JORDAN PETERSON WANTS WOMEN TO BE PROPERTY!? Heated Debate w/ Feminist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 июл 2024
- DEBATE: Destiny debates a leftist on Jordan Peterson, dogwhistles and more...
Date: 19 Feb, 2022
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/bigscreen
►TWITTER - / theomniliberal
►DISCORD - discordapp.com/invite/destiny
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Katee
@DatkateeDoe
ARTICLE
compactmag.com/article/a-blac...
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com/shop/destiny
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
00:00:00 Teasers / Intro
00:01:06 Complicated topics need context
00:05:43 Jordan Peterson sophisticated clip
00:12:07 Jordan Peterson property crime clip
00:20:22 Destiny watches Jordan Peterson segment
00:36:21 Katee makes good points
00:43:27 Problem w/ fighting on true descriptive realities
00:58:37 If 1 out of 8 women are graped, are the 7 just lucky?
01:09:16 Grape and SA in marriages
01:13:58 Destiny doesn't care if Katee concedes
01:20:05 Destiny's goal is less Grape
01:30:27 Black professor trapped in anti-racst hell
01:45:09 Marked as a threat
#destiny
#politics
#debate
"Woman should be property"
Oh God not another thing I need to pay taxes for...
😆
As long as you accept trade ins on old models, I'm down with it
@@mrtambourineman6107 lmao "I got a $500 extra refund on my taxes because I broke up with my 25 year old girlfriend and started dating a 35 year old!"🤣
@Mark Zuckergecko not a bad deal bro 👌 👍 ha 🤣
No bitches?
Yeah, no taxes either *headtap.png*
Passive aggression is a serious ick for me and this woman’s got it in spades
Anti-misogyny arch is going hard. Maybe Destiny needs to find more intelligent people.
People saying they have a "serious ick" makes me irrationally angry.
She’s just „flavorful“ ✨
@@t0jo853 first time I've heard someone try to cover their dishonesty and bad framing with "tee hee it's just flavor!"
@@Josh-rn1em sounds like you got a serious ick with people saying serious ick and my heart goes out to your struggle
The giggling when she knows she's wrong is absolutely maddening.
I made it halfway through the video and had to turn it off 😅
@@aWildNelby I can’t tell if it’s a nervous tick or what but goddamn it was annoying
I was triggered over how it seems density is soft on left leaning females, yet hard on right leaning females
@@wtf1a1a density LMAO i laughed so fucking hard
@@jumpvelocity3953 at an autocorrect? Are you 9? 🙄
They're both wrong:
Jordan Peterson's point was that: "Making rape a crime against the woman (as opposed to a property crime) isn't ENOUGH to protect women" than proceeds to illustrate how women were protected by men in their community. His overall point was that rape needs to be considered a crime against the broader community IN ADDITION to a crime against the women herself. He says as much at the start of his monologue and at the end.
I feel like I need to write this out in order to understand it for myself.
Previously (when it was a property crime) rape was a crime against the father or against the husband of the woman, because raping her was damaging the property of her owner, her father/husband. (is this more or less correct?) If she had no father or husband, presumably it was not a crime to rape her? (seems like a bit of an assumption but I wouldn't be that surprised)
The sexual revolution transformed rape from a crime against the owner of the woman into a crime against the woman. She was given ownership of herself, and so the crime was directly against her, not her owner.
Peterson seems to take issue with this transformation, as he does not see as much logical reason for men to care when a woman gets raped? This seems a bit absurd and I have trouble believing he is honestly saying this. Just because the woman is no longer the property of her father or husband, now they are chill with her being raped? Are you serious?
More or less he seems to be saying that the only adequate defence for a woman against being raped is the threat of violence from other men who would rise to her defence. I can honestly totally agree that this is essentially true, whether the men providing that defence are the force of law and prison or her brothers and father coming to beat the rapist's ass personally. Either way, it is the violence of men which provides the disincentive.
Maybe I missed something?
Everyone missing his point:
*"well, maybe we could setup a society where merely transgressing the right of a woman to say 'No' is sufficient* *-crime-* , *but it's not obvious to me that it's sufficient".*
His point is that "No means No" probably not enough from a male perspective.
So maybe, if we view it as a "Property" crime, then we might bring men on board.
@@bestdjaf7499 I really don't think that's what he means.
Unless I am not correctly interpreting who you mean the property crime is against.
Is the crime against the woman (and her body i.e. her property)? What crime is being committed, exactly? Damage of property? What's the damage? Is it no longer damage if he just is a peeping tom? Unauthorized use of property (i.e. trespassing)?
If the crime is a property crime against the woman's property, then why, pray tell, does he say, "Rape has to be viewed as something that will bring the males on her side to her defence"? (21:19) If her body is her own property, and not the property of "the males on her side", then why would they rise to her defence any differently whether it was "no means no" or "my property has been violated"?
@@BabudroSun
I have no idea wtf he was trying to say.
I can tell for sure, he didn't use the word "rape".
But in the quote, I've provided, he is questioning if *"transgressing the right of a woman to say 'No' is sufficient".*
Btw, I don't believe that he thinks, "men should owe women" or "women belong in the kitchen".
He hates Red Pill community & he called Andrew Tate the 'lowest form of life'!!!
JP is definitely Left leaning.
His parents are Teachers & he worked for Democratic party....
He hates Trump!!!
....
And Psychology in general is a very Left leaning field & dominated by women (I think he said that like over 80% of his Bosses & Students & Clients are Women).
I don't even understand why the Left hates JP.
Well, of course the Trans issues, but he only really complained about the Neo-Pronons.
@@bestdjaf7499 O...kay...
I feel like you just rambled for an entire comment. The only thing you said that seems even vaguely on topic is to say, "he didn't say rape". Like ok dude, he said, "untrammelled sexual access to a young woman".
It's actually quite imprecise of him to say this, because arguably not every instance of untrammelled sexual access to someone is in fact rape or sexual assault. If they are consenting, then it is just normal sex. However, untrammelled *and* non-consentual sex is what we are actually interested in discussing.
Classic case of JP using needlessly wordy and fancy language that adds no additional clarity and actually makes it harder to understand what he's saying.
Claiming that "JP is left leaning" is just bold face denial of evidence, my guy. He may at one time have been considered left leaning. Whether or not you *personally* support the moving of the Overton window is unimportant. If *you* wish to avoid JP's pitfall of being unclear in your speech, then I would advise you not to call JP "left-leaning". If you must, then indicate exactly what you mean.
Does JP support gay marriage? He doesn't openly oppose it, often, but is he going to come out and say that being gay is just as valid as being straight? Probably not, also. I definitely get the impression that JP thinks straight is better than gay, because he thinks pretty highly of tradition, gender archetypes, etc.
Does JP support social programs? He largely preaches a message of "pick yourself up by your bootstraps". Self empowerment is great but it's normally not fiercely advocated by the same people supporting social programs. I think it's pretty safe to call JP individualistic and capitalist at heart. He thinks people deserve to be rewarded for their effort/skill/merit. A very capitalist mindset.
He hates Trump? Gonna need some receipts for that one. Pretty sure there's a lot more evidence that he's tacitly approving of Trump than the opposite. If your version of "he hates Trump" is "he's not a Trump dick-rider who worships everything Trump says and does", you have a really low bar.
When every tool you have is a hammer, everything you see is a nail. This chick clearly describes this.
Kate is so condescending. I know exact type of person like that. In reality, she is so allergic to opposing views and that’s how they cope with it by being condescending
@@testcase6997 At least he is not wasting Destiny's time.
I can imagine the rage she is hiding with those giggles.
Its all her little laughs and sighing and going "mmm hmmm." Its like she thinks she'd talking to a child
Some people just laugh nervously or find things funny. Not EVERY laugh is intended to attack your personhood. Chill. Also, if she's so condescending why is she conceding some of Destiny's points? You might be hearing stuff that isn't there.
I agree with you about her, but let's keep it real. We're Destiny fans but if you didn't agree with him, you would think he was extremely condescending as well. I know I would. I still hate it when he physically and vocally freaks out whenever someone he's debating says something stupid. It's a counter productive habit of his.
This is scary how there's a video available of someone speaking-that you can watch over and over again-AND YET still find a way to completely twist what they say. This is insane.
There’s a particular group of ppl that have a keeeeeen tendency to misrepresent what men say
It was absolutely infuriating. When she said "explicitly or unexplicitly" I got mad af. Like holy shit just straight up slimiest snake tactics.
@@bluexxlmusicand they often are the loudest voices when they see what they think is misinformation from the other end... I love destiny for the fact he will shoot down misinformation from both sides. One could learn a lot from this guy
@@bluexxlmusic you mean that group that uses emotions instead of logic?
She alluded to the fact that Sam seeder and other progressive people had the same take but I think the actual justice warrior and Tim pool exposed that group as being trapped in their own echo chamber. She, as a teen, is easily swayed by these people's indoctrination. This is why echo chambers are dangerous. Funny how the left, who statistically avoid right information sources, believe right wing echo chambers are breeding low info radical white supremacist but don't get that they are breeding low information radical intolerant bigots.
Essentially, one of Destiny's greatest attributes is empathy; the ability to understand where someone is coming from. Not to be mistaken for sympathy, he rationalized Jordan Peterson's argument, without necessarily agreeing with him. There's a fundamental difference between the two
Is she infantilizing herself on purpose?
I feel like yes. Just me speculating, but it could be to try and trigger and bait the other person to respond aggressively.
@@thedamnati8042 And then playing the victim when the other person comes off as aggressive - got it
I was thinking the exact same thing, at some points its like she says things like a 5 year old to appear "cutesey" or something, very weird thing to do in a conversation about those topics
Its woman dark arts.
No, she was actually born yesterday.
“You’re looking for ghosts in Peterson’s words”
“No I’m not”
Proceed to watch 20 minutes of fighting the phantom threat in Peterson’s statement.
Peterson in the actual interview: “Marriage is consent.” Feminist Louise Perry pushed back with the history of the change in rape law. And then JBP pushed back to defend his position. That’s what this whole clip was about, but they totally missed the context. 🤦🏻♀️
peterson literally said "maybe we should come back to this idea of rape as a male property crime" at 1:24:15 of the original video. you're wrong
Her giggles are so infuriating. Not sure how he can stay so calm.
Because it makes him look good. She defeats herself
He trusts us to see what he sees, and your comment is the perfect confirmation.
I am so glad Dman exists. Someone who can be critical of JBP but not lose the plot
Agreed, dont agree with Destiny on a lot, but I appreciate his ability to battle ideas.
Was destiny ever critical of JBP other than "when he talks about history i dont like it" lmao he has to defend him (by defending truth) all the time from the lunacy of braindead leftists.
you've lost the plot m8
U mean the dwoman
Katee's laugh is soooooo condescending. She's the epitome of why the pendulum is swinging away from progressivism, and she rarely bites bullets. It's so painful.
looking sharp rom subbed
Traditions exist for a reason. Kids always go through a phase where they challenge authority, start asking why they have to do things the way adults tell them to. That's normal. But ultimately, they usually learn that there's a reason the adults were all telling them that. Sometimes, they don't ever learn. We call them progressives.
womanchild moment
She apologised for her condescension in advance and claimed she doesn't do it on purpose
Professor Thursday is worse
Destiny is truly a people observer; maximizing the things he can control and minimizing the things he can't.
And making something out of nothing.
Making something outta nothing.
Chad stoic philosophy
Making something out of nothing
Making something out of norhing too
I quit smoking again several days ago and listening to Katee's arguments has been the single greatest pressure for me to fall off that wagon. JFC.
Same bro. Stress and annoyance makes me wanna go back. But stay strong it's for the better👍
What does JFC stand for?
@@debrachambers1304reverence for Jesus Christ in a heathen tongue.
All politics aside, Jordan Peterson alone had helped me get through a lot of shit from growing up. Call it trauma or whatever, but his speeches and his book had helped me understand life better than ever before, and I was able to heal. I know some of you may not like Jordan due to his politics, but I hope that some of you could also understand that the other part of him has helped many through depression and/or a sense of hopelessness
That's fine. But can you accept that he deserves criticism for promoting antivax and Climate denialism among other things.
@@vinnyholiday9739 I like Peterson but I don't take anything outside of his psych and philosophy with anything but a grain of salt. He tends to not talk so well outside of his expertise.
@Aaron Montgomery cool well you can ignore his non psych takes all you want, we all do that for public figures we like. But just don't be surprised when other people criticize him for the dumb shit he says.
@@vinnyholiday9739 not really, just because I don't necessarily agree with how people use the word "promote" so loosely. And this goes with my sort of meta criticism against the notion that anybody with a following should be policed based on what they say that may or may not be true. Because then we're begging the argument of whether or not you believe that majority of people aren't capable of thinking rationally for themselves. Which I believe that people indeed do have that capability. I lean right mostly, but all of the opposing arguments against mine that I've engaged in, I never thought to myself that these opposing arguments are so dangerous that it's going to manipulate people, as if they are template NPCs with no life, so much that it's going to destroy the society we live in. I just think to myself, "that's a terrible stance or argument". I attack the argument, not the thought leader of the argument. And honestly cancel culture would be a thing in the past if we stopped engaging in this rhetoric of thought leader responsibility.
@Commander Cody there's no begging the argued going on, nor is there policing. It's hardly policing when a large public figure says something stupid and then is criticized for it. And as for believing that people think rationally that's just untrue, because in order for you to have rational thinking you need good information. Good information isn't always easy to understand and often times bad information sounds better or more true than good information. Peterson quite often contributes and promotes bad information on Twitter. You can pretend it doesn't matter, but that would be irrational.
This woman is a walking version of that "I love waffles" "So you hate pancakes huh? You think people who eat pancakes should fucking die?!" meme
that's 90% of modern day feminists. They don't know how to use nuanced arguments, they just repeat the same old catch phrases and hope to win an argument.
@@bryanjacobs9680 tf are you talking about? 90% of modern feminists? If the internet is making you mad about groups of people, maybe chill and remember you need to get out and touch grass
@@mr.negativenancy5751 “modern feminist” aren’t casual people who just inherently believe men and women are equal. Modern feminist is the average activist which is exactly like the trope expressed in OPs comment.
@@giovalladares1022 I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Watching lots of RUclips videos or debates? Twitter? I'm sorry, but you're making things up. I'm guessing you're basing it off of teenagers expressing their opinions on the internet.
@@mr.negativenancy5751 take a nice little stroll through any US University and major city. I know you've been living in a bubble so it's hard for you to understand.
Her calling destiny biased was hysterical. The projection is real 😆
Accepting the premise that Destiny is biased it’s extremely unlikely that his bias would be for Jordan Peterson.
“So do you think this?”
“Well, maybe I-“
“Excuse me can I finish my point?”
“…. Sure.”
“Thank you tee hee x3”
This woman is unbearable.
lol prime example of a guy who has low eq AND low comprehension behavior.
shes being polite asking to finish her own point without having steven interupt her. I find steven more irritable and he never has patience for most of the people he debates. have you ever heard of "its not what you say its how you say it?". He brings up intelligent points most of the time but hes such an asshole when he debates no one really likes him for it and thats why he loses viewers, cant move people off their actual stances and makes people move further away from his "purpose" of having nuanced debates among different viewpoints that brings people to understand the other fence alittle bit more.
accurate
I had no idea who the feminist was gping in to the conversation. But the condescencsion, giggling, and "isn't it obvious" attitude made me check if it was Katee. Yep. It's her of course.
Her bain is unironically poisoned, she can't see the other side having good qualities even when it's obvious that they posses them...like when she refused to give Nick Fuentes credit for the work he puts in. (Vile work, but it is still work)
I was 4 min in and saw your comment, realizing it’s her. My outlook has completely changed for the worse.
The giggling drives me nuts
Who dis?
I see, so I have good reason to absolutely despise the fuck out of almost every word that left her mouth. Got it.
Katie really trying to challenge Pearl as Queen of laughing to try to bad faith undermine my opponent's credibility.
No kidding, it's fucking obnoxious.
Brooooo.... Thank you
I noticed that too, but I think it’s more a nervous tic.
@@S1leNtRIP Some instances, maybe. Others? It's obviously condescending.
“HAHAHAHHH…
so i just think that…..”
She's not even cripplingly condescending. She's unstomachable.
SHE is condescending?? This guy is the most smarmy condescending human I’ve ever come across. Reminds me of Ben Shapiro. He just talks fast with a condescending tone and ppl are like “omg he’s brilliant”
@@tutorialdude333 read the sentence again. There is a very clear not* there.
Anyone who thinks people that talk fast=smart is shallow. Listen to what he has to say. It's almost pure logic instead of insinuations, and that's why people like him.
@@RaveDX “pure logic” is the same reason people claim to like Ben Shapiro.
@@tutorialdude333 ur right. Lemme rephrase. People like Destiny because he uses mostly logic to build his opinion, but also takes human emotion into account. This makes his arguments more balanced and grounded compared to Shapiro who only uses almost robotic judgements and sjw's that rely too much on perception and emotion for arguments.
@@tutorialdude333 dude is nothing like Shapiro. BS is articulate and can speed-talk but enjoys being insulting to his opponents. Peterson is not condescending, he just has views that people REALLY dislike or find offensive and it's easier to call him condescending then admit the way he articulates his view points is simply better and more effective than people can refute
When will these feminists stop conflating rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and sex regret under one umbrella?
When they stop being wh*res
This girl is the definition of "putting words in the mouth"
MMmm i think the "so you are saying" interview with JP is the winner
nomnom mmmm
That's misogynistic
So you're saying we should be more like lobsters
@@Ruestar1 yes
I'm so tired of the "dog whistle" thing, that's been hijacked by dishonest people to mean "well he didn't actually *say* terrible thing, but I want him to have said that because it's convenient for my argument, so I'm just going to pretend like I can read his mind."
Someone on TikTok was talking about how the way you lace your boots could be a dog whistle. Real tiring
@@UkiyoIkou lmao, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure I can make a pretty accurate guess at it. Someone laced up their boots sorta like the tiny mustache man laced up his boots, therefore Nazi - confirmed. Something like that?🤣
@@markzuckergecko621 I think they said if you ladder laced your Doc Martins it meant you were a Nazi or something
@@UkiyoIkou yep, I figured it was something like that. Definitely can't be because there's only a handful of ways to lace boots, and horrible people also wear boots sometimes🤣 nope. Definitely a racist dog whistle.
It used to be (still is?) that Neonazis laced their boots in certain colours (white I believe, not sure). Lace them differently or with a different colour, you have an Oi punk (yay, horse shoe theory). Since the rest of the outfit is pretty much the same it's the details that matter.
In a way, little things like this can be dog whistles. If the Hitler 'stache wasn't so "iconic", I bet some people would grow one for the same purpose.
I’m so confused, what’s Destiny’s problem with her characterization of Peterson’s take on rape? I don’t see any way in which that’s defensible.
I've never seen a person who breaks people's brains quite like JBP. The man uses plain english, and people are still completely missing what he is saying with stunning frequency.
I know right? I am not even a native english speaker, and it is so obvious that he is just making a comparisson as " Back then this issue affected man more and made then invested, so now we have to ALSO make it as such that man are ALSO AFFECTED and buy into it." He never says that if it was a property crime it would be better, he literelly never makes this conclusion, he never compare woman to property, and at the beggining he also says that the current situation is not ENOUGH, that we should DO MORE TO EVOKE MAN RESPONSES INTO RAPE CRIMES" And her and his conclusion is that what he is saying is that "if it was a crime of property for the man who own the woman, it would be better". HE LITERALLY NEVER EVEN IMPLIED THAT, HE ASKS FOR MORE PROTECTION TO WOMAN AND THEY HEAR BECOME MY PROPERTY AS IN 1930!!!!!!" It is infuriating reallly the mental gymnastics people go to discredit even his more obvious points.
i know it’s not in this clip specially, but in the original video he actually did state that “ we should return to this idea that of rape as violation of male property crime” (1:24:15 of the original video linked in the description), which outrightly says that a violation against a woman should be treated as a violation of the property of her “male protectors” rather than a violation against her as her own person
He is not always so clear with his words.
@@TheTsuryuu he does make that conclusion (rape as a male property crime should potentially be brought back) though, not in this clip but earlier on in the original video (check out my other comment under this post for the direct reference).
@@y0landa543 "we should return to this idea that rape is a violation of male property rights in a moment because i want to explore that a bit" he is not saying that women shoudl become property, he said lets explore that idea just like they have exploring multiple ideas throughout their conversation, and if you listen to what he says in the transcript destiny pulled up he first says he believes that yes violenting women is women's rights but to "push" as in... he is playing devil's advocate he wille xplore the women's property thing, because when you play devils advocate you can see a different perspective and broaden your vision and maybe notice things you could have missed per example the fact that men don't really care about rape and we need more barriers so the conclusion is we need more barriers we need men to get angry so that violaters are really afraid to hurt the woman. i actually looked up the 1:24:15 liek you asked, you interpreted what he said wronfully sorry
It's really entertaining that at a certain point, she literally just fully agrees with what Destiny says, and yet tries so fucking hard to fight back against it because even though she has intellectually acknowledged and processed what he said and truly agrees with it, as a leftist, she MUST disagree. From there, it's just her trying so hard to justify why even though Destiny's right, he's still wrong. Funny stuff.
I couldn't have said it better myself!
Pretty much summed it up. There is a certain amount of logical incoherence shaping peoples opinions. There is a line where some people have just accepted they aren’t going to test. Then it effects your choices, and experience. People aren’t really up to contest this point all the time. People assume they are absolutely right about everything, and don’t acknowledge the risk they are maybe wrong
Everything's partisan, nothing is rational anymore it seems yea
She doesn't just want to be right. She wants to humiliate him
She wants him to validate her assumptions... she's obviously quite young 🌱
I think the giggling is the weirdest debate tactics. She thinks whoever giggles is somehow right.
i don't think it is a tactic in anyone's mind. I think it is just a physical reaction to one's emotion being felt during a debate/conversation.
@@alexisbelfer7881 Nah it’s a common debate tactic. A weak one. But the implication is “I’m laughing because what you’re saying is so ridiculous” or “I’m laughing because what I’m saying is so self evident”
@@johnscammell8941 I can see that but in this case it feels like an irritating nervous tick. The main thing I'd like to focus on is her constantly twisting her arguments and trying to pin destiny on something when he remains solidified in his opinion and she keeps shaping to suit the point in the conversation she's at. And the condescending tone is unbecoming of anyone good faith.
Even no matter the actual intention, it’s immature
@@illestvillain1971 agree 100% but I do think it’s a bit of a debate “tactic”. Whether conscious or not. You’ll see a lot of young progressives or extremely right people who think that laughing or acting like your point is silly somehow replaces a strong counter argument
It's so impressive watching destiny multitask the game, debate, and typing with the chat all at once so fast. He puts his thoughts together so fast. Is able to listen and shows emotion in a logical setting. Sometimes I just find myself amazed
the guy can't follow the conversation playing that shit. he can't multitask... just pretends to
@@animalaliens he does it all the time wtf, from a more conservative standpoint myself I hate defending the guy, but he is the only Sjw I can stand to listen to & I agree more with peterson over him 97% of the time
Can you like... not meat ride to a ridiculous degree?
quit glazin
I’m surprised he does that considering the science fanatic and research prodigy he is, you’d think he’d know the negative impact doing that would have on him navigating these complex topics with people while simultaneously trying to give adequate advice. Or he might know and not give a shit
Destiny is the only thing keeping me entertained at work.
I can relate to that.
Same bro
Me too
preach
His fan base sucks sometimes but yeah he's content is almost always entertain.
"The space doesn't address intimate partner rape."
The interesting thing about this statement is that is exactly what Jordan Peterson is addressing in the clip she provided. What he calls "unsophisticated women" are precisely the ones who are more likely to end up in situations of intimate partner rape. He is talking about how this needs to change. And the answer, that both Destiny and JP have repeatedly said is that women need to be more assertive in their boundaries, even with intimate partners.
i don’t know why she mentioned intimate partners specifically, but i think she was attempting to reference the fact that rapes tend to happen more often with those u know than those u don’t know, but it’s not at all relegated to intimate partners. this references friends and family primarily, as far as i remember
If you watch JP podcast in his world view intimate partner violence doesn't exist at all, according to him the ultimate form of sexual consent is a marriage contract - implying that no rape can happen within marriages. Also if rape is considered a property crime against men, then marital rape is perfectly legal. This is just a stupid point in general because marital rape has nothing to do with being sophisticated or unsophisticated, if you're trapped in a house with someone who you have children with and are financially tied to it makes it incredibly easy for them to victimize and sexually coerce you
@@rowanifill6280 How dense do you have to be to think JP denies Marital r*pe?
In her defense though, treating rape as property crime, even the charitable interpretation of that, wouldn’t do anything to address intimate partner rape…or probably any rape for that matter
@@rowanifill6280 Jordan has NEVER said such a thing. The only way in which you could possibly come to this conclusion would be based on an intentional, bad faith interpretation of his argument
He also did not state that rape should be a property crime against men. That is what this woman kept incorrectly “assuming”
He very clearly stated that women have autonomy over their own bodies, their own bodies are their own property, and if we hypothetically treated rape as if it is a crime against the woman’s property (her body)… then it may better help men to understand and relate to the problem
It was also presented as a hypothetical idea to consider, as opposed to a definite solution
The broader context of the discussion was essentially “how do we better make men understand and relate to sex crimes so that we can mitigate them and better prosecute them when they do happen”.
This idea was simply a hypothetical approach. Only a completely backwards and bad faith interpretation could bring you to the conclusion of “what he actually means is that men should own women”. It’s pretty unsophisticated thinking to end up at that conclusion
This woman is insanely ridiculous. She literally said if 1 in 8 woman are getting raped then the other 7 are “just lucky” 💀
Those statics were all proved to be bogus and that tells you how she sees men in general.
The stats are closer to 1 in 3!
SMH 🤦♂️
@@TheBreechieThats just not true. First off the studies you are citing are not 1 in three women generally it is 1 in 3 ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES. Secondly the the study was about sexual assault not rape specifically. Thirdly the studies broadly included in the definition of assault things like clumsy unwanted kiss at the end of a date, and desired and welcomed sexual contact under the influence of Marijuana and alchohol. Fourthly the surveys were structured in such a way as to tip the scales in the bias of the social "scientists" and students conducting the surveys. Just the littlest bit of research on this point would save you from the implied boogeyman b.s. that is being spouted here.
Now the next thing for you to do is to imply that I don't really mean what I say or to smuggle in implications that no reasonable person would interpret me to mean. Accuse me of "dog whistling"... this shit is strait out of Kafka.
@@TheBreechieCommon sense should tell you that this can't be. 1 in 3 would be war zone numbers. Do you think college campuses are as bad as war zones in terms of rapes?
Dog whistle: when the person you don't like didn't say the thing you needed them to justify your preexisting contempt for them so you pretend they are speaking in a secret code.
It's super funny to me they believe they know something about somebody that they haven't expressed themselves
And they haven't yet started a career in mindreading
I frequent one of the last open forums for pretty extremist right winged views and there's definitely a strong prevalence of meming. The 13/50 is a reference to a whole undercurrent of implications and intentionally and enthusiastically so.
Her: *proceeds to interrupt* can I ask you something?
Him: *proceeds to answer*
Her: Can i please finish my point?
This girl was incredibly bad faith, and you had so much patience with her
Time stamp?
@@Astrussy constantly throughout the debate. She would even ask him a question and after he’s fully answered, she would then just say “ haha you didn’t answer my question” even though he did.
@@Astrussy the first 45 minutes
Hopefully he bangs her soon so we don't have to listen to her anymore.
@@MileenaUltra She has to ask him for words or definitions of words. Destiny is only doing this to get his dick wet.
I'm going to parrot one comment I saw in the subreddit by /fingoloid which I agree completely.
Jordan Peterson does NOT mention making rape a property crime against women, NOR advocating returning to it being a property crime against men. His arguments were:
- Rape used to be a property crime against men therefore they had a personal stake in it
- After the sexual revolution it no longer was such, and it was a crime against the woman's person instead of being a property crime
- Peterson is not sure if rape being a crime against the woman's person and men not having a personal stake in the crime is good enough
- Therefore we should explore other ways to increase the stakes for the men who are not involved.
I (and apparently Destiny) don't see how you get anything else from what he said.....
Other ways including or excluding them be seen as men's property? Because if he didn't rule that out, that flow of statements absolutely makes it sound like he's nostalgic for women being seen somewhat as men's property.
@@SteveDawgNZ That’s my impression, as well. While I don’t think it’s appropriate for people to be hysterical about things he didn’t actually say. It’s kinda delusional to act like he’s always so clear with the tone of his statements. 😂
@@SteveDawgNZ I am so glad I’m not the only one scratching my head here. Like isn’t this all coming back full circle to suggest women should be seen as men’s property? 🤔😂
@STIKY55 yea i really disliked when destiny said men tend to care about property, and thats why they'l be invested. Like how they own their own house.
That was a much more simplistic interpretation of what peterson said
I think the entire time she used the word valid differently than he does. She uses it for "correct" and he uses it for "sound logic".
Destiny's being the correct usage.
To be fair, most people aren't educated formally on prop logic unless they take a logic or ethics class at some point.
Kind of how most people incorrectly use accurate and precise interchangeably when they're not.
@@SirLied i think he didn't notice that she doesn't understand what he means by "valid". but he really should have. too many people don't understand his usage of it. i remember him dedicating some time in the past to explain it. he should've have caught on that she thinks valid means correct.
Jordan Peterson is just exploring an idea, he is not advocating for going back to make women property. That being said, it's a pretty dumb idea to explore, I don't see what constructive conclusion can he derive from it.
It can easily be misinterpreted by anybody who doesn't already like him. It just makes it harder to defend him from the people who accuses him of being misogynistic.
The whole thing is just dumb
Asking him to engage with the conversation nicely but giggling mid-sentence constantly and condescendingly was soooo annoying. I don't know if she's doing it unintentionally or what.
I'll take "things Jordan Peterson did not say" for 100, Alex.
It's really pretty funny how with damn near zero exceptions, all of JP's haters are deliberately dishonest about the way they present his views and his own words.
@@markzuckergecko621 I wonder why. There's enough to hate with full context. Like, if you wanna hate, at least do the work, lmao
JP clearly says that there were benefits to men viewing rape as a property crime against him and Destiny misunderstood that.
@@dannyburns2394 what were those benefits?
Its a braindead take from JPB because that implies men are not capable of seeing rape as bad unless it's seen as property damage against another man.
Its apple cider brain rot.
Listened to this live. She walked back almost everything and embarrassed herself thoroughly by the end, all while giggling like a redact
And yet she still won. In the end destiny agreed with her about Jordan Peterson and said she was correct in her assessment.
@@DaniDaWolf Destiny jumped the gun on that point and committed too quickly without understanding her viewpoint sure, but never conceded the larger point about uncharitable progressive reaction to everything JBP. And the rest was a dumpster fire
@@ryanevans8323 hee he!
@@kwisatzhaderach2166yeah he did. He just slowly stopped fighting about it and said she had good points.
Also she got him when she pointed back to his answer about “judging someone body of work” to listen to points that are a bit sus and not be charitable toward Jordan Peterson
The first 18 minutes are already awful.
This is the first Destiny video I've ever watched, and although we disagree on quite a bit, the patience displayed in this video is damn near saint level. Respect.
I don't agree with him on almost anything but he is admirable for his consistency and standing his ground. His opinions are crap but his integrity is top notch and at least is fairly honest and he can be pretty funny at times too. Cheers.
@Michael Merryman what is his crappiest opion.
@@michaelmerryman7806Because he doesn't reinforce all your beliefs
@@dxshawn532 I like him for his integrity. My beliefs are mine I don't need youtubers to reinforce them. I do appreciate him having his beliefs and not compromising them in the face of pressure, backlash or threats. He isn't a people pleaser but he's obviously intelligent and takes a reasonable stance on most things even when I don't agree.
@@PatrickOMulligan I think he has alot of crap opinions but they're his to have as mine are mine to have and yours are yours to have.
I just want Destiny to speak to a normal, well balanced, human being.
I know right, sometimes I’m yelling at my screen (at whoever Destiny is talking to )because of their stupidity.
I can’t get over how many people cannot either understand what they’re reading/hearing OR cannot listen without filtering it through their own bias.
Imagine naming Sam seder as a good-faith analyst of Jordan Peterson 🤣
The bucket man cometh
I've never heard them analyze Peterson, but I remember back in 2015 or so, hearing them talk about Sam Harris was what made me stop following their show.
It was the most uncharitable, hyperbolic stuff.
It's the kind of thing that makes you wonder -- "if they're being this bad-faith about this, what else are they being dishonest about?"
It's a shame, i think Seder is a very intelligent guy otherwise.
Imaging brining up SS and "everyone she talked to" to try and validate her understanding and then getting mad at Destiny when he said "you people" 😂
SS is the bucket of cum guy, right.
She has the same condescending affectation that his producers have.
Real top g moment when he said "if women are property, then I'm a slumlord"
LOL where is this
@@pungentzeus timestamp: trust me bro
Don't conflate that idiot tate with Jordan Peterson please.
@Nonya Business you're right that's not fair. Tate hasn't had a benzos addiction.
I feel like this girl learned what the word "debate" is yesterday and tried taking a stab at it here.
Peterson didn't just say he's "very sympathetic" to the way rape is currently construed. He said he's sympathetic AND that he thinks it's fundamentally true, but in addition there's the point he made that could be appended onto that.
This was a truly unsophisticated conversation
The argument that destiny believes jp is saying is that in order for men to care we should make rape against women a property crime, which necessitates women being a property for the rape to be a property crime, and also to make them care about the rape, which from my understanding, people care about rape without it being a property crime against the victims, men and women
@@redaderoua8816 That's not the argument.
Jp is saying that by adding the label of "property crime" together with the existing ones, the overall effect would strengthen protection for women, which is true.
@@redaderoua8816 i don’t understand how destiny is justifying jordan peterson having this take tbh. his explanation makes no sense, men do not care about crimes to properties that are not their own
@@DavidJones-ot8qu In fact people in general care more about a crime when it's committed against a human being vs a crime committed against a property, A father is gonna care more about his daughter getting raped than he would care if his car was stolen, so making rape a crime seen as a property crime would be viewed less harshly
@@redaderoua8816 yeah i could see this being true, i am totally lost with these half-assed justifications
I actually like Katee because she is consistent with her leftist talking points. You can predict everything she's gonna say because she's pure textbook online leftist.
absolutely disgusting human
@@bruhmoment042right on!!! So we should just have no ideas!!!! ❤❤❤
Funny, that's the exact reason why I dislike her
@@BryanJordan1 It makes good content
So, no argument, just I don't like online leftists?
This might actually be the most mind numbing argument I've ever experienced.
agreed. this hurts so so so so bad.
There is waaaaaay worse though. Only on destiny's channel there are a ton already.
How the hell did she misinterpret Peterson so badly
Whenever I hear this lady talk, I’m reminded of the phrase that it’s the Mark of an intelligent person if they can entertain an idea without accepting it. I don’t think she can do that.
Tbf, this space (politics) has become very rigid in that regard, very little people think outside their tribe, let alone entertain any idea that goes against (even a little) what they believe
So, not to excuse her, and I do agree with you on this point, but I think the problem with people like Kate here is that humans are pattern searching creatures. Everyone has kind of been indoctrinated by algorithms, unintentionally, to see only the most extreme examples of the people who disagree with them, because those examples provided in videos and memes are the most interacted with. You begin to categorize in your own mental inventory the ideas that people who are "on the other side" are all maniacs, and that even if they sound reasonable that they are secretly doing x, y, and z.
It is kind of hard not to see Kate here as primarily interacting with politics primarily through Twitter, reddit, tik tok, Instagram, etc, given that she seems obsessed with the idea of people harboring secretly extreme views and discounting actions.
Yes, there are liars and schemers out there, but for the most part, the best arbiter of what people really think and how much they care about that is their actions. If Rupert Murdoch suddenly began donating heavily to Progressive causes, even while he was espousing solely Right Wing views, while we may not call that person a Progressive, but we certainly would not lump them in with people like a Steven Crowder or Ben Shapiro, who both espouse Right Wing Views AND donate to Conservative causes or work closely with them on projects. In this scenario, Rupert goes under a kind of 3rd column until we can figure him out. Let's call that "more data needed."
She is trying to lump Destiny into "not Progressive" because he expresses some views that are not dogma to Leftism (highly critical of Communism, not a fan of the current NB meta, believes that some aspects of the trans rights and BLM movements are toxic and should be pushed to the back of left wing thought, holds women to a higher standard and believes they take responsibility for their own safety), despite the fact that Leftists who are not on the "We need $25 an hour minimum wage now" would probably appreciate the things he does to further push the Overton window to the left. He challenges right wing figures on their own shows, such as Lauren Southern, Red Pill Gurus, Nick Fuentes, etc, he is commonly accepted in those spaces and has been slowly poking them and causing leaks, he rallied supporters on the ground for Warnock two elections in a row, he sets a high standard by paying the people who work for him very well, he dyed his hair blue, he has a girl's name, what's not to like?
@@Lupostehgreat no I definitely agree with you. I think one thing that is a Bernie supporter had to learn, and with these terminally online left-wing people will soon learn. Is that most people aren’t extremists. The far left in the far right, are a very tiny minority when it comes to the general population. Most people are either more towards the center, or have no idea what’s going on. I wonder if these online leftists ever saw destiny debating more center write figures which he has done. Those conversations are a lot less toxic because those center right figures are more towards the center. I actually really like those conversations.
@@jordanwhite8718 yup, and when he debates far right figures like Fuentes you become aware of how far diverged their views are from one another. Destiny is a moderate lefty, like myself, and when he debates lefties they become obsessed with sticking him with enlightened centrist memes and other crap like that. Some even go and swear that he's a right winger in disguise and will cherry pick times they swore he was picking on leftists for no reason or abandoning them as evidence.
He doesn't like the clique crap that lefties love to engage in, and they primarily do this because most of the energy of The Left comes from very young people who are not too far removed from High School.
Right wingers obsess over the idea of being a free thinker because the young ones spend so much time being ostracized for their views. They are just as cliquey, but they can pretend to be free thinkers in their own minds because they spent so much time being sidelined and ostracized.
If you talk to enough adults in your expanded circle, though, even if they espouse a seemingly extreme view it is more likely to be undergirded by no actual thought about what it means. It's just water cooler conversation, or self serving crap that sounds good to them. If you poke and prod most people, you can drive them back to the center with relative ease.
@@wilsonsanabia4259has become? Was there ever a time it wasn't like that?
This might be one of the most difficult people I have had to listen to argue. She might have good points but I will almost never know them because I have to listen to giggling, condescending tones, baby voices.
It is beyond frustrating.
It's all designed, and she even admits it, to entertain and is more important than facts or the argument to her.
It's just as bad to hear Destiny breathe through her mouth instead of her nose like a sane person would.
@thedamnati
katie: "Can I ask a question.. teehee"
Katie: "may I say something please...teehee"
A true orator tolerates any discussants willing to debate. Gotta be patient 🙏 😌 💯 🙌 👌 💪 🙏
That’s your reptilian brain thinking. Listen over without the threat assessment/judgment overriding everything else, and you’ll find you can ignore the affectations as well as Destiny did and just enjoy the debate. He is extraordinarily patient with her though because it is extremely irritating.
The patience destiny shows is why he is able to reach so many people
in timestamp 1:24:40 Jordan literally says it: "we should return to the idea that rape is a violation of male property rights in a moment because I want to explore that a bit" (not return in practice, but return to it in the conversation), so i think Katee was right that seems to be what he was talking about
Checked time stamp….what?
It would be the equivalent of saying shooting a man dead is not only a crime against the man, but against his mother as well. As the person that raised him.
It’s adding more crimes to confer more protection to the victim. What don’t you guys understand about Jordan’s argument
@@fundirams3240 Katie and even Louise Perry gave good objection to the idea of considering rape as a ONLY a property crime against male kins. A lot of things can go wrong if we do that.
But if we're talking about adding it as an additional crime I guess that can offer more protection in theory. But why would be a "property crime", a son isn't the property of his mother. And why have it against the male kins of the woman? why not her female kins? and what if it's a man getting raped? calling it a property crime sounds wrong to me for so many reasons.
I'm fine with "adding the extra protection" if you mean like the rapist getting two charges one against the victim and one against their kins in theory. But it makes zero sense to me in practice. Legally we don't do that with murder, or theft, or any other crime I don't know why we would need to do that with rape?
God damn, this was like trying to lead a toddler to a plate of broccoli and forcing them to eat. God forbid a guy i disagree with says something reasonable even if the premise may not be true.
Why does everyone completely ignore the first two seconds of the clip where he says he fundamentally thinks it makes sense they changed the law from womens rape being a property crime to women being people. Like wtf.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills
Jordan Peterson said “…bring men on her side to her defense.” HE DID NOT SAY MEN IN HER LIFE. HE SAID ON HER SIDE. She just straight up misheard him and based on her predisposition to JP heard about small portion of what he said made assumptions and based an entire argument on something he simply did not say
The problem with the first thing is that historically women were the property of their father or husband and he brings that up at the start. What this actually is, is Peterson being purposefully vague so as to have an out on Twitter, but also speak to his politically aligned base.
I’m sorry, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth by referencing a historical fact pertinent to the current issue?
@@MrCurbinator yes, when he contradicts said historical fact.
@@ephre how did he contradict it?
@@MrCurbinator and the answer never came lmao
This is a 4k example of bias and strawman craftsmanship. *chef kiss*
Superb work by her here.
Katie def an example of one of those ppl who r so confident but know nothing
Talk and don’t say anything just rather sound smart than be smart lol sounds like destiny when it comes to women and men relations
she definitely wiped the floor with him in the first half
@@rowanifill6280 JP bad make brain go brrrrrrr
@@rowanifill6280 how? She made one decent point about JP's point of view not protecting manless women, but Destiny wasn't even arguing that JP was right, only that that's what he was saying.
It was just a useless conversation altogether, one where Katee was taking the most uncharitable position about what JP said and arguing against it.
She's just reciting beliefs without actually knowing why they're there. She's scripting.
The saying normally goes "Black people commit more crime and therefore we should go get ice cream."
Jews
@@RL-go2lp
Arabs
Destiny let Katee get away with saying "The property crime replaces the violent crime" so much. Jordan Peterson was advocating for the crimes to be compiled, not one to be removed. (I do think that he meant a property crime against the man tho 😬)
“3 is equal to 5.” “No it isn’t.” “I never said it was, my point is just that we don’t address how close they are often enough.”
Destiny's patience is elite.
I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did with all of the bad faith she reeks of.
JP could say anything and this person would imagine it into whatever she needs it to be.
"Do you think that its possible that in thr same way your criticize people with bias that obscure them thst you may also have a bias"
She literally spent the whole time having a bias. What JP said was 100% obvious and when you warch the video hes also coming at it from at "lets ponder hypotheticals" kind of thing he didnt even say thats his actual POV more so a thought expirament.
Jordan Peterson almost never makes prescriptive claims. People need to be able to engage with the descriptive claims he's making, because they're often times true. If you fight against the clearly true descriptive claims, people are going to dismiss what you have to say and the only people you'll have at your side are the people that already agreed with you.
Seems like a pretty fair point. People need to stop chasing dog whistles.
Comes from the professor background. Old school professors taught you how to think, often playing devils advocate with different ideas so you can think about the positions more and the pros/cons of them.
JORDAN PETERSON WANTS WOMAN TO BE PROPERTY!
I haven't watched the video but I'm going to guess Jordan Peterson does not in fact want that.
But he could've said that. And since he could say that then it proves he's a terrible person. Now since we've established that, we can clearly see his arguments are malicious. Pure logic.
@@emergenciest Even if he genuinely thought that, the man is demonstrably smarter, regardless of what one agrees or disagrees with him on, than to just say it because you think he could. So no, your logic falls in shambles ; and then, nowhere in his content is there any evidence that he would say that, has said that, nor even that he believes anything close to that. Now, you're not going to believe that, so let's turn your logic against you :
You could say that you're pro snuggle struggle, so it proves you're a terrible person. Since we've established that, we can clearly see your argument is malicious.
See it's not fun. That's just a claim. JBP could say anything. _You_ could say anything… in fact what I'm responding to is something you said that is pretty stupid, so I wouldn't put it past you to say other stupid things like the example just above.
Being able to say something is not a proof of anything other than being able to use language to express oneself. That's certainly not a proof of one's character. If you want to make a judgment of character, then you have to prove, not that it can be said, but that it has been said. If you don't need that proof then you're ready to make a judgment call based on nothing, and quite frankly, from there, your "logic" becomes worthless and anything you say can be discarded without anything more than what you've already said.
@@lonewaerwooosh
Not a one person that Destiny ever speaks with/argues with is smart enough to contend with Peterson except Destiny himself. Even Mr. Girl wouldn't stand a chance because that psychotic, emotionally abusive man-bitch rarely says anything that isn't "Destiny why don't you like me? Destiny why did you destroy our relationship?" Because he's a pussy and has the biggest hardon for Destiny ever.
@@lonewaer he was joking
This was such a simple point to understand (25 minutes in) that I cannot fathom how she interpreted it in that way. The irony behind her asserting Destiny’s inherent biases baffled me just as much as it did to Destiny.
I think the reason women are likely to be assaulted multiple times is because of how we are conditioned to act not only as we are raised to be polite and smile, but also if you've been molested as a child your response to trauma is different. Its not just fight or flight, there's also freeze and fawn too. Like for example, I was molested for years as a child, by someone I was supposed to trust, because of not fully understanding the severity of what was happening to me and it being someone I was supposed to trust I just went along with it. Years later being in vulnerable situations and having mental issues, my trauma response is to fawn, that's my coping mechanism for trauma, which is why I end up being more likely to be assaulted again. So instead of clearly stating my boundaries I will fawn in uncomfortable situations so I don't get hurt. Or years later telling a guy no repeatedly and then pretending to sleep(thinking he would stop) while he did whatever to me, even though I clearly stated no I was too afraid to get myself out of the situation so I still ended up assaulted. No its not always the fault of whoever I'm with, but there should be more education for children in general about sexual encounters that is obviously far beyond the obvious. especially with people who do have previous trauma.
Thanks a lot for the courage to bring this up 🙏, Very important contribution. Best of luck and healing to you.
This is why we can’t have discussions about anything anymore. She was so ready to attack Jordan over something she was completely misunderstanding. Hilarious. She was so primed to be like “Jordan bad”
I think that's incredibly unfair to her considering the kind of comments Peterson has made such as if a woman wears make up in the work place and gets sexually harassed she deserves it (Asian guy interview). Destiny was completely right when he said his fans tend to overestimate their ability to have conversations based on how he has them when he would be considered exceptional.
She's wrong bc she's misinterpreting this particular clip. Based on the totality of his work however which very clearly implies an extremely degrading view on women ppl assuming this is what he meant while wrong isn't remotely out of bounds or even unreasonable.
@@testcase6997 that is simply not the case. To pretend it takes any significant bending to see contrary to your view really just demonstrates that you are seeing this clearly at all.
@@goddessrick8734 he didn't say any of that ah. I really feel so disappointed in young women these days, they are so ignorant.
@@goddessrick8734 i saw the interview and you are wrong about that interview aswell. You missunderstood what jordan peterson said in that interview aswell. He raised the qestion if it would be better to forbid woman to wear makeup at the workspace to reduce sexual harrassment at the workplace. Its the same logic we used for children in schools and school uniforms. And he said he thinks it would have that effect and its reasonable to assume that it would reduce sexual problems at work. Infact sexualisation at the workspace in general
@@goddessrick8734 Worst paraphrase ever. Either you did not watch that interview in whole, did not understand the finer poings made, or are a purposeful bad actor. There has never once been a time that Peterson has ever said "woman wears make up in the work place and gets sexually harassed she deserves it." Ever!
This unsophisticated woman doesn't even understand his sentence 🙄
Anybody that thinks that rape is THAT common is so out of touch that it's pointless to even talk to them about any of those subjects.
@shrödinger's cat bruh isn’t that a death penalty under sharia?
Bro, he managed to be patient with this teenager for literally two hours. I cannot believe the patience Destiny has. Even tho he 'sorta' snapped more than once he managed to keep his cool. He's got a real-life superpower to deal with these sorts of people.
Why do you see him as being patient but not her? They both disagree, they are both having the same discussion, she does nothing but disagree with him the same way he disagrees with her. So... she is also being patient and trying to frame her various points so he can understand what she is getting at and visa she also consitently checks in with him to make sure she is understanding him. What did she do wrong? This is a friendly causual debate, why be so mean to her for no reason?.... hmmmm maybe causer she's a wo---
@aprilfool6076 He never said she wasn't being patient lol. Just that destiny was being patient with the things the girl was doing. Bunch of bad faith arguments and sarcastic giggling and whatnot. He didn't do those things.
Has Destiny ever tackled the innate issue with the term 'dog whistle' in that anything can be labeled as one?
Not in a debate, but just dressing down and explaining how this (actually real) concept can be used to basically put words in people's mouthes.
I've seen it happen so many times. Controversial person says something innocuous, then an extreme partisan reads wayyy too much into it and says 'THAT'S A DOGWHISTLE'
If you can hear dogwhistles, you yourself are a dog
Yeah I personally rarely ever even want to engage with debating if someone is dog whistling or not because it just always feels like I'm arguing with someone's paranoia...not anything concrete. And I'm not a mind reader.
Funny thing about Dog whistles. Only the dog hears them.
@@bertellijustin6376 I've always wondered how people outside the group the dog whistle is supposedly for can also hear it. Like, when people say something this a white supremacist dog whistle... How can they hear it if they aren't a white supremacist?
@@Zanroff because at best you can recognize old and outdated dogwhistles. But like the op said, the vast majority of the time crying about dogwhistles is usually just strawmanning with extra steps.
Imagine my glee listening to two pieces of property debate JP
Be careful hating on concepts of property because it isn't evil. Owning people is evil but owning property is not. Take a serious look at people that demonize the concept of property and see how fucking god damn much property they have. Regardless of how you think about WEF and Klaus Schwab, when he says "you'll own nothing and be happy" he is not including himself or his friends in that statement. They will own everything and probably still be mostly miserable as people but are fine with it.
@@ZackHeise What are you doing in the house zack? shouldnt you be out int he fields.
i actually cannot stand this person, i have no idea why destiny cuts her so much slack with the passive aggression and condescension. i dont talk like this, normal women dont talk like this, this isnt normal, she is genuinely unbearable.
I can't believe I've subjected myself to this entire video. I can feel the brainrot setting in.
1.5 speed goes hard on destiny videos
This was so dumb. After the Twitter Files debate I thought I'd dip my toe back in the pool, but I'm out. Nothing useful came of this conversation.
The horrible part is that, the great majority of these convos are aimed at us, the speakers try to change our ideas, not so much their opponent. Maybe it's because he's the only one that can represent the other side as well (or better) than his opposition, but I think destiny try to engage with the person in front, rather than the audience
@@averybuchanan2029 thank you so much for this, unironically 1.5 speed is keeping me from ripping my hair out now
Man she was unbearable. Blabbing the entire time and not even once mentioning that she has a girl's name.
When Destiny gave advice about casual sex he made a very strong argument against it lol
😅
Destiny is a smart guy, but so dumb here. He says he is objectively right about something that he is wrong about. He needs more introspection and less debate bro mode all the time.
It was explicitly mentioned that the "sexual revolution changed the way rape was considered as a property crime to being against the women herself". This implies that before the sexual revolution that rape was considered as a property crime. There was never a time where RAPE was considered an act against a women's 'property'. Therefore it HAS TO MEAN that rape was considered to an offense against a man's property (ie. the woman).
So JP is saying there may be advantages to women being treated as mens property. its objectively the only way to read this if you actually listen to what is said.
Exactly, why would JLP mention male protectors at all if it wouldn't be a property crime against men? Such an autistic interpretation by Destiny and sadly very telling for his audience that didn't pick it up.
She is insufferable. How hard can it be to not act like a child? There are rules for conversation that make it easier to listen and pick up info you would like to distribute
u are all insufferable
I do think it’s pretty immature to make snarky jokes like the “capitalism brain rot” line which carries all kinds of connotations, then when you’re called on it, whine about how you’re not allowed to make jokes. You’re allowed to make jokes. But if your jokes are meant as critique, they’re not just jokes, are they?
Do you talk to people in person usually? Because saying the rules for a conversation shows you don't
@@xMXWLx Communism brain-rot
@@xMXWLx but he can articulate his ideas and lay out a cohesive defense of his beliefs. This bimbo doesn’t even know how to form a proper thought.
says she is reading a direct quote TWO TIMES and wasnt even the fucking quote let alone misunderstood.
I'm a JP fan, and Destiny is clearly wrong. Obviously her reading of what he said was correct. But her reading of his intentions is wrong. He was just playing devils advocate, even acknowledging that there may have been an advantage in being seen as property, he said its true that it was better that they are not anymore on the whole
Nobody with even a tangential intellectual dent to Hegel can fathom that something that was better than nothing, that was superseded by something on balance better, might still have had aspects to it where it was better than what came after.
History has to be a progression from absolutely worse in every way to absolutely better in every way. If history is a progression of more clever trade offs then it can't end in a trade off free Utopia.
The unintellectual dark left is actually a joke. Kids don’t fall for this garbage!
I think you meant the feminist, whose name is not Destiny, that's the guy streaming
@@seer3336 He's saying they are both wrong in a way. Destiny is wrong about what JP is saying, and the femenist is wrong about his intentions when is saying it, and what context he is saying it in.
@@cadesigl7845 Oh i see
When you go into a debate about how your basic reading and english comprehension skills aren't even at a 6th grade level and you can't even understand how wrong you are how can you even think you can debate the subject itself? My god she doesn't even understand what JP is even saying.
Seriously. Her whole premise that JP advocates for women to be legal property is erroneous and a gross misinterpretation of what he meant, and she’s concerned Destiny is the one who’s biased? Give me a break. I’m so tired of some women who cringe at the idea we learn how and when to make smarter, more confident decisions for ourselves as if that’s a patriarchal concept that absolves men from having any responsibility for their actions or empathy as a whole. It’s so damn infantilizing.
This women is really confident in her misunderstanding. What arrogance.
She's unable to commit to a single point and defend it. This is 2 hours of her beating around the bush, then walking points back once Destiny addresses them head-on.
I don't get it. I don't think Destiny is interpreting his words right. What's the difference then between treating R like a crime against a woman personally and treating R like a crime against a woman's property ( herself ) ? It's basically the same thing. It doesn't make sense to suggest the latter is something men will immediately care more about.
This is so bizarre. Destiny literally used to make this same argument about Peterson. Even better than this chick is. Peterson lays out some descriptive claims that lead to pretty obvious conclusions & then hides behind his ability to say that he never said the thing should happen. How did Destiny forget this.
He hasn't forgotten. He's views aren't static. He's evolved and now understands the futility of begging the question by chasing dog whistles.
@@Neognostic-pk5wuHer point is Peterson is more or less saying in a roundabout way that a significant proportion of the male population doesn’t have anything wrong with rape in principle. That’s an insane thing to say.
@@totezmcgotez44 that WOULD be an insane thing to say. But that's not what he's said.
He stated that men might simply be able to emphasise EASIER with situations built around concepts like property violations over concept like humanitarian violations, which possibly feel more abstract to a lot more men.
Do I in essence agree? I'm not sure I do, and I sure as hell know it doesn't apply across the board to all men. And I'm pretty sure in the context of this discussion, neither did Peterson - and it was pretty clear he was going devil's advocate with a legal idea that might assist to solve a problem.
Perhaps he prescribes this as a possible way to make men in general to invest amd empathise because the the psychological predisposition in men to take significant interest in things more than people overall? I'm not certain and I'm not even sure he does.
@@totezmcgotez44visit Afghanistan and then decide if you disagree with that observation about humankind
"define more partners", when someone asks that type of definition, it's because they don't know what to say
Nah I think she was trying to ask if he meant more casual partners vs. more intimate partners
Don't know but this just feels like a ' I'm here to disagree with you and you will interpret everything I say in the most uncharitable way possible ' all the while she calls him triggered and disagrees with him on principle.
Destiny come on... Historically rape was considered a property crime against the man who owned the woman. When he brought up rape as a property crime to bring her male protectors to her defense he was clearly referencing that. He even said he didn't think considering rape a property crime against HERSELF was enough to bring males on her side to her defense.
You included words in that final statement that weren't in the video.
If you just put the words you want to hear into people's sentences you can make them argue for or against anything you could want them too.
Yes he’s adding more protection for the women 😂😂 what don’t you understand ? It’s basically that
Rape shouldn’t just be a crime against the human involved, we can add another layer of it being property crime. Which would add more protection for the women. Its literally layering on the different crimes rape should be considered. He’s not saying strip away the one crime and replace it with property crime. Use your brain a bit.
It would be the equivalent of saying shooting a man dead is not only a crime against the man, but against his mother as well. As the person that raised him.
@@fundirams3240 This is dangerous logic though. What if the mother is the one who shot him?
Considering the vast majority of sexual violence against women is committed by intimate partners or family members, this framework doesn't make a ton of sense. It's not like some raider is coming to rape a woman and all the village men have an interest in protecting her. Instead it's the village men who have a vested interest in making their sexual violence against the women in their community unpunishable, which in effect is what treating women like property actually does. Peterson's position is completely flawed in this regard (besides being grossly dehumanizing to women as people).
What's up with everyones attitude towards Katee? Seems like a lot dislikes her more than the neo-nazi Fuentes
Fuentes is a joke and everyone knows it, so we just don't take him seriously. Half the time folks are laughing at him because it's fun.
I hate how they keep equating grapes with assaults. In her 1 in 10 in relationships figure, they also polled men in relationships and it was close to the same rate. Also that figure included verbal and emotional sexual abuse. An example they gave: if a wife is trying to make out with her husband in public, he says not here or stop, and she pouts in a way that makes him feel like it's his fault, that would be reported as verbal or emotional sexual abuse or coercion
That sounds like a women you shoud dump instantly .
I think lefties do such a disservice to themselves by going on and on about Peterson. He doesn't say anything outrageous or extreme, he generally espouses pretty standard and accepted stuff and being outraged about it makes them look insane.
Well the people who are outraged by him are insane. That's why they look insane.
I think it's how he leaves stuff open ended that throws people off. Usually when people bring up a problem they have a solution, he just brings up a lot of problems and says "idk what to fucken do and I don't think anyone else does either"
@@dudestolemyname69 there's nothing wrong with that. Nobody has all the answers to life, society is a pretty complex thing, we've never gotten it 100% right. If we had ever stumbled across some perfect formula to how a society should function, then every nation would just do that and we wouldn't even debate and discuss these things anymore.
@markzuckergecko621 100% agree my man. Uncomfortable stats fucken suck and micro-collectives are as selfish as individuals
His views are extreme and factually incorrect. He thinks “left wing marxists” which are an ill defined group are vying to turn the US into an authoritarian hellhole and he uses extreme examples that he further lies about to further his belief. He first drew attention by lying about bill c-16 because he dislikes trans people and he wanted to push his nonsense conspiracies. That’s not “standard” or “accepted”
I really try to give people a fair chance and listen to them objectively, but she irked my entire soul this whole video. She kept calling Destiny triggered whilst responding from being triggered.
The way destiny minimized the Jordan Peterson video and forced her to watch him play Factorio without her consent was very triggering.
So smug and so transparently ideologically motivated. As a liberal this is the kind of person who i am ashamed to have on my side. 😞
He was toying with the idea and to maybe reconsider that, which is absolutely abhorrent and disgusting for somebody that cares about women as human beings and not trying to revert back to a time where they were considered Less than that
@@redaderoua8816 abhorrent and disgusting for people who care about women 😂. That's you projecting moral superiority of a discussion on what might help women more. Why the fuck can't it be both. Why can't society put focus on women being an autonomous self governed person, who if is a victim of rape has the law on her side to find justice and if she chooses to, put in or instate that she is part of a partnership which damages the property of the organization aka marriage unit of partnership. Anything to give more aid to women and punish rapist is a plus. I don't think you are considering that rapist get let go so easily in a court of law. The term "throw the baby with the bath water means maybe an old idea may have a few good points that worked but the but are lost because the intire concept is viewed bad.
@@EdgarLopezInk Please tell me when did jordan peterson mention that maybe we should take rape as a property crime against an "organization aka marriage", I don't think you even know what property means you dumb fuck, The term property necessitates an owner owning something (property) and to do whatever he pleases with it, jordan peterson mentions that this was how it was looked at back then before the sexual revolution where rape against a women wasn't a crime against her as an autonomous human being but as a property related crime against the men that inadvertently "owned" her be it the husband or the dad etc.. this is what jordan is toying with, and Please tell me why rapists don't get harsh enough penalties and sentences WHEN and when they get convicted and found guilty?
Remember when Destiny used to argue with actual intellectuals? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
He still does, but you somehow miss it?
Bring back Scholars like Demon Momma and Lance from The Serfs TV.
I mean he lost here
@@Killer1260 nah I see them, but this is just painful.
@@swerzye4472 what? 🤣
Never seen someone in a debate ask the other person "are we talking about..."? "Oh but that weakens my argument". She's a master at murkying the waters