a lot of other “it sounds good therefore it must be true.” It was the early days of the field, so not surprising that there are errors.
Psychology as a field is still horrible about differentiating causation and correlation. Pop psychology (e.g. Myers-Briggs) in particular is borderline if not outright pseudoscience.
Jung is sometimes useful as a descriptive tool, but as prediction or explanation it’s taken with a major grain of salt.
"you know, a guy who was rejected by FREUD for having too many weird hang-ups"
Then how could he be a behaviorist? He's contradicting himself....or just trying to ethic-clense society through self-help books?
The lobster in the room! Hilarious.
Is it some kind of Peterson-fan's subculture inside-joke? I didn't get it.
Petitio Principii Yes. Literally one of his 12 rules is have the posture of a lobster. No joke.
Thanks. It didn't occur to me to google "jordan peterson lobster": theconversation.com/psychologist-jordan-peterson-says-lobsters-help-to-explain-why-human-hierarchies-exist-do-they-90489
www.thestar.com/entertainment/books/2018/01/22/jordan-peterson-on-embracing-your-inner-lobster-in-12-rules-for-life.html
Is there some lobster character in some cartoon like Sponge Bob? It would be kind of funny if peteronsonites kind of segregated from Pete-frog avatars with some lobster-character avatar.
It's kind of funny that the lobster thing even sounds somewhat "marxist", from skimming "the star" article. I wonder if Peterson would have somehow managed to flip everything the other way around if someone had brought first the lobster "analogy" into some sort of class struggle argument.
Vorawind I like that petersons fans now speak for his heart.
Vorawind
not going to hold it against Peterson because (some) others do it too?
What kind of logic is that?
Good professor/scientist standard is to not talk about other fields, even an area in your own field - if you're not an expert!
It's not that hard to not act like "know it all" pundit, actually...
I am not anti-Semitic I have Jewish friends - Jordan B Peterson
~ Trump
tf you on about?
@Sports Guru uhm no.. 'peterson is beholden to the you knows'?
Why would an anti-semite have Jewish friends?
In french one or our politicians (known for saying nonsense), nadine morano, said:
"I'm not racist, I like couscous and bricks with eggs" ....
( the two are associated with maghrebi cuisine)
Descendants of immigration from north africa Algeria Tunisia Morocco... counts the biggest number of muslims in france and here our main right wing discriminatory thing is islamophobia, even centrists now and liberals (right/moderate right/center right spectrum in our definition of liberalism)
She also said: "I got a friend that is more black than an arab" and shitty things like that to explain that she's not racist 😥
It was quite long time ago
No our own governement members use terms like islamogauchiste...
"Islamoleftist" if I traduce...that's sooo nonsense and was only use by far right ridiculous trolls some years ago
I’ve spent a ton of time watching Jordan Peterson content and my greatest question to the Peterson fanboys is if everyone misrepresents his beliefs, why doesn’t Peterson make those beliefs clear and define them?
My assumption is by being vague he can sell more books, but I don’t know for sure
you're on point, but if you read his book you might be even more supprised what he is actually selling - the chapter titles are not what they chapters are about
Paweł Wolnicki I would definitely be interested in doing that, but if my assumption is correct I really don’t want to support the man with my patronage. If I ever befriend someone who I found out has it I’ll probably ask to borrow it
@@macb6528 it's not just that he can sell more books, it is that he safes himself from being called out and making it easier for him to make strawmans, take for example the Cathy Newman interview where he keeps saying vague stuff and when she calls him out on the underlying presumptions, he quickly dodges the bullet and says he didn't mean that whileall his fans go mental for how well he "disses" her
JP has become a tool. I feel sorry for him, he think it means he is famous and has something important to bring to the table. Not so JP, you're just a tool.
@@macb6528 I'm sure you can get a free digital copy on libgen(.)io :3
So glad I found your channel. These kinds of videos are very much needed nowadays. "An antidote to chaos", one might call it.
Check out hbomberguy, contrapoints and Shaun as well
Contra, Shaun and Three Arrows all in a matter of days. This has been a good week.
You should look up "Rationaility Rules" on youtube. He's done 4 (I believe, doing this, and his name, from memory) vids criticising JBP sofar.
All well researched and very in depth.
I've already seen his stuff. It's great criticism from a different political perspective. I don't agree with everything he says but I appreciate his process. It's far less antagonistic.
I actually found him from his David Mitchell Debunking video.
And hbomberguy too !
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
hbomberguy as well! Now we just need Badmouseproductions and it will be complete.
Listen, man. I'm no fan of postmodernism, but your videos take the conversation a step further than what I'm used to, so thanks for making these.
Dude Postmodernism's legit. A lot of "Postmodernists" are just annoying posers that don't know shit, but actual Postmodernist theory is pretty cool
@@jonahnesmith7004 he is just upset that people don’t think he’s awesome anymore.
@@zynnfindo4776 there was a brief stint where he was liked, but he was hated in his time, and he's hated now
A rare grown up comment
Peterson constantly whines about ideological biases and yet he is wearing a high powered “jung-bible-mystic” lens all the time
Eli Drummond
That's because christianity isn't an ideology. One has to actually understand "something" (and it's consequences) before jumping to criticising. In your example the Bible.
Andrei Kovaci neither is Islam, yet many claim so
@@ronanjmReally? But how about islamism? Now tell me, that those two "things" are NOT related. Yep.
@@jamiehardt3061 No. What you don't get is Peterson's perspective, which is the "human condition".Actually what you call narratives and stories are incredibly important, because many complex "concepts" especially ideologies, could be reduced to their most basic narratives and by that, revealing their effect, on the human condition and VERY important, makes them "accessible" (i.e understandable) to large masses, who maybe otherwise would not understand them( i.e they are NOT scholars). They (the narratives) are useful and helpful to humans to emit "judgements" and make decisions based on them.
For example fascism and nazism, could be "reduced" to their basic narratives which would be " if you don't mess with us its all good" vs"we will kill you regardless". It IS an oversimplification, but they are true, and accurately represent their true nature and relation towards the human condition.
The greatest achievement of the Reformation, could be regarded that it took the Bible (information) out of the hand of the Catholic church and made it accessible to large portions of humanity, effectively ending its monopol (i.e power), also leading to the ending of the tie between the church and the state( aristocracy)
Actually marxism is both a teaching and a philosophy and that makes it dangerous( i.e the same danger which lead to the separation of the state and the church) among many many other reasons.
Btw it is erroneous the assertion that Christianity is responsible for any of that( ideology). Humans did that, yes they were christians, but that's actually a testament to our( as humans) inability to really comprehend complex "teachings" and also our ability to twist "teachings" Actually our whole history is a testament in that regard.
Peterson does not have an ideology. He simply,in a human way cautions against dangers, which he perceives as dangers.
Think about a Remarque who is actually taking active steps to prevent the dangers what he described so brilliantly in his books.
@@jamiehardt3061 Again, you "fail" to understand the pov.What's more interesting is that you don't even try:). You talk about the ideological differences( motivation, justification) and I'm talking about their similar relation towards the "human condition" Two very different things. Btw the reprehensibility of nazism lies not "just in the inhumane ideology, but equally the inhumane practices as well, right?
Very much so. I'm from a former marxist country, born in 1973.
So nazism and communism are NOT two totalitarian ideologies? They are not systematic in their "deeds"? They don't have that in common? Really? Well.... nice.
Yes, but you again fail to comprehend its effect ( distribution of information) on the "human condition" on human consciousness and by that the long term "results". You know that wasn't exactly the digital age, so the effects had take some time to show:).Right?..:D
Well since you like so much to jump to conclusions and also to scold people over historical accuracy
here's one for you. In history context is always king. Marx was a byproduct of his time, don't forget that, along with all what that actually implies.
Really? You know nothing about me, but oh so conveniently jump to all kind of conclusions.
Who is telling you to do that? Marx? Really?
Did I schooled you or tried to present my perspective as superior to yours? From where is stemming that crazy resistance against
acknowledging the common ground? Your first comment seemed actually very wide, but then the ideology kicked in or something?
Well here is another one for you, history always had to be looked upon from a neutral perspective otherwise it will become a fairy tale.
Nice try btw linking me with all sort of political and other kind of "adjectives" and "concepts" lol. For your information, I was baptised in a a catholic church, but while I do believe in God, I regard faith as independent from religion. Religion could be cultural/habitual even temperamental,political while faith not.
Oh btw I'm a former REAL communist.
Do you have more adjective related fantasies? I mean besides, let's say Marx.
It depends what you mean by Jordan Peterson
I can tell by the like bar that the daddy issue squad showed up.
fonkymaster do you have daddy issues? Usually you hate or despise what you see in yourself, not what you see in others since you never truly see others for who they are.
Why did my comment trigger you so deeply?
fonkymaster it didn’t. But nice framing.
I just like to tell people they are individuals and I feel strongly that we see reflections of ourselves in others. Not others. We don’t see them for themselves we see ourselves in foggy reflections.
I assume you hate these people you’re referencing. So I naturally think you yourself have the daddy issues which is why you’re so able to make that comment.
fonkymaster if you don’t hate them. Then I’d resend my assumption.
Nice special pleading fallacy.
A fact is that Peterson's use of terms like cultural marxism mirrors the language used by the Nazi's.
Sir.
I could listen to rationality all damned day. Well done.
Thank you.
@jbaz77777 Enlighten me.
11 hours later.
I remain confident I know what rationality is.
Good day to you, T-Roll.
Excellent job explaining why historians have to avoid confusing our motives and rationale with that of the people we study.
Jordan "Well, it depends on what you mean by" and "nestled within" Peterson at it again.
"Hey Peterson what's 2+2?"
Peterson: *thinks in silence for 5 minutes* "well it depends on what you mean by plus"
Hey bucko...
"manifests itself in"
"I never said that".
It's called determining your definitions. In order to understand an argument effectively you have to understand what they mean when they use words that could have multiple meanings within different contexts. As memey as it is, he says that in order to understand and avoid misrepresenting people's arguments.
The effects of individualistic liberal idealism without material analysis on people’s understanding of history is disastrous.
Holy shit, I've never heard it before but Peterson sounds exactly like Kermit the frog.
There are a number of RUclips videos based on this very point. I'm surprised you have not run into one already.
Ribbet.
Now go listen to Ben Shapiro.
"Shawty I know..."
I just found this channel, and I am enjoying it. Job well done my friend keep up the good work.
Either Jordan doesn't know about what happened in the camps, or Jordan was implying that the 'slaves' should have been valued more in a logical setting because they are property, people keep care of their property. So because the suffering of the Jewish people was more important than winning the war that's how Jordan could have drawn his conclusion that the nazies were producing chaos rather than unethical order. Teaching a psychology class might be different than teaching a history class.
Sulli11 the problem with that is because he has no historical grounds for whatever psychoanalysis he's doing of a large group of mostly dead people all he can do is attribute psychopathy. That covers for the actual motivation and makes it really easy to say "oh well it's never happening again"
This video is technically correct about historical facts. But while the topic is superficially the same as Peterson’s, they are discussing completely different subjects. I don’t know if “straw manning” is the appropriate term, as that seems to imply some intentionality, but this guy is quibbling about things that neither prove nor disprove what Peterson is saying.
Wouldn't be surprised if a leaked pet camera video showed him making Hitler like gestures and saluting at swastika flag alone in his room
I discovered JP and his videos on the internet roughly a year a ago and took great interest in what he was saying. What I noticed fairly quickly is how hard he is to critize, but at the same time I know he can't be only right in his words. So I decided that I should always look for things to critize him for since it was fairly easy to do the opposite. For this I have also tried looking for youtubers who can do this without having to distort or strawman his views, which is why I am writing this comment.
You have made an excellent video and you take up great points showing the other side of the argument. You don't misrepresent his views either which is mostly rare for some reason and then keep brining up very valid points on how he is wrong. I found it enjoyable and entertaining to watch and listen to your arguments but most of all it is refreshing to hear somebody being able to properly tell the man where he is probably wrong.
Thank you for having this channel. You've just earned a subscriber and it is fairly few times I do subscribe, even less when I comment!
the reason why is hard to criticize is because he often doesn't take a point and doesn't bring arguments. Contrapoints criticizes him really well in her Jordan Peterson video even if she can be a bit harder to watch for people who aren't used to that particular sense of humor
@@jellevaneijk9397 i agree to some extent. Also did watch (atleast once) one video from contrapoint, but I don't agree with all her criticism.
@@Hauntedundead did you watch this one?
ruclips.net/video/4LqZdkkBDas/видео.html
it's the one that matters :P
If you're still looking, Unlearning Economics has a video on Jordan Peterson not understanding the wage gap, and there's another video (though I don't recall the channel off the top of my head) about how he doesn't understand George Orwell. He seems to have an unfortunate habit of dabbling in areas outside his expertise without understanding that he's not an expert in everything -- which is really sad, because from what I've heard his stuff on psychology and self-help has helped a lot of people, but once you realize his "I've read this material, and I understand it extremely well" is just a fancy, "I do my own research," you kind of can't unhear it.
Whew this was... disturbing yet so beautifully said!!!!! do you have a written script of this video? this is something I would like to read over and over again.
Lets see if a lobster trips and falls out of it's echo chamber and shows up here and comments "Oh No! You are understanding JP all wrong! That's not what he meant!".
If you made a list of all the things JP doesn't understand you could do an hour-long episode just listing them.
My edgy Jordan Peterson faze ended quite quickly after I brought up some questions I had about some of the things he said about Nazis to my history teacher and he flatly completely and entirely debunked it without breaking a sweat. Because it was just obviously historically false gibberish.
Jordan Peterson Doesn't Understand: Much.
It is pretty embarrassing, every time he speaks about something outside of his field (math, history, anthropology, etc) people who actually know that field go 'that isn't right'. He is also very good (like all political commentators nowadays) in not refuting the central point of what he is arguing against. (Which is also the problem with a lot of the people talking about him of course. See the whole lobster shitshow).
But yeah, I'm not a big fan of Peterson after I discovered that he holds a non standard definition of 'truth' that allows you to lie. Speaking the radical truth is easy when you define truth as 'whichever makes the organism survive and breed'. Fine if Peterson gives peoples live meaning and put their lives on track, just don't swallow his politics whole.
That's incredibly dismissive of JBP's credentials.
And that is an appeal to authority.
Uhhm, actually...
Nerd here, it isn't the nerd part why women don't sleep with you. Stop blaming women, or nerds for your own sexual issues. Anyway, women's shelters, blaming 'bad boys, and women' are a bit weird points to bring up in regards to Peterson.
This also shows another reason why people don't like Peterson btw, the fact that there is a large group of people who like Peterson who hide behind the self-improvement parts of Peterson to justify their hatred (of women, men, whatever). Which is an oft repeated pattern the last few decades. Old wine new barrels.
Jordan "Out of Context" Peterson
Maybe if people didnt keep doing it, then we wouldnt have to keep pointing how often you guys lie about him.
@@undeadwill5912 doesn't he love to thrown around the term "cultural marxism"? Kind of hard to take an anti-semtic dog whistle out of context. It's a classic paleoconservative talking point kept vague enough to allow for deniability when needed.
Also doesn't he like to throw around the Venezuela argument as a talking point against socialism? (Never mind that Venezuela is a Social Democracy, vastly different from pure socialism) While ignoring the FACT that Venezuela was dealt significant economic blows thanks to US sanctions, US backed coups and poor policy in the face of an oil price crash?
Doesn't he also define equity as equality of outcome that the left strives for? This is not only practically impossible, but is factually false as most leftists will agree that equality of opportunity is a far more realistic goal. That is the typical consensus you reach when you have a productive discussion/debate between Communists, Liberals and even Centrists.
Didn't he also misrepresent bill C-16? I remember when the Canadian BAR association actually had to come out and debunk his talking points because he horribly misrepresented what C-16 was about. Never mind the fact that the law was already in the books five years prior in several provinces, and there were ZERO arrest regarding improper pronoun usage. The bill just applied this on a federal level and yet to this day still no arrests.
Of course I may just be taking him out of context so I may need some clarification here.
@@WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot_YT I still don't understand why this new wave of resentment towards Peterson insists that he misrepresented the bill. A The Ontario Human Rights Commission can commence a complaint before a Tribunal, intervene in any existing complaint before the Tribunal on behalf of any complainant, conduct its own inquiries into real or purported breaches of the Code and issue recommendations, and it develops legally binding policies. With the introduction of Bill C-16, the OHRC has the authority to require you to use the words demanded by the bill. To reiterate, OHRC policy requires that persons must use the pronouns required by the portion of transgendered individuals, making that demand effectively constitutes compelled speech. Those not wishing to use those pronouns or not able to use those pronouns due to their beliefs, faith and religion, are afforded no ability to abstain. People can be summoned to a human rights Tribunal if they use the wrong words. Wilfed Laurier University was proof of that. You can say I'm wrong, tell me my facts are irrelevant, but none of that really matters since the bill is already in place. Your speech doesn't matter in this country. Nor does mine.
@@luki907 Because Peterson's hand wringing after the skeptic community picked it up was poor in optics. He knew this but choose to let it run it's course with him benefiting from the media coverage, thus developing detractors.
Also in regards to C-16. Nothing in the language was written to COMPEL the use or avoidance of certain words in public. As long as there is no malicious intent behind the words then no law is broken.
If a person talks to a transwoman and accidentally calls her a male pronoun, they are not subject to jail time or fines. How ever if they call her a man over and over in a malicious manner or they advocate the death of her and her ilk or publicly incites hatred towards them. Then that clearly is intending to antagonize, and that person violates anti-hate speech laws. All the bill is designed to do is move transgender individuals into an already existing group of protected classes.
If Canadians don't like the level of free speech they have in their country then they can elect officials that are more for free speech absolutism. Until then, misconstruing C-16 does not serve a practical purpose in the free speech debate.
@@undeadwill5912 This video links and even encourages you to watch Peterson's lecture to get context for this video. This is a great criticism of Peterson and a fair one
I really appreciate this-- it's well researched and expressed. It also clearly shows one of Peterson's major flaws, which is that he believes his own patterns of thinking to be universal. When he applies his own logic to myth or religion, it often gets a pass from people outside those fields of study, even those who are otherwise critical of him-- but I can confirm that he's just as full of shit in those areas. This video does a great job of pointing out why his attempt to organize the world along his own ideas doesn't work, and when that's a big problem.
Nice to see you back. Keep the good work!
I love it when this guy gets sassy, goes so well with the accent.
Yeah lol
Could you be bothered to provide an example for Canada trying to reach facism? A Law that's being passed or something like that?
Have you read the bill? The only thing that it does is to make Gender expression/identity a possible motive for inciting hatred or comitting hatecrimes. If you think prohibiting people from calling for example for violence against trans-people is facism you don't know what facism is.
How could this little bill even be the tipping point from democracy to literal facism? There were laws agains hate crimes before... just not against hate crimes against trans people (or other gender identitys). Calling for violence against trans people is in no way crucial to free speech.
Nicholas Weise If you keep escalating like this I won't be bothered to respond.... anyway: I allready explained that this bill neither dictates language, other than blatant hatespeech, and miss gendering doesn't fall under hatespeech and thus is as legal as it has always been.
Shouldn't we decide from a bill to bill basis and not call the prohibition of a certain kind of hatespeech the literal doom of mankind? You seem to be very fixated on freedom... but how free can one be if other people have the freedom to literally call for violence and genocide against you? Isn't that something the state/Society should prevent to ensure freedom to live an individualistic free live?
Nicholas Weise I think you have just proven to not be worthy of being debated in every possible way.
Peterson doesn't understand quite a bit about a lot.
I agree. He bites off way more than he can chew and then speaks in a manner like he's the world expert on the matter. Can't believe he has attracted so many viewers. He is good when he sticks to his particular area of expertise but this arrogant preaching is just sad.
If you want to be a "swiss army knife" thinker, then you have to be humble about it.
Ygritte : you know nothing jordan peterson.
...and Peterson would be the first person to state that fact.
But it doesn't stop him from presenting his opinions or thought experiments as having legs and substance to the audience, or reader or video watcher. And as he often engages in these thought experiments and opinions that are out of his league (if you will), much of his base, despite how often he throws in, "you need to know this isn't my area of expertise" or other cover your butt remarks, in the course of continuing to speak...his base isn't and aren't taking these pronouncements with the grains of salt he sprinkles throughout, when he goes on these expeditions of trains of thought. They look at it as him throwing in a humble introspection, that, to them, doesn't mean sh!te ultimately. I've spoken to many Peterson adherents and rarely will I speak to someone who isn't ready to defend what he was off base about. Of those that won't, they are the minority. Just look in these comment sections here, it's more common to find someone who will throw in the time honored, "Yeah but...", than someone who is readily willing to admit he f'ked the chicken concerning topic X.
That's the problem. To many apologists or defenders are the majority and only a small minority will truly express misgivings about how badly he butchered something he should stay away from. That's why individuals are giving Peterson fans crap. The majority won't seriously entertain how incredibly off the mark he is about several subjects and always come back to, "but the mainstay of what he says, I like." And this, somehow, magically makes everything else alright. Or not a big deal.
Useless, now just how do you know how his base is perceiving what he says? I, for one, admire his lucidity in being able to make these thought experiments. In his interview with Jefferies, he candidly admitted error in one of them. I'd be hard-pressed to find anyone with his standing (let alone education) in any other interview do that.
His books have left me shaking my head as well. What you *seem* to be missing is the fact that his appeal is largely predicated on his willingness to declare his humanity. That this is what is needed in a leader, should escape nobody. What he will not compromise on are morals and facts (again, something sorely lacking).
You're right that many will thoughtlessly defend anything he does or says (as is their right) but, as a scientist and lecturer, he's always looking for factual contradiction. We can only follow that example; many fail. But we cannot pillory Peterson for the failings of his adherents.
"...address the lobster in the room..."
I love it.
I know you likely won't read this, but I think what you're doing is extremely important. I appreciate your integrity and dedication to truth. I also love the unique perspective you bring as a German, given how much Germany is used as a right wing talking point. Keep up the good work my friend!
@_jeff _ Ah of course. We all know how the U.S, Canada, and Australia were all ruined my mass immigration in the 19th century.
@_jeff _ ...My Cherokee friends agree with you.
I wasnt awarw that germany is suddleny a crime ridden papadise of the corrupt. The far right movements seem to be a problem thou, not the immigration. That sounds like propaganda and being hyperbolic about minor issues. Germany looks far better than the us honestly.
Jordan Peterson talks about the Enlightenment a lot for someone who peddles so much pseudoscience. And sure, maybe he sees Jungian psychology as a product of the Enlightenment, and in a broad sense it is. But what's important is the Enlightenment isn't some mystical, religious event by which knowledge was bestowed from on high - adoption of reason and science means an ongoing engagement and application of those things. Jungian psychology is pseudoscience - it doesn't arise from a rigorous application of the scientific method. That Peterson continues to clutch onto it shows he has no real commitment to Enlightenment, beyond employing it as a buzzword. You want chaos? Adopt mysticism, adopt Jung, adopt religion - anything can be asserted, anything can be true. You want order? Use the scientific method. Distinguish truth from falsehood.
Daniel, you do such an awesome job of riling the savages! You sir, are an artist! I commend you!
daniel is a demagogue. he has a unique ability - he talks and says nothing but a meaningless combo of words
Can we decipher his motive from the outcome.
@Crimson Sash 14 year olds? You mother knows I am much older than 14 y.o. You can ask her.
@@EvilHamster428 Thank you for the insightful comment. Daniel has been reprimanded for his thuggery after your keen insight was put on display to the authorities. Please consider providing courses for constructive criticism.
Thanks for this, I have listened to Peterson a lot and enjoy his content, but was looking for a critical view on him...
I fully agree here, his focus on symbols and religious templates is frustrating sometimes.
He interprets everything through psychoanalysis - not a system that can generate reproducible real results. It can only generate reproducible theoretical results, and these results only mean something within the particular psychoanalytic framework used.
Menno, I advice you to listen to what biologists say about Jordan Peterson as well. He is just so fundamentally wrong about so many things. I also want to challenge you with this: Have you actually read up on Karl Jung which Jordan Peterson adores? IMHO it puts Peterson in perspective. Karl Jung peddles Depak Chopra style New Age mumbo jumbo. I say mumbo jumbo, because having a father who is into this I have seen how crazy this stuff is. My father was also a Karl Jung fan.
Karl Jung, and thus by extension Jordan Peterson is VERY far away from mainstream science in the understanding of psychology and the human mind. Remember he hails from a time when psychologists had no way of actually introspecting and analyzing the human brain. Today we have CAT scans, MRI and a host of other methods to connect human behavior to physical processes in the brain we can observe.
Jordan Peterson is really peddling pseudo science. But as a well read scholar, your average debater knows to little about this stuff to confront him, and thus he often scores points in debates.
@@povelvieregg165 if he is so fundamentaly wrong about things, how was he able to change so many peoples lives for the better?
@@cikazoki People who are wrong about a great number of things can still be right about a bunch of other things. Sometimes you can even help people while being wrong.
For instance a lot of alternative medicine is bogus but it can still help people due to the placebo effect. We humans depend a lot of people listening to us and taking us serious. Someone like Jordan Peterson can in principle help you a lot simply by listening to you.
The problem is when Jordon Peterson is able to help you in one aspect of your life and then you treat him as some sort of infallible God afterwards. People worship Jordan Peterson because he confirms a lot of their prejudice and biases.
Thankyou, I'm so glad that your videos have started to appear in my recommended. I've found the ones I've watched to be very well researched, extremely interesting and of course highly informative. It's also fantastic to hear such subject matter being addressed by a native German. Once again thankyou
Well informed video with very solid research and sources to back it up.
Odd how the free speech warriors tried to get this removed. We should all tweet at Jordan Peterson and ask him to condemn this.
I don't doubt he'd condemn it, and he might also take the opportunity to challenge TA for a debate. He doesn't need to play by the rules his minions do, or act consistently with what happens as a result of his charlatan teachings. He's a fascist enabler, so he has the luxury of not having to actually be a fascist.
Kayvahn literally anyone who genuinely defends free speech has/will defend arrows because they defend free speech, only idiots want content taken down on either side
"Fascist enabler", can I just laugh at how outside reality these guys are?
@@Mant111 not like you're here to make any sort of reasonable arguments but did you ever hear about the piece of shit who murdered 50 Muslims in Christchurch? Turns out he did it because he really hated "cultural marxism".. now, where might he have possibly heard about that phrase?
Actually, it's the far-left RUclips trust and safety team that reports to Susan Wojcicki who are responsible for this getting removed. The free speech warriors actually want stupid ideas to remain on accessible because it allows people to see what the marketplace of ideas consists of to help uninformed and brainwashed people get redpilled.
Wow. You take on some heavy subjects. I appreciate it. Thank You 🙏
Excellent video! Thanks a lot for posting this.
So informative... thank you for these videos.
Hey this isnt a Fortnite MLG video
really? because someone got rekt
This comment just made my day!
Smitty Werbenjagermanjensen he was #1
Thank you for your video. As a psychologist myself, your research and reasoning was brilliant.
I've always wanted to ask a psychologist about this: JP seems to fetishize Jung as if that guy was the only relevant psychologist and as if Jung's ideas were flawless.
Is Jung even relevant/useable today?
@@tilltronje1623 Now I am not a pschologist myself, but from what I have picked up from my mother, who is specialised in childrens psychology, the field has advanced so much since her promovation that she could basically throw out most of the older books she owns. I do not know If she means that literally as there is surely always something to be learnt even from outdated theory/research, but maybe thats just my social science brain and it is infact mostly useless. Is the question though wether or not you should literally take old research and directly apply it to research/practice the answer would probably be a hard no. I am not a professional myself though, so I do hope somebody else chimes in, specifies and corrects me If needed.
@@layla8830 thanks. I know you cannot use him directly. He was not even a psychologist to begin with. What I was wondering was wether there is anything he can be used for. JP is already obviously wrong for fetishizing him and basically building his entire worldview on him but I was asking wether there is even a slither of usefulness to the guy
"War is the continuation of politics by other means" so I was confused by who you referred to as saying this largely because I've read this same sentence in the art of war by niccolo machiavelli. Not contesting that clauswitz is the most attributed at this point for the quote just stating ive read it from literature on war that predates him.
Jordan Peterson has always been a genius…
at pandering to idiotic neo-conservatives and taking their money.
*accepting their money, if something bad about that? he offers a product and they pay for it, it's a voluntary exchange
@@jancz357 shmuck detected.
Dogs offer products too. At their backend.
To the best of my knowledge people don't pay for that stuff.
Although it's the same quality Peterson offers.
+bloodygentleman By that logic, scams and manipulative advertising should be legal, because the person paid for it voluntarily. I'm not saying the Peterson is necessarily a scam artist, but just because they gave the money willingly doesn't mean he deserves it.
Ah yes, "accepting their money"... the perfect capitalist excuse to anything. It's not manipulation, exploitation or theft if they SEEMINGLY willingly give you the money for the useless goods you provided. You people are truly... truly divorced from reality. With masses of people like you, any prospect of a half-decent future for humanity is off the table. With such appalling lack of cognition and perspective, the future is bleak and history is poised to repeat itself again and again.
I saw Petersons Video and I was enraged (as being a German who cares about the history of his own country) so I was relieved as I found your video. I think that Jordan Peterson is Dangerous in multiple ways. One of them is that he paints constantly and image of hero vs enemy in every debate. Thanks a lot for making this video, I hope that more people see this because it really is relevant, that we, as a society, finally get a better way to deal with our past!
yeah, its not cool to be a part of that history dude, its just that you know your own country history pretty well
ANTIFA Leftists = despicable enemies.
tru, but sometimes I just don't wanna type so much
I think Jordan Peterson necessarily gets involved with philosophy of postmodernism when he tries to get answers out of history, and this philosophical part of the whole way, how your presumptions have an influence on your conclusion is ignored by Peterson. If you really want to have a differentiated view of Adolph Hitler, then you should watch a short clip about the philosophy Hanna Arendt, who experienced the Holocaust. Adolph Hitler my be a central figure as a symbol, but not at all a driving force of the system of nationalism. Thats why the question of "how bad was hitler" is even weird. The interesting phenomenon is the nationalistic movement itself! Germany could have found some other guy to take the responsibility and speak in public.
But if you can't blame it on Hitler, you have to blame a system of thought, and that of course is not as comfortable as saying "hitler wanted just to destroy everything, ok, case closed"
because the way of thinking in "good" vs "evil" is how the 3rd Reich worked or how Stalin operated or how Mao used argue. I sometimes feel like he changes the oppressor vs opressed into an black and white perspective, I don't agree with both. But thinking in moral prescriptive terms that are in their nature bound to moral socialization makes it easy to devaluate other viewpoints without "real" arguing. Also it is validated ideologically possessed viewpoints. And they way I see it, this is counterproductive to Democracy. (I may be exaggerating a little!)
Holocaust btw is old greek and means something like completely burned, also called Shoa which is Hebrew for "great mega Catastrophe" that is not a corporate name.
Pleas take this with a grain of Salt!! Im just a German who is angry because his own history is miss-understood. I have more points than that, but being offended about my country makes me exaggerating.
Great vid dan!
Thank you for your content. Very well researched.
As your loyal subscriber and a disaffecred young male with a messy room, I am deeply offended by this broad sexist generalisation!
...
...
Sarcarm, because someone would believe I'm saying it seriously.
For people that brag about being into Logic, JP's fans fail to see the most basic Historian's Fallacy
Like what?
@@usmcpound You genually don't know dumb dumb?
Dickheart no reason to be rude
@@assassindelasaucisse.4039 You're trying on insult me all while misspelling words and not even making logical sense?
What a moron you are.
Still no answer? I didnt think so.
Not just Nazism, the guy doesn't really understand much of anything outside his own specific field. But he knows how to be eloquent. of course he's also very shrewd in using media. He cannot seriously debate with someone other than talk show hosts. His conversation with Zizek was embarrassing. He didnt say jackshit.
He's not eloquent. He's the opposite of eloquent.
"Always look to outcomes to determine intent"
If that's true from JP then we can infer that his intent is to misinform swaths of confused teenagers to a point where they will never come in contact with coochie.
Jesus Fingers balance it out with the black Phillip show.... RIP Patrice
is coochie that important to you
@Michael sO mUcH fOr ThE tOlErAnT lEfT
@Michael
Lmao, take a joke buddy
@Michael There clearly is because I can't find a sense of humor anywhere in your replies. You actually, seem quite upset that someone made a joke.