Joe Rogan Calmly Obliterates Jordan Peterson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2018
- In this Majority Report clip, sucks when your Vulcan logic philosophical guru gets wrecked by the Fear Factor guy.
We need your help to keep providing free videos! Support the Majority Report's video content by going to / majorityreport
"he Canadian psychology professor and culture warrior Jordan B Peterson could not have hoped for better publicity than his recent encounter with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News. The more Newman inaccurately paraphrased his beliefs and betrayed her irritation, the better Peterson came across. The whole performance, which has since been viewed more than 6m times on RUclips and was described by excitable Fox News host Tucker Carlson as “one of the great interviews of all time”, bolstered Peterson’s preferred image as the coolly rational man of science facing down the hysteria of political correctness. As he told Newman in his distinctive, constricted voice, which he has compared to that of Kermit the Frog: “I choose my words very, very carefully.”"*
Read more here: www.theguardian.com/science/2...
Watch the Majority Report live M-F at 12 p.m. EST at / samseder or listen via daily podcast at Majority.FM
Download our FREE app: majorityapp.com
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: jointhemajorityreport.com
LIKE us on Facebook: / majorityreport
FOLLOW us on Twitter: / majorityfm
SUBSCRIBE to us on RUclips: / samseder
"The Most Influential Philosopher of Our Time" getting owned by a guy who comments on jiu jitsu fights while smoking marijuana.
juan gomez
Hey man, I smoke a ton of weed, and I...
Shiiiiit, that *is* a pretty sick burn.
The Ghost of Flekk Bone Gnawer
PERST MERDERNISTT!!11!!!!
Classical Liberal sounds eloquent, cultural Marxists sounds evil. How about we start calling Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin and their like - Ayn Randists.....or....cultural Randists.
The Ghost of Flekk Bone Gnawer
Marxist marxist marxist merxist merxist murxxist merxshist mrxst mrsx mrx mrmrx
MURXXXXX
Wow, now that you mention it "12 Rules for Life" IS brilliant! Thanks, friend!
*Autofellatio*
tbh Rogan is doing better poking holes in some of these guys than others and I think it is because he just kind of does it in this chill way where it doesn't look like he's trying to pigeonhole them .
Universal
Basic
Intercourse
Only for a bunch of pathetic repugnant incels.
🤣...IDW, Peterson promotes the ‘Intelligent Distribution of Women’.
Watching this in Jan 2023 and man how Joe Rogan has changed--doesn't challenge JP on anything anymore.
noticed this too rip
thats why i clicked on this vid, after about 2 dozen 3 hour jordan peterson and ben shapiro oil fracking billionaire funded propaganda sessions joe has fully become a reactionary idiot who has lost touch with anything involving reasoning
@deedeetops the ignorance is strong in this one.
They just blow each other now
Also notice how he doesn’t appear to be on steroids whereas it’s very obvious he is today
Man, it’s so bad for the kids if their mom sleeps around, but it’s not a problem if the kids’ parents don’t have access to healthcare, or housing, or food according to Jordan Peterson.
BS
@@blackfrancis55 Oh? Please show me where Jordan Peterson talks about how these things are huge problems for kids growing up then? If what I'm saying is BS, you should have no trouble producing the evidence.
@@Pierre-gk5ky Your "evidence" is that he doesn't talk about it, so therefore that is what he believes?!? 😆 That's a joke dude. That's why it's BS. You would have us believe that Jordan P. doesn't believe people should have food, housing or healthcare? 😂 Whatever...
@@blackfrancis55 What you (or in this case JP) decide to talk about is pretty solid evidence for what you believe, and what you believe is important.
If you decide to bring up a parent's promiscuity as a problem and talk about it on political talk shows, but don't talk about the issues I mention above, then you clearly believe the one you brought up is more important than the other.
And if you actually think that promiscuity is more important than healthcare, housing or food, then you're a moron. Like Jordan Peterson.
@@Pierre-gk5ky That makes no sense at all. It's BS, and I think you know it. You're attributing false beliefs to him. It's a devious trick, but a highly transparent one 😂!
They need to get Sam a pause button, so he doesn't have to tell them to pause every 2 seconds.
From what I've seen the problem is they use so many different ways to play videos there's no way to give him a pause button. Not even like a giant button that presses "spacebar" would work all the time.
SuperWolfkin just give him all the buttons packed into one really big button. Like, cmon. You know this.
At this point, they should've done this year's ago 😂
I guess they didn't want to have to fired anyone
@@chilli1472 this ain't Staples
so the others would be almost useless, I mean other than licking his balls.
Jordan "Capitalism in the Streets, Marxism in the Sheets" Peterson
i'm stealing that
Nice lol.
I support JP but that’s gold my friend.
Touche
🤣🤣🤣
I love the way Joe doesn't let him interrupt
🙄
Yeah. It's long in the past now
@@annnee6818Still fun to watch.
@@imjstmichael86 Sad because your lobster boy was shit on?
now he just lets anyone spew miss-information and just sits there looking amazed no matter who or what is said. Its a bummer.
“I would argue bitches be triflin.” Best line of the video.
Cause it's true
Yo biotch ok
Michael Brooks lol he has great one liners like that whenever JP is discussed.
"Everybody deserves a basic mimimum" is not the same thing as "equality of outcome"
Exactly, it’s equality vs. equity.
@@salzshakes4895 Basic minimum is not equity either.
Was literally just about to write a 500 word paragraph on this. I love how these guys have to sink to extremes to argue. Fucking idiots.
There are very very few people who argue for equality of outcome though. Even most hard lefties argue for building a stronger worker cooperative sector and well funded local public services like housing, education, healthcare, and utilities. You pay for it by taxing the gains on the people who have the most advantages in our system (and having an efficient budget obviously). Changing the justice and immigration system to ruin less people's lives is another one. All of these things effect outcomes. Again, total and complete equality of outcome is rarely mentioned in my experience with the Majority Report, Jacobin, Chapo Trap House, the DSA, and the Dig.
@@evanferreira8606 also those are libshits who think that progress is more female drone pilots
Oh My God, Joe Rogan embarrassed the entire intellectually dim web
"intellectually dim web" made me laugh. I'm gonna start using that
This channel also has a video saying that Rogan is enabling right wing extremists apparently, and yet has a lot of videos of him ‘destroying’ people who come onto his podcast. So they’re praising the guy they think does that?
Caleb McFarland the two aren’t mutually exclusive. He argues well with some of these reactionary dolts at the same time as enabling them by having them on so often (thereby giving then disproportionate airtime). He should have on Sam or Michael
@@KristianKumpula me too!
When? And in what way? I’m curious.
Jordan is sober. His mind was forced to put its energy into something. Some choose fitness. Others choose faith. Unfortunately (or fortunately) for him, he became one of the most influential antisocial psychiatrists with narcissistic tendencies to entertain society.
well said 100%
That makes no sense because he wasn’t sober when this took place. He was popping valium. He’s allegedly sober now.
He's not a psychiatrist.
That's what happens when you're a benzo addict and too pussy to detox, so you go to Russia to get put into a coma for 8 days so you don't have to be awake for withdrawals. He literally fried his own brain. He is, in the most BASIC sense of the word, NOT a smart man.. for a guy who claims to be super intelligent and alpha, he sure doesn't drink his own Kool-ade
@@googlegoogle9712so j.p was high , what a life j.p has .
"I'm not trying to redistribute the weather..." --hysterical!
This is like when Michael Scott said to Jim "It's not a pyramid scheme" and then Jim draws the pyramid on his diagram.
Rational Reality ACCURATE LOLOLOL HOLY SHIT
Lmao
I actually laughed out loud, thank you!
Unless you think about it it’s not like that at all, nice joke
Lmao!
*in a high pitched JP voice* "I would argue that Bitches be Trifling"
Thanks Michael, you'll always be in our hearts
RIP. Too bright. Too young.
Amen
Wait dude died
@@Str1ek0 unfortunately yes, something quick like an aneurysm, he will be missed.
@@federicomorra2323 May he Rest In Peace
As many people of said JP is "taken out context" the way he get people to believe that is that he constantly makes extremely vague statements so that whatever he says can conform to retaliate to criticism, he is never really taken out of context he just knows how to say he is
He also puts words in people's mouths and conforms his argument based on it
@@nexya26 yes, I swear it's like 90% of his political or philosophical discussions are purely based on straw man arguments
@@nexya26 so the exact thing whoever made this video is doing, putting words into his mouth and saying “so this is his argument” y’all are so ignorant and lack so much self awareness it’s almost unbelievable
@@zwoptf I didn't make the video, I didn't even mention it so saying I lack self awareness is quite ironic isn't it
When JP talks about equality of outcome he is talking about having a % of employees be of X race or X gender , equality of outcome in that case will lead to a worse work force because the employer needs to fill in a quota instead of actually getting the people for the jobs . So yes in this case from the first 4 mins he is arguing against something JP doesn't even stand for or mention. I used to like JP but i have my reasons to hate him now , however i do not respect someone pinning ideas on the guy when he never mentioned them just to "hate" on him coz its cool.
If even Joe Rogan can destroy JP anyone can
what a lazy uneducated response
It’s easy to do when you understand what Peterson is doing. He cannot condense his ideas. He MUST be vague, convoluted, and complicated so that his opposition feels intimidated. I’ve seen several videos of him being asked very simple questions like “Do you believe god exists”, and Peterson said “Well, that’s a very complicated question. What do you mean by “you”, what do you mean by “god”, what do you mean by “believe”?
He skirts around the point so that he doesn’t have to actually explain anything. He sounds very profound to people who don’t realize what he’s doing.
Do you think you'd beat him in a debate?
Sam "Pause it for a second" Seder
Seriously, that’s the one line that always comes to mind when I think of Sam lol
@@patrickgallagher3934 I totally respect that. Thank You.
@@patrickgallagher3934 people ruined it, you can like now
second that...
Hate that so much
Judging by these comments, It’s amazing how many times JBP is “taken out of context”...
lol nail on the head.
It really is though.
"Speak clearly" is one of his rules for life. LOL
He IS taken out of context. Lots. Got it? Good! Now go put on that dunce cap on and sit in the corner
could it be because he actually is being taken out of context?
Everyone deserves an opportunity to be successful, not everyone deserves to be successful.
Another thing that is simple but underestimated with guys like Jordan is their style over substance. Whether he’s higher percentage right or wrong on a point, similar to Ben Shapiro, he just keeps talking. He starts vague but with high dollar words and phrasing causing people to wait for the next thing he says, then he takes you meandering through pseudo-truths until you’re nodding and thinking he really said something. It’s not fast and trying to intimidate like the insect Shapiro, but it does leave little room or time for many to say “well wait a minute”.
Yep
Cool it with the antisemitism
I noticed that contradiction in Peterson's two positions as soon as he started talking about enforced monogamy. I wasn't aware that Rogan had called him out on the contradiction. Kudos for Rogan.
@Warren Higgins the difference between enforcement from government, and enforcement from individuals is superficial. It doesn't change the consequences.
Warren Higgins the mental gymnastics Peterson fans have to do in order to defend such a nonsensical point. Any person with common sense will see through it.
@Warren Higgins Ummm.....Neo- Nazis, Antifa, and radical Islamists have sex.Quite a few of them are married or in some kind of sexual relationship. Neo-Nazis especially have a very sexualized culture as do ISIS and Boko Haram. That's one of their recruiting tools. The peeps in Antifa get laid all of the time. They go to protests and settle down with a partner for the duration of the protests or they are already in a relationship. Obviously, not all of them have sex. Not all of them want to. Ijs, it's incorrect to use those groups as an example. Even if sexuality if somewhat repressed like it is in Right Wing Christianity people still have sex. Why do you think so many of these people marry so young?
@Warren Higgins if Peterson or you knew anything about the Holocaust, about the Genocide, you'd know your point makes no sense.
@Warren Higgins also, since you live under a rock. There are many societies that have monogamy. In Pakistan, the Middle East even though re marrying is allowed in Islam there is a culture of monogamy. Also there is no relationship between women being strong and "fucking guys". This comes from yours and Peterson's extremely poor understanding of feminism.
Extremism is caused by many factors but you have absolutely 0 data to support the claim that it comes from sexual frustration.
The reason Peterson picks this is because otherwise he will have to address hierarchies, concede that hierarchies being corrupt actually stabilize society i.e mysogny, slavery, racism and so on, and then have to retract his point when he characterizes identifying oppressive hierarchies as complaining or playing indentity politics.
This video does have a legitimate criticism of Peterson. @ 15:10 This is where Peterson realizes what he is about to say *directly* contradicts himself. And Kudos to Joe for pointing this out.
What's so funny about this example is that they show him receiving a criticism, *acknowledging that it's a valid criticism*, *and taking time to think it through*. What a sad state we're in, when acknowledging a criticism without an immediate response ready is a sign of being wrong. Because if you ask me, the people who are willing to do that are far more likely to be right than those who seem "immune" to criticism.
@@joealias2594 Yes, you can tell peterson is having these discussions in the genuine pursuit of truth and therefore recognizes when there's a valid point being made
@@joealias2594 Yes, he acknowledges the criticism and takes time to think it through, but he just waves it off and doesn't actually address it. And, it is a sign of being wrong, sorry. Just because I can acknowledge a criticism when someone points it out to me and I think about it doesn't mean I wasn't wrong.
Peterson didn't produce a counter-argument to what Rogan was saying and just claimed that his point and Rogan's weren't contradictory. Then he moved on to another topic.
This guy watches the video before commenting, unlike the Lobster virgins cult.
@@joealias2594 he is wrong but he didn't ultimately concede his point so he is being intellectually dishonest - no reason to glorify that
I’d recommend finding the original version. The amount of interruptions by this guy is infuriating, while adding nothing except time to the clip.
How is everyone deserving a basic minimum the same thing as equality of outcome?
Because if everyone has enough to live the number of people willing to work hard to live out their dreams will greatly diminish. It’s fucked up but hard times breed strong people. Strong people live long and fulfilling lives.
@@johnnybaxter1953 so they want everyone to be equally mediocre?
@@johnnybaxter1953 You have some evidence to back up your assertion that ensuring peoples basic needs are met would cause an epidemic of apathy? We've had 40 years of 'trickle down economics' since Reagan, and we still await the emergence of strong people. We have a small selection of extremely rich people, and an ever growing population close to subsistence. Life already provides hard times for people, free of charge, what we don't need is organisations ensuring that only a few can ever transcend them.
@@2262f3 I just look at the world we live in. Most people are poor, but they don’t do anything to change their situation. They go work their shift at McDonald’s, come home, take a bowl, and watch Netflix. I think having a universal basic income would just become a way to make people even more dependant on the establishment than they already are. If you feed a geese bread everyday, it will die in the wild because it doesn’t know how to feed itself
@@johnnybaxter1953actually, if people don't have to worry about surviving their more likely to follow their dreams, or attain them in the first place. No one said give everyone a mansion, but if everyone had a house, it would provide incentive for better communities. Are their people who would take advantage? Yes, but that's true in any system. I would much rather someone have a house than be on the street where they could be a danger to others or in trouble themselves. The reduction in money paid to the police alone would pay for most of it.
I would also point out that many countries already have a version of this, and it seems to be working for them
He is trying to solve a problem he just created in his mind, and refusing to acknowledge the existing ones.
Which existing problems does he refuse to aknowledge?
Did he create the Black Pill and partly MGTOW ideology in his mind just there?
RARAYAYA RAA can you give me an example of systematic racism?
@@forretressrex9519 Remember when Harvard discriminated against asians? I honestly don't know a lot in this area so eh. Dont take this seriously I'm just that dumb guy in the back guessing an answer because theres noone else answering
InteryCreeper it’s alright bro, and you’re right. That’s actually is a good example of institutional racism that ironically was caused by schools using affirmative action to fill in enrollment spots. I was hoping for more government related but given the fact that affirmative action derived from the government, it was a good example.
Looks like all the Peterson disciples caught wind of this and are really upset.
Yeah I’m quite upset that he can say such stupid shit, don’t get me wrong he’s great at his job and everything, but well, the environment has nothing to do with psychology.
Or just people with common sense judging it accordingly
@@lampseven4894 Please feel free to elaborate. All of us dullards with no common sense are mindlessly waiting for you to usher us onto the path of wisdom.
@@TheNaqoyqatZ yeah that’s about the level of discourse I would expect around here lol
@@lampseven4894 So you have nothing. Got it. That's totally what I would expect from someone with a "nail in coffin" argument! Cheers.
Re-watching this on 2022, missing Michael. They were right all along about Jordan Peterson.
That dude impersonating Jordan at 17:18 is hilarious!! Why didn't Sam let him continue??
He never does lol. Too bad it’s too late
This man sure can talk for a long time without saying anything
Holy fuck I know right
People who don't understand the message love to say that
@@jovaransguplar3019 I understood the message. it just could have been condensed better, it was repetitive and seemed emotionally charged. So who knows
@@haizi7179 thats the issue though. Think about how frequently he gets misrepresented despite his efforts to clarify things. I can't imagine how much worse it'd be if he didn't make things that clear. Essentially he is just answering questions that would inevitably be asked anyway. He's being preemptive about it to avoid the headache, and so there's zero excuses for people who do misrepresent his position. I get it.
@Umberto Eco ok bud
I've been watching TMR's old videos for so long and didn't realise that Michael Brooks had passed away. That's so surprising, I'm shocked. Rest in peace, rest easy, man.
RIP
i didn't know, how sad
@@kssgpv i didnt know till recently either. And i still dont know how.
He died during the pandemic (shut down), from a circulatory problem. Very shocking.
:(
Whenever the right doesnt have a real answer when asked to point out where a behavior is bad they revert to "its bad for kids" even tho its completely unrelated
Sam explaining equality of outcome, really made it clear that he has no idea what JP means with equality of outcome.
I think JP is a quack, but this idea that EVERYBODY must be given something to eat and a place to live. Who is supposed to give it to them and why ?
Yes the analogy of sexuality and inequality of outcome doesn’t work. However that does not mean his whole inequality of outcome premise is invalid in all situations. If I tell you we should allow ALL people to have an equal chance to succeed that is equality of opportunity. Most people agree on that. If I tell you we HAVE to make sure 50% of woman are successful because 50% of men are that is equality of outcome. If I tell you 50% of the stem fields should be represented by woman despite the fact Men show more interest on avg in those fields, that is problematic, and has real consequences. If you don’t believe so why don’t you go look at some of these big companies that have fallen apart and see how bad all aspects have gotten because they put people in positions that shouldn’t be there. So instead of you laughing because someone got tripped up, why don’t you tell your arguments on how everyone having an equal representation, across all fields, no matter what their qualifications, benefits our society??!!
interview him yourself. that'd be interesting
Please
Sam Seder is too stupid to actually understand what Peterson talks about. He takes everything he says literally, even though most of what Peterson talks about is either hypothetical or grounded in evidence. Even though Peterson may claim that various forms of equal outcome may be beneficial in some ways, he still stands by his opinion that equal outcome is dangerous, which it is.
yeah I find it interesting for people to have these sides but never speak to the person themselves.
Liam Hansen
Very very true.
@@PogDuncher fucking facts! lol its so easy to interpret. blows my mind how they take his word and make it seem so bad. Sam seder takes it way too literally and his bias really stands out when he does.
Sam seeing the stockmarket drop a thousand points in a day
*pause it*
Lol, if only haha
Omg I know this is old but the Kermit JP voice has me dying 💀
This is hysterical. Joe has done this with a number of people
The Peterson fanboys getting Triggered!
Who’s Petcov says the incel little beta bitch
Where?
I love the Dislikes. It shows how pathetic the Incel Peterson fanboys are. This video was GREAT
@@native307 "GREAT" is a little hyperbolic.
@@screechingonions2365 very intelligent argument (not)
How come the only time I've heard "equality of outcome" it comes from a right winger saying the left wants it.
Because right wingers like to use it to mean "equality of opportunity"and like to pretend everyone to the left is a a communism.
Same reason Obama never said he wanted to kowtow to his donors... not smart to say but obviously seen.
As big a strawman as “Open Borders”
Because you don't know that you are advocating for equality of outcome.
Michael brooks literally had a video on this channel saying he wanted to cap yearly income at 20 million. that is the beginning of equality of outcome.
his point about how number of single parents has gone down is counteracted by the increase in number of divorced parents
Shared custody is not single parenting.
@@w.s.soapcompany94 but Jordan Peterson didn't talk about single parenting lol, he talked about families were the parents weren't together
Some men do it well. Nick Cannon and all his kids come to mind.
all the power being concentrated in the hands of a few people destabilise society huh? Wow I never knew Jordan Peterson was so based
Is Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin's life coach?
JP is Rubin's daddy.
Insofar as they both are looking to ca$h in on the stupidity of right wing audiences even if it means saying shit they don't believe or care about...yes. Yes, he is.
Life coach, or rather lie coach.
Miranda N Hey O!
I believe that would be the Koch Bros
The only thing the JP incels are hittin' is the dislike button.
BadReligion9 lol fuck off beta bitch
@@screechingonions2365 this is the saddest comment lol. Conservatives trying to be insulted is neverending amusement.
@@Ciph3rzer0 not true. Sam Seder trying to be smart is amusing.
I lied, its fucking torture.
lmaoooo
@@Knekten666 oh yes in pieces. You are SOOOOOOO right. Lol i guess people who call Sam on his nonesense makes them Jordon fanboys. Wouldnt that make ya'll Sam-cucks?? Or some other label thats trendy.
“Not talking about myself, I get crazy tail” 😂🤣😂
17:12 “I would argue…”
🤣
Brooks' Peterson impressions @6:45 @8:06 @10:33 @12:59 @15:24 @17:11
You're welcome.
RIP Michael.
6:45 is my favorite.
lame and juvenile.
Absolutely hilarious
@@scottbarr2889 hahahaha
Classic
This guy has no idea what equality of outcome is.
Lol, not even remotely.
He literally said it means no one should starve. Talk about confused.
Who, Joe? Ikr?
@@arkadihughes4893 nah, the person hosting/ commenting on the Jordan Peterson video. I guess his name is Sam
@@mattshalash awwww you tried.
Because Sam isn't attacking the silly strawman that Peterson throws out. Nobody actually believes in equality of outcome as an ideology except a couple of 19 year old college dumbfucks.
Came here to widen my perspective, im 6:16 in and so far it's just been strawman arguments.
Listening to Sam go on and on reminds me of the guys who once they get the basketball, never pass it again.
Teamwork makes the dreamwork
Isn't the lack of basic income, healthcare, housing even worse for children?
Absolutely, he just want to fix the only problem his incels wealthy white followers have, sex.
+Sadiq Ghazy Absolutely, 13:13 they mentioned that too.
I think maybe the argument should be what the definition of basic, income, health care and housing is.
There's government section 8 housing, and basic cheap food. Matter of fact I've never seen a poor person that wasn't fat. there's health programs for the poor but they're not well funded.
Maybe we need to upgrade what "minimum" or "basic" actually is because believe it or not the "minimum" already exists.
All that matters is whether or not you can force women to have sex with you
Peterson is for basic income, healthcare and housing jeez... would you please stop taking things out of context and spread wrong things? Just imagine being him
8:07 I nearly lost in when Michael did his Jordon Peterson impression. "I'm not talking about myself I get CRAZY tail" lmfao!!!
I love it!
Or when Jordan Peterson's actual comments are so absurd you think its Michael doing an impression .
@@Michael_Paul585 Translation, you can't debate Peterson so you resort to absurd generalizations. The bigotry on the left ...
@@johnnastrom9400 Is it bigotry to make a joke? I thought jp fanboys were free speech die hard, absolutists.
@@johnnastrom9400 Everytime Peterson debates someone knowledgeable he gets destroyed, what are you talking about? His arguments crumble.
After watching both sides of this argument, it seems obvious to me, that the host of this show is the one that hasn't spent 10 mins to think about what JP is talking about. He just jumps on his soapbox and makes what JP talks about into some clown show, and has nothing to do with what he actually is espousing. Equality of outcome is a big difference from equality of opportunity.
smart
@@sophiasanders8321 yes, I can't stand Peterson, but the host is absolutely attacking a straw man, completely misstating the point. It's very annoying because it is possible to critique what Peterson is actually saying.
Exactly. Well said. This guy kn the glasses can barely string a sentence together. I think this guy is about 80 IQ points below JP and thats his problem perhaps
@@PZBrooklyn great explanation by you and that other guy on why what jordan peterson said was super smart, ACTUALLY
it was a very convincing argument and i for one am sorry i doubted the lobster lord's gigantic brain for even a second
I'm 70, and chose not to have children because I've always enjoyed a wide range of intimate relationships, and eschew "stable" activities in preference for travelling, mountaineering and spur of the moment stuff. A lone wolf travels further and faster. I'm that archetypal 6'4" handsome fella that Joe described but generally too shy to milk it or abuse it.
Jordan Peterson-Karl Marx of Punani and Ayn Rand of life.
Lol
lol
oh. my god ☠️☠️☠️
Awesome
Dead on
Look at the ratio and you'll see the how active Peterson fanboys and conservatives are on social media. They're on here to show their feelz
it's concerning and embarrassing...
You have ratios? Please do share! As a non conservative or fanboy, I'm unsure where I fair in these ratios; I heard both sides of the argument and Perterson makes very good arguments.
Could it not be said that anyone posting a comment are there to show their feelz.
@@michaelbennett8981 Not all points he ever makes are bad but the ones in this video are , and they are very conservative views not to mention dishonest. There are centrists and folks with left leaning views who fall for some of his conservative views as well as the "fanboys" and conservatives but it's hard to justify the like to dislike ratio on them because it's easy to fathom a agenda can corrupt peoples judgement more than people defending his sophistry because his points are good because this video broke down why they are riduilous.
@@michaelbennett8981 blah blah, spare me your bs.
feels over reals mydude.
Matt's Peterson impression is hilarious.
It's about 70 percent angry Mickey Mouse
dumb
"In this Majority Report clip, sucks when your Vulcan logic philosophical guru gets wrecked by the Fear Factor guy.
" LMFAOOOOOO
“It’s also possible that bitches be trifling!” We miss Michael Brooks
I saw the dislike ratio and thought this would be a weak argument. Nope, turns out Peterson made a fool of himself and his devoted followers don't know what to do with themselves.
I would suggest you watch the full 2 hour JRE show before making your assumptions based on cherry picked video clips that were cherry picked for the sole purpose of making JBP look as bad as possible. Make up your own mind instead of letting these loons tell you what to think.
Mr somebody you said cherry!
@@SilverCanary1 what no i didn't. Pics or it didn't happen!
@@skulleliete anytime you put someone in front of JP and take the time to analyze what he says you can notice he is making a fool out of himself.
@@skulleliete watch 2 fu*#@* hours??? Are you crazy????
Should’ve had JP on the show to ask him their questions directly rather than make a 20 minute video building straw men in his absence.
He would never do it. He's a coward with his big tears for all incels.
@@JM-ev9gh idk where this whole “incel hero” idea came from, he has many videos where he speaks directly about incel types telling them they need to stop blaming women or society for their misery and shape themselves up. Seems like the exact right message.
@@ang3latos He literally says that men who identify as incels should be able to have sex with women through enforced monogamy. That equality of opportunity should apply in the sexual realm.
Incels love him and that should say a lot
@@JM-ev9gh I think you’re mischaracterizing his points with an intent to discredit him, because I know the talking point you’re referencing. “Enforced” here doesn’t mean legally, the context is that societal enforcement disapproves of infidelity, and that healthy monogamous relationships are encouraged. The type of incel man who feels entitled to sex should instead channel energy into sorting their lives out in order to become desirable by women, which is a perfectly reasonable and healthy thing to do. To say incel men look up to JP is really to say that they are finally hearing an encouraging message to fix their own lives. We shouldn’t just cast these people out, they need help to see what they’ve been doing wrong.
Joe Rogan is just a very simple guy who asks obvious questions (but is also very gullable). He's said good things and stupid things, but is just genuine in what he says.
Not surprising that he easily called out JP's nonsense, probably by mistake.
Yeah, people who suggest that he has some sinister motive are really missing the point. The problems stemming from his output are literally just what happens when an average dude with zero qualifications has a platform that people come to view as a legitimate source of information.
You're talkign about direct consequences. He was talking about indirect consequences. You ever consider the possibility that maybe you're just biased and mischaracterize Peterson's arguments by being purposefully dense?
@@occamsrazor1285 That's an impressively pretentious way to construct a vaccuous ad hom attack.
@@MrLtia1234 That's not an ad hominem attack. Your interpretation of what Peterson said was always the topic. If the discussion were the merit of his agrument and I'd responded how I did, that would be a different story, but you completely ignored the argument in favor of dismissal due to Peterson being non-sensical by your estimation. No proof, just an opinion.
So, your opinion was always the topic. As such; have you considered the possibility that you misinterpretted his argument? Or at least feigning misinterpretation simply because you understand it but don't like it, but otherwise can't argue against it?
And even if what I did WAS an ad hominem attack (which it was not), it would be justified because you're the one that opened the door.
You should probably understand what a tool is and how it works, rather than just pulling it from your toolbag and throwing it at "the problem" in the hopes that it works. All too often people on social media of all kinds see the claim of a logical fallacy work and so they keep it in their back pocket to throw out every time someone disagrees with them with no understanding of what a logical fllacy is (or at least purposefully misapplying it in order to muddy the waters enough to ek out a victory).
@@occamsrazor1285 Not really. that was just the topic of conversation and you're response was vaccuous. Literally just 'You're being dense'.
As you can see, it is possible to be concise about these things. Bye.
"Pause it. "
S. Seder
Jordans is about to explain his point.... "pause it" and let me insert my idea
-sam seder
“Dr Peterson, what’s your favourite colour?”
“Well that depends on what you mean by favourite. And it also depends on what you mean by colour. This is a very complex question... One must acknowledge the underlying verisimilitude that is irrevocably nested within a multi-layered metaphysical substrate which many people fundamentally conflate with their ideological presuppositions with no uncertain irregularity, causing the inadvertent dismissal of Jung's archetypal extrapolation of the quintessential axiomatic juxtaposition required to achieve Raskolnikov's magnitude of Neo-Marxist existential nihilism...”
proud to be first like 👍
We know his daughter likes Red!
Peterson makes more sense than this, C'mon! Haha.
@@karmveer36 Well that depends on what you mean by sense and the word more.
Well that depends on what you mean by Dr. Peterson..
The willing ignorance in every person that argues against JP is amusing to watch
Facts
Rogan wasn’t even arguing with him, he just asked basic questions and destroyed JP’s stupid points.
The problem is having sex/women isn't a fundamental right. While having food/shelter/clean water is a fundamental right. You can't compare the two.
30 years on the left and the only time I’ve heard “equality of outcome” is from right wing carnival barkers.
First time I've heard the term too!
THANKYOU that's cos it's not a thing.
'to each according to his need' means the same thing, no?
@@sidarthur8706 no, it much more approximately means equality of opportunity, a base line of decency we all adhere to. But Marx had a critique for equality of outcomes and recocgnized you could never reach true "equality" bc there will always be situational exemptions or disparities. JBP's analysis of marxist postmodernists (a term ive only ever heard used by him and his followers given the two terms individually are largely incompatible) is flat out wrong on just about every level.
Petah Runs the jewels what, marx meant that the way i'd means equality of opportunity? so he had no socialist welfare state in mind?
Hearing of Michael Brooks, I had to watch this again to hear his laugh and his impression of JP. What a loss. Sorry for his friends at TMR and TYT.
He did a great impression of Sebastian Gorka as well. I'm going to really miss that guy.
whaaaaat? Omg I didn't realize he died this year! At 36 holy shit.
TYT is trash
This one is a classic
@@icorrectly SHUT the fuck up, bitch.
More of this Joe please.
I want to apply for the 'button pausing' job.
Equality of outcome shown in the dislike to like ratio on this video.
@right right That's a bold claim there, buddy. Peterson is one of the least hate worthy people in academia. I'd love to hear your totally unbiased, super duper objective reasoning for why you hate the guy.
@@danstalter he's a junkie hypocrite blaming his wife's cancer for his dependence. He should take his own advice & "clean up his room" before criticizing the world.
@@danstalter he’s actually a moron who doesn’t understand history. Slavoj Zizek owned him into oblivion
@@evanclealand9231 Do you even know the situation he was in leading up to his health crisis? He wasn't a junkie. His health actually declined because he tried to quit benzos cold turkey after he discovered how adversely they were affecting him, and how much they exacerbated his depression and autoimmune issues. He didn't blame his wife's cancer for his dependence (not abuse) even once. He was dependent on them because if he didn't take them, his symptoms worsened, so the drugs that were slowly killing him were also keeping him alive in the short-term. Smugness born of ideological differences is super cringy, man. Especially when you're inferring such awful, untrue things about the crisis he and his family had been facing just because you disagree with and want to try and invalidate him as a "junkie". That's pretty pathetic. Ad hominem does not an argument make.
@@icorrectly there were better solutions than being a junkie hypocrite misogynist.
"I'm not redistributing the weather."
Hilarious how this aged
"I keep fucking up all my friends when they come on my show!" Dammit, Michael Brooks was funny.
Someone was turned down by too many girls in school and still salty.... I'm dead 😂😂
Man has a wife and kid
@@blackfangofargentina by some hilarious accident. Can you imagine a woman that loves the unstable directionless fruitloop of a husband that is this guy?
@@armstrem poor lady. I bet they're glad he's touring all over the US instead if back home in Canada
@@125loopy Peterson tours with his family. They are highschool sweethearts.
@@impancaking that explains how she could be with him -- she doesn't know she's made a mistake yet, because it's the first one she's ever made. :D
Rogan has this odd quality of being disarming, surprising, with a dash of rustic wisdom.
WestOfEarth well, he can have that quality. Sometimes he’s just a fucking idiot though.
It's the mary Jane
@@edienandy aren't we all sometimes fucking idiots
@submalevolent grace yeah sure
My god this did not age well. You knew a whole lot before huh? I’ve known Rogan was a mark since I first heard his Ellen-like bullsh*t back in 2016. You got a long way to go!
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Man, I think you need to learn what "Equality of Outcome " actually means?
why dont you educate us
I'm a lefty. Like in, I'm a leftwing member of a european social democrat party. I have NEVER seen anyone seriously asking or arguing for equality of outcome. Not in my party, not in people interested in social democracy or even in the political left in general.
+LowStuff I guess "equality of outcome" is one of those strawmen that the right love to use, because it's difficult to persuade people that universal healthcare is evil.
Of course no one advocates for it by name, just for policies that call for it, like diversity quotas. A diversity quota requires an organization to select applicants based on inherent characteristics rather than competency. This sounds like equality of opportunity since competency is not an excluder for entry under this system, but once the quotas take effect the competency comes back into play, because now the overall performance of the applicants is diminished compared to applicants chosen only for competency. If the organisation is a corporation, ineffectual people often get promoted rather than fired because there's a lot of them and so they don't do any damage to the operational systems of the business or cost unemployment money, if the organisation is a school academic standards will decrease so the majority of students don't fail and ruin the orgs reputation. In both cases, no one is allowed to fail and everyone above average is being incentivized to mediocrity because their competence has no diversity value. This is not equality of opportunity, it's equality of outcome. The left argues for diversity all the time, just because they don't call it by name doesn't change what it is
A Stranger In Paradise ....that's to counteract racism sexism and bigotry
skyblaze eterno and it does so by encouraging racism sexism and bigotry! Just ask the group of Asian students suing Harvard, or Denise Young Smith, former Apple diversity chief who pointed out that 12 white guys can be diverse and got fired for it. Positive racism is still racism.
You've never seen feminists calling for 50% representation of women in government?
We can hear him talk there's no need for your false interpretation
mack whitz Why would you watch the MR commentary video instead of the JRE podcast itself if you aren’t interested in commentary?
@@swagulationstation5278 to listen to his perspective is why, I just happened to find it to be shit
@@mackwhitz5312 I also wanted to see how perverted Sams perspective on this would be. These guys are quacks. People should watch the actual podcast not this garbage. Chopped so much it means nothing, this guy pretends to understand the words JP is saying but its clear hes just puttin his own narrative. Gotta watch the original podcast.
@@AdrianDWolfe I have watched the podcast and that's why I know this moron is just twisting short clips so he can shine his armor and be the swj white knight nobody asked for
He’s saying that expecting that expecting that everyone should have equal access to healthcare, and equal care should be accorded to them regardless of social standing, is the same as being a Klan member.
OMG I traveled too far back in time on MR clips and had to hear what’s-her-face chime in again. 🤣
This video: has 21k likes
Also this video: has 21k dislikes
Check it again.
@Action Jackson People generally don't like when people misrepresents people they disagree with while they are being worshipped by their followers for destroying those people with misrepresentations.
@@darkwolf4434 finest observation.. misrepresentation uff rubbish & low level determination of something you can't grasp ..DESTROYING haha beyond belief you sounds dump.Use words properly to convey your low level thoughts to misrepresent someone who you can't matched at any level of intellectual.
@Proper Kvlt Oh, a Seder fan I assume? The argument does seem similar to those made by Seder.
Lots of lobsters out there.
He doesn't understand what equality of outcome means. True equality of outcome would mean the same amount of women in prison as men, the same amount of women doing manual labor, the same amount of male nurses as female nurses. People provided with the same opportunities do not necessarily seek the same things. The goal is equal opportunity, not forced equality of outcome; and it would never happen without being forced.
Martyjowa sadly most feminists are too fucking stupid to understand this simple premise
ProArcades false. Stupid comment though 👍🤣😎
Mark Phillips prove it wrong then, if you’re so sure. What’s your case, bitch? Speak up.
But "equality of outcome" is a strawman, not something the left actually advocates.
As Seder explains in the video.
(The left advocates making a certain set of basic social benefits something that everyone is entitled to unconditionally. That's not "equality of outcome"; it's just a question of what counts as a universal right and what counts as an earned privilege.)
@@macdeus2601 seder is an idiot, who keeps bringing up racism to quash any of Peterson's ideas.
A friend to everyone is a friend of no one.
He knows expressions like "equality of outcome" but doesn't know he's wasting everybody's time. Because this isn't a problem anywhere in the world. Every time he talks he talks about something that's bogus but he maintains his air of extreme dignity. He's like V. Ramaswamy: their policies so often involve coercion.
I've never seen someone so obsessed with their own intelligence than JP. He tends to make these weird connections, like he's so full of himself that he simply cant be wrong.
Did you listen to his words?
He specifically qualifies his statements with “think” or “I believe.” He’s actually super aware of how little he understands which is one of the reasons why he has struck with so many people.
Then, Sam and his crew only speak in statements of truth with their ideology being the most right and most righteous. Nowhere can you find qualifiers of “I think” for they are not aware of their own fallibility.
You can not like JP, but don’t mischaracterize who he is to avoid engaging with the concepts.
@@FuddlyDud That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right. But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice.
With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point.
Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias. But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?
@@jakublizon6375
"That's a fair point. I watched again, and yes you're totally right."
Thank you Jakub for being open to my argument! :)
"But when he speaks on a subject, even with qualifiers he really does tend to talk like he's an authority on the subject. It's like, yeah he might say "I think", but he doesn't continue like it's truly just an "I think". But that's just me. "
I would say that is on you, unfortunately. :P
Honestly, I am a bit of a JP fan and even read his 12 Rules for Life. There are many times he talks with authority, although it is always for a linguistic effect, something he actually specifies in his book. And, when he is talking in absolute terms, it is always on topics JP really does understand.
"Also, I should have mentioned that I wasn't talking about just this video, but a tendency I notice."
If you have any specifics, I am more than happy to go through them! :)
Also, as a bit of background, JP inspired me to be more open and honest with myself. So, when I see someone like Sam says JP never has thought about these things, it couldn't be further from the truth and dismisses JP's whole mission. :/
"With Sam and the gang though, they were pointing out that Peterson was very heavy on his opposition to "equality by outcome', but his argument led directly there. He stopped himself just short, but the point was that he was holding a contradictory view point. "
I rewatched it and JP made it a point about tilting society to serve those less fortunate, ultimately children, but he reconsidered his statement due to his phraseology and needing to think. He didn't have a prepared response because it was an open dialogue and he tries to be precise, something Sam could learn from JP. :P
For, as Sam claims JP was thinking in terms of "outcome" and people having less, JP is clearly trying to give children, the primary reason JP brings up the conversation of enforced monogamy, an equal opportunity by having two parents, one of the most important determinants of success. Sam ignores this though and gleeful claims JP doesn't want to help the less fortunate...like what? 0_0
"Look, I'll be the first the admit that although I genuinely do try to be conscious of it, and avoid it, I still have some bias."
We all have biases of all sorts. Some are more of conscious than others. JP is super conscious, and Sam is totally oblivious. You and I are likely in-between. :P
"But, I think you have some ideological, political bias as well. Is that fair?"
I totally do. However, bias does not mean I can't make a competent analysis. JP is one of the few people willing to have open conversations and, ironically, even talks about how outcomes have to be discussed in the last clip, for he knows all of this requires deep and carful dialogue.
Sam, however, claims it is a "shtick" and insinuates JP is a dishonest actor.
So, while I do have biases, I can support the more good faith individuals over the bad faith ones. I think I am doing an ok job of that for now, but I have plenty of work to do! :P
THanks for the chat, see you in the next reply! :)
@@FuddlyDud he talks a certain way to cover his ass , he’s a total narcissist IMO.
@@357-swagnumultramagax9
Have you ever heard him talk about why he talks the way he does?
It actually is far deeper than what you just described and I'd be more than happy to explain it if you are open to listening! :)
I love the comments on this video. They're either idiots saying Sam strawmanned Peterson -- he didn't. Idiots claiming that Peterson didn't just argue for equality of sexual outcome -- we *literally* just watched him do that. Or idiots claiming Sam just doesn't understand Peterson's argument -- that doesn't surprise me. I love it.
DeadMan the Hekatonkheire : It’s the Best!! How could it BE any clearer?! I love this video! 🤣
Peterson is not smart enough to outwit joe rogan...nevermind sam seder lol.
You know you are dealing with a cult when things like this happen.
Sam stated that Equality of outcome is a nice, compassionate, notion where its all "basic". He and you can shut the fuck up. The major issue in the discussion is that him and you can't seem to ever want to draw the line of your righteous nonesense. The basic minimums always fucking change and its always ALWAYS common in this shit is that its one group can dictate the rules or standings of others and actual force them from those who step out of line.
Kurai Kenshi: You didn't address any of the 3 arguments the OP mentioned, let alone pose any counter argument. All you did was claim to know how they think and what lines they draw and when. Must be awesome to have such insight into complete strangers entire thoughts and feelings on everything across the political spectrum simply from a comment on RUclips.
Very impressive skill set, sir. Maybe you should use it for good, and not ignorant nonsense lacking actual counter arguments. But to each their own.
Hilarious, can't stop laughing. All your imitations of JP are priceless especially Sam's imitation and comments/remarks. There is nothing better on RUclips than the Majority Report. What fun!!!!!!!
Man I miss Michael Brooks so much, he was great
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what equality of outcome is
Communism
Equality of opportunity is democratic socialism.
Equality of outcome is communistic socialism.
Kimmminem West
🤦🏽♂️
@Kimmminem West
Ummm... At no point does he suggest or insinuate such a thing. He is commenting on how imbalances in heirarchies ("become too steep") can destabilize society over time. He uses the sexual domain as an example for where imbalances occur. I would agree that he stumbled a bit, but the context was with regards to putting guardrails on extreme views (in either direction, left/right) to offset the risk of a destabilizing society, as a whole, across the span of generations. Hence "bad for children." JP is speaking from a meta-view (generational) and JR is speaking from a more "personal" viewpoint (that person over there.)
There are a multitude of reasons that would cause any group to become so discontent that a revolt would take place. JP doesn't talk about that here. Nor would he lay such a thing at the feet of a single issue, sex or elsewise. Again, it was an oversimplified example. Generally, he speaks against extreme individualism (tyranny) as well as against extreme collectivism (communism).
Kimmminem West equality of opportunity is you and your friend have equal chance of being hired at a factory, and equal chance of getting a raise. Equality of outcome is you faster at making a product in the factory than your friend, so the factory owner forces you to slow down, or pays you less per work done to equalise it. The first one is good, the second one is damn evil.
Oh, I miss Michael. He was brilliant. “I would argue bitches be trivaling” 😂
This was one of the first times I've listened to Michael being hilarious and really laughed instead of feeling mostly sad. I miss him too.
@@rubypickles1836 I was watching another old one didn't know it was old until hearing Michael in the background he seems to be a genuine person who was so intelligent and seems to have been a good person happy to have gained knowledge and as corny as it sounds he lives on in media.
*trifling.
You’re so yt
I miss him so much.
In this video: Sam does not understand the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome
Sam is a communist.
Completely agree, he is clueless
@@alfonzomma Explain?
He really doesn't, and his whole argument is built on his complete misconception of equality of outcome. Sam is seeing this debate through a very different lens to mine.
@@outofworkactor3033 How so? And why does JP equivocate?
JP defined what he means by outcome of equality and this people did not spend even 10 min to understand what he is talking about. Framing is easy when person you framing can not answer.
This dude doesnt at all understand what jordan was saying
Your connecting to points that have now connection.
So he says that Jordan Peterson is wrong for saying “equality of outcome” is treacherous, then goes on to describe things that he considers “equality of outcome”, then says they aren’t really outcomes they should start at birth. This is not “equality of outcome” then...he is describing something completely different.
I think they’re trying to make the point that it’s no way an equal comparison.
I see my 18 year old self in Jordan Peterson. Not to say that these guys know what they’re talking about. However, Jordan Peterson definitely just hears about an idea and then thinks he knows everything. Exactly the way I used to think when I was younger. This man is educated and has had a lot more life experience to be acting this way.
I see where you are coming from but like you said he is well-educated. He does hear about ideas and then studies them thoroughly (he does have slight implicit bias but no one doesn’t) and lectures on the topics. What specific topics do you think he is under-educated on and why?
Curtis Beardsley lmao exactly that man read the communist manifesto which is like 32 pages long and thinks he knows everything.
ItzARevltn I agree with you he is an educated man. However, that’s all he is. He has an education but that doesn’t necessarily make you smart or intelligent. Peterson is a perfect example of that. He refuses to read anything and only forms his opinions on Marxism, post modernism or anything else only based on his feelings and what other people say instead of doing the research for himself. Like an educated man should. He only reads books that support his opinion and those are the only books he cites. Which are usually very misrepresentative. You can be educated and a clown at the same time which is exactly what Peterson is. Since he is a clinical psychologist this behavior is unacceptable.
Five years old and it’s making my day! Joe Rogan seeing through him. So sweet. 😂
Joe Rogan is his good friend and he respects JP a great deal. Just FYI.
5 years old. has more dislikes than likes. And a presenter that literally deletes every single negative comment on his video. His definition of equality of outcome was hilarious! This must be the dumbest video on RUclips.
The guy off camera doing the high pitched voice 🤣🤣
wow this video got swarmed with JP lobsters lmao
Right?! I was just thinking the same thing lol
Not really lol. Most of the comments here are going against Peterson
He just made up his own definition of equality of outcome
He did. As a fan (of Sam's), this one was hard to watch.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski it's almost like I'm able to disagree with or condemn an action of someone I'm a fan of. It's called being principled and judging everyone by a consistent standard, regardless who they are and how I feel about them as a person. Is it not possible this is one of those cases where I agree more with Peterson than Sam? You should try being principled sometime. If you agree 100% with everything someone says, it's likely you're not always thinking for yourself.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski I don't understand what you're talking about. Do you realize I am a fan of Sam's, which is what I said. Just that, in this case here, Sam is misrepresenting Peterson's position on equality of outcome. I don't need to accept Peterson's past hypocrisies to side with Peterson on this particular sliver of an issue.
@Vasilijan Nikolovski He didn't "just deflect and come back with word salad," he admitted that Joe had a good point, thought about, even let Joe speak again, and then defended his point. I'm not a fan or viewer of Peterson's or his conservative views but I respect how he can speak like this. Its not every day that an intellectual / scholar gets legitimately stumped by an MMA announcer in front of the biggest podcast audience in the world.
Yep. Just a grifter
this may never get old
........because they aren't saying "everyone deserves a basic minimum"... they (Kendi types) are literally saying inequality of outcome is a measure of racism and/or racist systems. The idea of "basic minimums" more logically aligns with "equality of opportunity", something many agree with. Ideally, individual effort is closely matched to available (and hopefully abundant) opportunity.
This guy sam said peterson hasn't spent 10 seconds thinking about equity... to miss his point so purposefully, just for people to agree. It drives me crazy daily.