Im still trying to figure out how people find his views repulsive. Ive listened to a number of his lectures and a few podcasts and he says nothing at all that endorses or supports the ideas of national socialsim or anything remotley discrimintory. A very strange time we live in
@Colton Catalli May I ask why? I'm not a religious person and up until recently I just completely opposed it and found it stupid and nonsensical, but after hearing Jordan's logical/philosophical perspective, aswell as (to some extent) Ben Shapiro's I have come to respect and understand religion a lot more, on how you find meaning in what they see as god, even if for Jordan is not necessarily the God of the Christian religion. I find it fascinating.
I think he describes it here pretty well... Peterson is an individualist... and espouses personal responsibility. Of course he will be opposed by collectivists... and group think. Humans by nature are glorified pack animals. The vast majority need to be led and to follow. And will gravitate towards movements that lean towards their inclinations. How many people have you ever met who take personal responsibility for their station in life? Few if any. It’s always something or someone else’s fault... or more likely the “system” keeps them down. Peterson will have none of this. And there is little that people hate worse than confronting their TRUE self. It’s painful.
@Den Sky Are you slow? Seriously. There are EXACTLY ZERO Peterson students out in the streets acting aggressively and stirring up trouble. Because he doesn’t preach violence and agitation. Meanwhile you couldn’t throw a thimble in the streets of burning American cities without hitting 4 liberal arts majors.🤣🤣🤣🥃 He’s such a lousy teacher that he’s world famous and has literally TENS OF MILLIONS of followers. I have an adage... When someone is a moron... even an idiot looks like a genius. You seem to slide into it nicely. Go away now.👍
Oners82 there’s a reason that no country that has attempted Marxism has successfully attained it. On paper it’s the best system there is, but it completely disregards human nature, and how power changes people. Which is why it is unattainable. I’m not arguing that Maoist China, or the USSR, or any country has reached true Marxism, but they attempted it, at least at first. However when you put an individual in a position of that much power, they become addicted, and become willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it. Finally, on the off chance it does succeed, there is no guarantee that the next leader will not be corrupted which means it’s also unsustainable. If you argue for anarcho-marxism, a country with no leadership is always vulnerable to external threat from other countries, because it’s people are not truly unified. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop a takeover by the military, or police which would leave the people in the same place as they would be with a corrupted leader. For all these reasons, Marxism is impossible.
@Oners82 debating a socialist is like playing chess with a pigeon, It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway. I'm from Denmark, one Bernie Sanders Paradise/wonderland. Where are you from?
Jordan Peterson should be Canada's next Prime Minister. He's not a politician, but he's brilliant, and RIGHT, and cares about fighting against the insanity of identity politics, and the marxist left here in Canada. I'd volunteer and vote for him in a second.
Stop pushing him to one side. What you say is true but dont leave out his battle against the radical right, its extremely disrespectful and distasteful towards Jordan himself.
Ya, the problem with that is there are very, very few "radical right or Nazis" in positions of power, where as there are tens of thousands of radical left marxists in teaching positions at universities, colleges, and even high and elementary schools. Not to mention 1/2 of the Democrat party, and all of the Liberal and NDP here in Canada. I agree that he does speak intelligently about both radical sides, but he's mobilized himself and his message against the radical left/marxism by a factor of 10 to 1 for a REASON. "Equality of outcome", the primary tenant of his message, has NOTHING to do with the radical right/Nazis/whatever.
@Guy Flower he literally said a few, not none. Like do u actually read comments? Or just deduce the meaning from a couple of words that you were able to comprehend.
" You've got a heavy load of suffering to bear and a fair bit of it's going to be unjust. So what are you going to do about it? Accept it voluntarily and try to transform as a consquence." Profound.
And if external circumstances overwhelm all of their attempts to succeed on their own? Highly driven, highly qualified professionals are having trouble finding jobs these days, through no fault of their own. We aren't talking slackers here.
I really think Jordan Peterson is the guy who has the best chance of reaching the left. Even if he is a "white male". I'm so happy to see him more and more, especially because of the Cathy Newman interview. He brings a genuine hope and reason to this struggle of ideologies.
@@josephjohnroe3678 Oath, brother. If I had to (though I really don't like to, as the political spectrum is a mostly useless "tool"), I'd say I'm more right-leaning than left, but if I couldn't see the hypocrisy of the right that plagues the left just as equally, I'd be one very blind individual.
This is such an important idea to get right. People believe that some absolutely fair figure will just make everybody rich together and we can all be happy. Equity will simply drag everybody down to the bottom.
Opportunities vary based on many things. How you were raised, the climate you live in, the connections you may have, you’re talent level, your interest, etc
To increase opportunity I feel the US government should help fund vocational schools and community colleges and offfer low cost not no cost business loans. There is a dark side to free trade and we need a countervailing power to equip people to adapt to the consequences of free trade.
I like Jordan's last comment on this video: "We're too technologically powerful to get all tribal again." Probably alluding to Einstein's quote "I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones." While we have all heard the quote before, Jordan reminds us of the reason WHY a WW3 would happen.
The scary thing is, no one knows how horrific these atrocities committed in the name of equality were... And yet all I see is people calling for it these days.
Haven't listened to all of Joe Rogans podcasts but can only remember three guests that he lets speak for this long uninterrupted and thats JP, David Goggins and Graham Hancock. They just so happen to be my three favourite!
***Equality should always trump equity.*** "Equity" sounds like "Equality", but it is very different. "Equality" is protected by the U.S. constitution, which means everyone is treated and protected equally under the law. "Equity" means equal outcome. It is social justice equity, from critical social justice theory, related to critical theory, critical race theory(for racial equity), and neo Marxism. It is the dichotomy of the oppressor and the oppressed, privileged and disadvantaged. The totem of victimhood, and intersectionality of victimhood. Equity, critical social justice means redistribute resources. It means to strip the "unearned" wealth, advantage, and resources from the oppressor, and give it to the "deserved" oppressed. It usually practiced at identity group level. Equity practice treats different identity groups differently. Holding one group back, while allow another group to proceed, in order to achieve equal outcome. The critical social justice theory is problematic. A person simultaneously belongs to many identity groups. race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, country of origin, ethnicity, age, health, education, jobs, income, wealth, able-body, attractiveness, temperament, the list will go on and on. Even if you believe one group is "privileged", another is "unprivileged", how can you compare victimhood along different identity dimensions, like a able-bodied black person vs. handicapped white person? Who is more of a victim? The society may have to calculate victim score along each identity dimension, and assign an aggregate victim score to each person in order to decide how much advantage the society should assign to this person, or take away from this person, in the name of social justice. But here are the problem: * Does each identity dimension carry the same weight in victim score? e.g. race vs. gender? Do people agree on that? * Who is qualified, and authorized to assign such victim score? Do people agree on that? * Can group identity correctly summarized a person's life experience? * How can society continue to monitor each person's victim score to reflect the changed life experience, e.g. become disabled, or get a high paid job, etc. What is the cost of that? * Race and gender are usually quoted as a reason to provide equity. Does race and gender alone reflect full life experience of an individual with so many other identity groups the person is in? Why just race and gener? Equity, in the name of critical social justice, creates more confusions, injustices, divisions, and resentments. It is a discrimination. Equality should always trump equity.
Wow, I never heard the “ticking” until I seen the grandfather clock in the foreground. Now I can’t miss it. Every time there is a pause in speaking... tick....tick. Weird, man!!
Does anyone have an interpretation of JP's statement "The two simply cannot co-exist. If people are in fact “diverse,” for whatever reasons (and, according to the collectivists, primarily for reasons of race, ethnicity, sexuality and sex) then they bring distinctly and important different talents and abilities to the table, in precise proportion to their diversity. The inevitable consequence of encouraging that diversity and giving it free play in the world will thus be an exacerbation of inequality, rather than its elimination."
I’ll give it a shot - Simply put, people are naturally diverse (ie/ sex, race, ethnicity). Fact. If we go down the road of encouraging pockets of society to break off into very specific sub-sects, primarily visually identifiable groups, that are so absolute and specific that ONLY like individuals are welcomed, the situation is untenable. As each smaller sub-sect then seeks equality of outcome, regardless of their proportional contribution to the society or their size relative to the overall population, resentment and struggle is inevitable. They’ll never be happy and no one is just going to hand over their hard earned wealth. In order to achieve that goal involves ‘taking’ from a larger, financially successful section of the population (the majority) to subsidize the sub-sect. EQUALLY. That’s where the problem arises. The “surgeon earning the same as the barista” argument comes into play. Its simply not sustainable on any level. It becomes a situation where the government (a very few) collect the wealth and redistribute it as they see fit. Does that sound ideal to you? JP is claiming before this ever happens (hopefully never) you’ll have is an endless cycle of struggle with more inequality and likely more oppression, division and resentment because no one is going to give up the potential to earn and provide for their families for nothing in return. The goal is - and should always be - to achieve equality of opportunity - where race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity etc - are not determining factors in one’s ability to earn. And despite all the screaming and yelling, that is truly not a systemic issue in America today. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some try to ignore that fact - and that’s why they are not considered serious people. Creating more and extremely narrow sub-sects of a society is a huge move backwards and serves only to create more struggle and division. Ironically what they are claiming to eliminate.
Equality of outcome is a pipestem. Good luck to all you equality of outcome seekers. Life will be tough for you because you are going against people who made you and created this world.
If some people want to have everything, in the year 2022, at this current moment, other people will possibly suffer. We can change this if we prioritized health, and regulated the strengths/weaknesses of Planet Earth. We need to see the bigger picture, and stop trying to help others as much, and start with fun stuff like "cleaning our room" and eating grassfed beef, liver, and omega 3's. These can all be lab grown, but we have to change the world in order to focus more so on what matters to our species, and not the individual... I should say, I'm not sure grassfed beef, liver and oils will be enough, we have to keep thinking, and growing, as we study the universe around us scientifically, maximize our capability for happiness, and learn more ABOUT REALITY... LOVE IS POWERFUL, HOW DO WE FEEL IT, LETS START HERE !
I really really really hope Rogue Rogan brushes up on vids like this before the debates and injects some of these ideas that almost no one knows about. It just might wake some people up.
Jordan describes what happens when The People worship at the alter of government. The Lord is our/my shepherd; and, I picked up my cross and have been transformed...I like it! I like it a lot!
I will never forget last night Biden said he supported racial equity in the presidential debates. He said equity multiple times he did NOT mean equality of opportunity. I will never vote for him because of that. I didn't like him much before but now I will never vote for that.
Beware the TEMPTATION to perceive yourself unfairly treated. Why? Because the alternative is resentment and anger, which precede attack. You can't build nor change society on resentment. A healthy society can only come about through forgiveness and love.
You know the midway game with the sliding platform full of quarters? You put a quarter in and the thing is so saturated with quarters that if it falls in the right place it pushes the excess of quarters over the edge and they get put back into play. That's how much tyranny you need, wealth is self serving and self perpetuating, there needs to be a shelf where the excess gets pushed back into the pool.
The thing is..... He started strong but ending on the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" shtick doesnt do it for me. He acknowledges that some people are too poor to do just that but then advices them still to just bare the suffering. The thing we as a society are all trying to figure out is "what is fair?" Capitalism is fair when everyone follows the rules. BUT everyone does not follow the rules. People are being cheated put of their ability to pull themselves up. You can either be a worker or an innovator. If you are a worker you deserve a livable wage. If you are an innovator yky deserve to keep EVERYTHING you earned with your blood, sweat, and tears. Period. I dont understand what is so controversial about saying that. We get into trouble when innovators AND workers become greedy. Workers asking for more than a living wage and innovators penny pinching to fatten their own pockets. We should be compassiomately competitive.
Ok, so the only dissenting voices and comments on JP are always the first comments. Then its hundreds or thousands of people who agree with him. Basically SJWs troll his CZcams appearances.
Arguing a stance for equality of outcome is like demanding your money back from college if you don’t get the grades you want😳😂😂🍺 good luck with that....
If you use the language of the left, you don't necessarily need to see it as Peterson said. He said that the people at the top won't want to give up their power, but that's only true in some cases. I think you need to see it more as - people in positions of power want to build others up and they use their power in order to help other people and create more fairness in society. So being in a higher hierarchal position, your sense of identity then needs to shift from wanting to gain more power (people in lower positions), to fairly distributing it amongst the population.
someone once said that in this system the government would seize control of houses and redistribute them.. well how the hell does that work, now this guy gets a mansion but i get a trailer, how is that fair? "well they would build communities" they? "well we would" right.. and we would all be living in the same house? wearing the same clothes even?
I think he is referring to a more general circumstance. For example some one who lives in a 3rd world country my not have access to a library. Therefore their equality of outcome could be different than yours.
I don't live in a major city. I do not have ready access to major art museums, grand concerts, etc. Libraries or no, I am "disadvantaged" in this regard.
@@channinghainan8282 personally i see it more than ever, but it is extremely possible that social media has increased my outlook on how many people striving for equal outcome exist, and i have a distorted view of the world because of this
From what ive seen and read, theres more of a desire for equality of opportunity. In terms of equality of outcome, i think its a straw man argument from the right to paint anyone who disagrees as socialist or communist or whatever term they throw out to make their audience's skin crawl.
Near the end of WW2 4 million Bengales died of starvation because Winston Churchill believed that British citizens needed their crops more then they did. By the way...where are all these marxists ? Why have i never met one? Remember what Orwell said about fighting endless wars against invisible enemies. ..
Exactly what I was thinking about equality of outcome. Unless you are a true Marxist or a true Communist equality of outcome is not a priority, equality of opportunity is something the rest of us agree upon. Equality of opportunity is routinely conflated by many with equality of outcome whenever disparity is pointed out via statistics on crime, poverty, education and healthcare to name a few which are disproportionately skewed in favour of white people.
There's not enough equal advantages for us to assume we will all live happily. Evolution has been for survival, what do we really want to do with our government in the year 2022 ???
Peterson is just plagiarizing Friedrich Engels who wrote: "Between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen''.
When JP says that starving farmers to feed the cities is an obvious extension of Marxism, he enables the same thing among capitalists. The only reason so much trauma was so easily inflicted was thanks to the sure certainty by those with authority that they were ABSOLUTELY correct to do so. I wish Jordan had the ability to perceive that simple trigger and how it doesnt require ANY system to exist, but thrives when it is incorporated into a system. So yeah, marxists think they have it all figured out and feel justified imposing any amount of force neccessary to impose their vision. Probably doesnt sound familiar because that level of certainty both blinds and deafens you to the consequences of being wrong.
Every school and university will mention the Nazis and extreme ring wing ideologies, but almost none will teach or mention the horrors of the Soviet Union or Maoist China.
I have an argument in favor of equality of outcome across gender. Suppose you equalize 50/50 across the stem fields. What happens? Some conscientious men get 'wrongfully' knocked out of the work force. So what? Then the would be engineer just ends up being a stay at home dad. And that could work fine. Also, men have a proclivity to raise less clingy children. So what is the problem?
Your argument displays exactly what he warns against. How do you get a 50/50 split across all STEM fields? It must be enforced from the top down. Many men who want it are barred for simply being men, and many women who do not want in are forced to simply for being smart women. The only way that can be achieved is to have a massive, totalitarian system in place whose sole purpose is to crush free will.
You’d end up with a lot of people that suck at their job as they never chose what they do. You don’t think women can be engineers in this day? They do exist but most women that could be choose to be architects or teach etc. Why do we need a 50/50 spilt if people that have that opportunity don’t already sort themselves into that. It’s so dam simple. Women don’t want to do those jobs. Can you not understand that? Why do we have to categorise people all the time anyway?
@@Drewbyy I agree with you. I just figured the more ambitious plan was to try to argue against Jordan Peterson. Has anyone ever won an argument with JP that you've seen? I thought that Sizek guy got close at some point.
I’m a fan, although I don’t always agree with Peterson. I must admit, however, that I have corrected my understanding realizing that, like many, I mistook his statements of facts for his personal opinions. -Having said this, I wanted to point out that although equality of opportunity certainly is more important and fair than equality of outcome, the latter being an absurd expectation for obvious reasons (amount of work invested; talent; ambition; etc...), I don’t agree that equality of outcome is always unfair. The fact that there are physical and metal flaws at birth and disadvantages from environment and upbringing is enough to throw equality of opportunity out as anything but utopia. Hence, at least for certain disadvantaged humans, equality of outcome is the least a society can offer.
WRONG. Carl Marx didn't want a political state to be name by his name. He was an economist. And it was Lennin who replace jésus as an idole. The one that as his face hang in russians room.
Equality of Outcome is nessesary in some ways, it's not as black and white as Peterson puts it. For example, does a man with more money have the right to pollute this planet more than every other man? There is no way that you can rationalize this with logic. The price of some things that rich people buy is not what it should cost in reality. For example flying a private plane regulary, you pay for the plane, you pay for the pilot, you also pay for the fuel. You don't pay for all the CO2 your plane emits in the air. The effects of CO2 and greenhouse gasses is litterally going to be Trillions of dollars, and no one is going to take responsibility for their part. The superrich are litterally spitting in the face of normal people, all people have the right to pollute the same amount, to say that rich people have the right to pollute more, and get away with it, is insane.
Gamercatsz equality of outcome isn’t necessary the radical left can beat 10s of thousands of years of evolution that makes men and women make different choices when it comes to work and getting higher paid jobs. Only equality of opportunity is possible. How far are you willing to take equality of outcome is it only the gender of male and female or is it the other 1000 genders. Trying to achieve equality of outcome is impossible without taking away personal choice it is not social constructs built by a patriarchal society but evolution that makes men reach for higher paid jobs and strive for promotions due to predominantly male characteristics and women are more likely to enter fields of work that pay less not cause society has pressured them as they have equal opportunities to make those choices to get higher paid jobs but they choice not too. That’s why you can’t have equality of outcome as it takes away from the capitalist market and could lead in an extreme case the way the far left wants to go communism
Fear is a male contrived notion so they can rule over others. Competition has prevented cooperation which is needed to advance humanity. So squirrelly go grab some nuts, cause change is here. Get used to it.
Its a gigantic strawman to sort of assume the left wants equality of outcome. Its more equality of opportunity and the fact that we clearly don't live in a world that offers equality of opportunity. Capitalism, at least certain kinds, can't give people equality of opportunity either. In fact it seems to do the complete opposite. You clearly need some type of oversight and intervention to make up for the shortcoming of blind market forces that frequently can turn on themselves and end up in contradiction. I don't think equality of outcome should be the goal. Even in the most fair world, where everyone starts in the same place and has the same opportunities, people arn't going to be all equal, because humans arn't all the same and thats okay. I just disagree that the current level of inequality we have in the world, and in the U.S., is solely because of natural forces. I think its at least half due to a poorly structured system that fosters and even somewhat relies on inequality.
"you have to cede so much power to the authorities to the government in-order to ensure equality of outcome that a tyranny is inevitable." 2:17
cede *
yeah... maybe, possibly
Tyranny IS inevitable. Just ask anyone who has had eminent domain used against them because their land could profit the city more as a shopping mall.
That make sens3
jordan peterson quoting Thomas Sowell is like music to my ears
Time signature for Sowell quote, please?
@@BraaiEngineer 2:15
Jordan Peterson talking is music to my ears this man is the goat
Im still trying to figure out how people find his views repulsive. Ive listened to a number of his lectures and a few podcasts and he says nothing at all that endorses or supports the ideas of national socialsim or anything remotley discrimintory. A very strange time we live in
Because many of his opponents have worldviews that hinge entirely on pointing out a disparate outcome, and prescribing themselves as the solution
@Colton Catalli May I ask why? I'm not a religious person and up until recently I just completely opposed it and found it stupid and nonsensical, but after hearing Jordan's logical/philosophical perspective, aswell as (to some extent) Ben Shapiro's I have come to respect and understand religion a lot more, on how you find meaning in what they see as god, even if for Jordan is not necessarily the God of the Christian religion. I find it fascinating.
I think he describes it here pretty well...
Peterson is an individualist... and espouses personal responsibility.
Of course he will be opposed by collectivists...
and group think.
Humans by nature are glorified pack animals.
The vast majority need to be led and to follow.
And will gravitate towards movements that lean towards their inclinations.
How many people have you ever met who take personal responsibility for their station in life?
Few if any.
It’s always something or someone else’s fault... or more likely the “system” keeps them down.
Peterson will have none of this.
And there is little that people hate worse than confronting their TRUE self.
It’s painful.
@Den Sky
You wouldn’t be interested in his suggestions regardless... obviously.
But who was asking you anyway?
Certainly not me.
You’re welcome.👍
@Den Sky
Are you slow?
Seriously.
There are EXACTLY ZERO Peterson students out in the streets acting aggressively and stirring up trouble.
Because he doesn’t preach violence and agitation.
Meanwhile you couldn’t throw a thimble in the streets of burning American cities without hitting 4 liberal arts majors.🤣🤣🤣🥃
He’s such a lousy teacher that he’s world famous and has literally TENS OF MILLIONS of followers.
I have an adage...
When someone is a moron... even an idiot looks like a genius.
You seem to slide into it nicely.
Go away now.👍
“We’re too technically powerful to get all tribal again” Damn. Wise words.
What does it mean? sorry for my ignorance
Think tribal wars with missiles instead of bow and arrow
I salute you Jordan Peterson, your knowledge is staggering.
Indeed but Joe is too quiet for me lol
@Oners82 let me guess they never tried real Marxism
Oners82 there’s a reason that no country that has attempted Marxism has successfully attained it. On paper it’s the best system there is, but it completely disregards human nature, and how power changes people. Which is why it is unattainable. I’m not arguing that Maoist China, or the USSR, or any country has reached true Marxism, but they attempted it, at least at first. However when you put an individual in a position of that much power, they become addicted, and become willing to do whatever is necessary to keep it. Finally, on the off chance it does succeed, there is no guarantee that the next leader will not be corrupted which means it’s also unsustainable. If you argue for anarcho-marxism, a country with no leadership is always vulnerable to external threat from other countries, because it’s people are not truly unified. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop a takeover by the military, or police which would leave the people in the same place as they would be with a corrupted leader. For all these reasons, Marxism is impossible.
@Oners82 socialist people are always so angry. They always hate on other people.
Marxism will always fail no matter what.
What country are you from?
@Oners82
debating a socialist is like playing chess with a pigeon, It'll just knock over all the pieces, shit on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
I'm from Denmark, one Bernie Sanders Paradise/wonderland.
Where are you from?
Jordan Peterson should be Canada's next Prime Minister. He's not a politician, but he's brilliant, and RIGHT, and cares about fighting against the insanity of identity politics, and the marxist left here in Canada. I'd volunteer and vote for him in a second.
He fights against the left AND the right. He fights for reason.
Stop pushing him to one side. What you say is true but dont leave out his battle against the radical right, its extremely disrespectful and distasteful towards Jordan himself.
Ya, the problem with that is there are very, very few "radical right or Nazis" in positions of power, where as there are tens of thousands of radical left marxists in teaching positions at universities, colleges, and even high and elementary schools. Not to mention 1/2 of the Democrat party, and all of the Liberal and NDP here in Canada. I agree that he does speak intelligently about both radical sides, but he's mobilized himself and his message against the radical left/marxism by a factor of 10 to 1 for a REASON. "Equality of outcome", the primary tenant of his message, has NOTHING to do with the radical right/Nazis/whatever.
Guy Flower, yes, the FBI has sooooooooo much credibility. Eric Holder(fast and furious), Comey (Clinton Foundation)....LOL. :)
@Guy Flower he literally said a few, not none. Like do u actually read comments? Or just deduce the meaning from a couple of words that you were able to comprehend.
" You've got a heavy load of suffering to bear and a fair bit of it's going to be unjust. So what are you going to do about it? Accept it voluntarily and try to transform as a consquence." Profound.
And if external circumstances overwhelm all of their attempts to succeed on their own?
Highly driven, highly qualified professionals are having trouble finding jobs these days, through no fault of their own.
We aren't talking slackers here.
I really think Jordan Peterson is the guy who has the best chance of reaching the left. Even if he is a "white male". I'm so happy to see him more and more, especially because of the Cathy Newman interview. He brings a genuine hope and reason to this struggle of ideologies.
Two years later pal.. the left still haven’t listened, they’ve gotten worse
They've already cancelled him. Have you seen their protests against him when he speaks?
The idea that the only problem is the "left" is part of the problem.
@@josephjohnroe3678 💯
@@josephjohnroe3678 Oath, brother. If I had to (though I really don't like to, as the political spectrum is a mostly useless "tool"), I'd say I'm more right-leaning than left, but if I couldn't see the hypocrisy of the right that plagues the left just as equally, I'd be one very blind individual.
Thank you Joe! That last minute and half brought me to tears. Finally, someone who gets why we are so fucked up...
Hell yeah I needed that last speech at the end. Pick your self up and keep going. I love this guy.
This is such an important idea to get right. People believe that some absolutely fair figure will just make everybody rich together and we can all be happy. Equity will simply drag everybody down to the bottom.
Give everyone the same chances. That's all that's needed.
Opportunities vary based on many things. How you were raised, the climate you live in, the connections you may have, you’re talent level, your interest, etc
A surprisingly big number of SJW has contaminated this comment section
Jamie uploading clips before they even happen again.. Must be a multiverse episode
Brandon Kleiman does that make this the best possible future?
Wow is JP a master! I’ve never seen Rogan let someone talk for so long uninterrupted.
@Robert Thor It goes both ways. How else do you expect to understand an opposing view to argue against?
Go watch the Edward Snowden one lol
I can hear him talk forever. So much knowledge!
To increase opportunity I feel the US government should help fund vocational schools and community colleges and offfer low cost not no cost business loans. There is a dark side to free trade and we need a countervailing power to equip people to adapt to the consequences of free trade.
I like Jordan's last comment on this video: "We're too technologically powerful to get all tribal again."
Probably alluding to Einstein's quote "I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
While we have all heard the quote before, Jordan reminds us of the reason WHY a WW3 would happen.
always a pleasure listening to Peterson. After breathe of fresh air after hitchens died
This clip should be showed in every school.
There is so much wisdom in this one little clip.
Smokin a fat wood of some green crack indoor while watchin this, love Rogans podcasts yo
I love this man❤️
Joe needs to have Thomas Sowell on!!
holy fck JP is a beast,awesome show
Jordan "there's an idea in Christianity that you should pick up your goddamn cross" Peterson
The scary thing is, no one knows how horrific these atrocities committed in the name of equality were... And yet all I see is people calling for it these days.
Haven't listened to all of Joe Rogans podcasts but can only remember three guests that he lets speak for this long uninterrupted and thats JP, David Goggins and Graham Hancock. They just so happen to be my three favourite!
Thanks for bringing this guy into my life, Joe.
Gotta love the crazy hair
pretty sure it's transplant
***Equality should always trump equity.***
"Equity" sounds like "Equality", but it is very different. "Equality" is protected by the U.S. constitution, which means everyone is treated and protected equally under the law. "Equity" means equal outcome. It is social justice equity, from critical social justice theory, related to critical theory, critical race theory(for racial equity), and neo Marxism. It is the dichotomy of the oppressor and the oppressed, privileged and disadvantaged. The totem of victimhood, and intersectionality of victimhood. Equity, critical social justice means redistribute resources. It means to strip the "unearned" wealth, advantage, and resources from the oppressor, and give it to the "deserved" oppressed. It usually practiced at identity group level. Equity practice treats different identity groups differently. Holding one group back, while allow another group to proceed, in order to achieve equal outcome.
The critical social justice theory is problematic. A person simultaneously belongs to many identity groups. race, gender, sex, sexual orientation, country of origin, ethnicity, age, health, education, jobs, income, wealth, able-body, attractiveness, temperament, the list will go on and on. Even if you believe one group is "privileged", another is "unprivileged", how can you compare victimhood along different identity dimensions, like a able-bodied black person vs. handicapped white person? Who is more of a victim? The society may have to calculate victim score along each identity dimension, and assign an aggregate victim score to each person in order to decide how much advantage the society should assign to this person, or take away from this person, in the name of social justice. But here are the problem:
* Does each identity dimension carry the same weight in victim score? e.g. race vs. gender? Do people agree on that?
* Who is qualified, and authorized to assign such victim score? Do people agree on that?
* Can group identity correctly summarized a person's life experience?
* How can society continue to monitor each person's victim score to reflect the changed life experience, e.g. become disabled, or get a high paid job, etc. What is the cost of that?
* Race and gender are usually quoted as a reason to provide equity. Does race and gender alone reflect full life experience of an individual with so many other identity groups the person is in? Why just race and gener?
Equity, in the name of critical social justice, creates more confusions, injustices, divisions, and resentments. It is a discrimination.
Equality should always trump equity.
💯
This was such a beautiful summary of Jordan’s arguments. Amazing thinker! Just amazing!
i agree. i hate my job, but i love money. so im going to be an entrepreneur so i can hire people to do a job they hate so i can make money
Inquisitor I was wondering the same...
Showing this to my Politics students today
I agree with this.
From Argentina: some of what he says is explained in "The Road to Serfdom" of Friedrich Hayek.
Damn this man is smart
Amazing video.
Wow, I never heard the “ticking” until I seen the grandfather clock in the foreground. Now I can’t miss it. Every time there is a pause in speaking... tick....tick. Weird, man!!
Comment first! Bet nobody ever commented on the grandfather clock ticking before on any of Joe Rogans videos
Does anyone have an interpretation of JP's statement "The two simply cannot co-exist. If people are in fact “diverse,” for whatever reasons (and, according to the collectivists, primarily for reasons of race, ethnicity, sexuality and sex) then they bring distinctly and important different talents and abilities to the table, in precise proportion to their diversity. The inevitable consequence of encouraging that diversity and giving it free play in the world will thus be an exacerbation of inequality, rather than its elimination."
I’ll give it a shot -
Simply put, people are naturally diverse (ie/ sex, race, ethnicity).
Fact.
If we go down the road of encouraging pockets of society to break off into very specific sub-sects, primarily visually identifiable groups, that are so absolute and specific that ONLY like individuals are welcomed, the situation is untenable.
As each smaller sub-sect then seeks equality of outcome, regardless of their proportional contribution to the society or their size relative to the overall population, resentment and struggle is inevitable. They’ll never be happy and no one is just going to hand over their hard earned wealth.
In order to achieve that goal involves ‘taking’ from a larger, financially successful section of the population (the majority) to subsidize the sub-sect. EQUALLY. That’s where the problem arises.
The “surgeon earning the same as the barista” argument comes into play.
Its simply not sustainable on any level. It becomes a situation where the government (a very few) collect the wealth and redistribute it as they see fit. Does that sound ideal to you?
JP is claiming before this ever happens (hopefully never) you’ll have is an endless cycle of struggle with more inequality and likely more oppression, division and resentment because no one is going to give up the potential to earn and provide for their families for nothing in return.
The goal is - and should always be - to achieve equality of opportunity - where race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity etc - are not determining factors in one’s ability to earn. And despite all the screaming and yelling, that is truly not a systemic issue in America today. There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some try to ignore that fact - and that’s why they are not considered serious people.
Creating more and extremely narrow sub-sects of a society is a huge move backwards and serves only to create more struggle and division. Ironically what they are claiming to eliminate.
Equality of outcome is a pipestem. Good luck to all you equality of outcome seekers. Life will be tough for you because you are going against people who made you and created this world.
If some people want to have everything, in the year 2022, at this current moment, other people will possibly suffer. We can change this if we prioritized health, and regulated the strengths/weaknesses of Planet Earth. We need to see the bigger picture, and stop trying to help others as much, and start with fun stuff like "cleaning our room" and eating grassfed beef, liver, and omega 3's. These can all be lab grown, but we have to change the world in order to focus more so on what matters to our species, and not the individual... I should say, I'm not sure grassfed beef, liver and oils will be enough, we have to keep thinking, and growing, as we study the universe around us scientifically, maximize our capability for happiness, and learn more ABOUT REALITY... LOVE IS POWERFUL, HOW DO WE FEEL IT, LETS START HERE !
I really really really hope Rogue Rogan brushes up on vids like this before the debates and injects some of these ideas that almost no one knows about. It just might wake some people up.
Jordan describes what happens when The People worship at the alter of government. The Lord is our/my shepherd; and, I picked up my cross and have been transformed...I like it! I like it a lot!
I will never forget last night Biden said he supported racial equity in the presidential debates. He said equity multiple times he did NOT mean equality of opportunity. I will never vote for him because of that. I didn't like him much before but now I will never vote for that.
Shades of "Waking Life"
American may well suffer because Jordan suffered so terribly in 2020. The world never needed him more. I hope we get him back soon.
I couldn't agree more 👍👍👍👍
If we strive for equality of outcome and try to suppress differences, even if we are successful it would be a dystopian Harrison Bergeron scenario.
"we're too technologically powerful to get all tribal again" so tyranny indeed
Beware the TEMPTATION to perceive yourself unfairly treated. Why? Because the alternative is resentment and anger, which precede attack. You can't build nor change society on resentment. A healthy society can only come about through forgiveness and love.
You know the midway game with the sliding platform full of quarters? You put a quarter in and the thing is so saturated with quarters that if it falls in the right place it pushes the excess of quarters over the edge and they get put back into play. That's how much tyranny you need, wealth is self serving and self perpetuating, there needs to be a shelf where the excess gets pushed back into the pool.
The thing is..... He started strong but ending on the old "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" shtick doesnt do it for me. He acknowledges that some people are too poor to do just that but then advices them still to just bare the suffering. The thing we as a society are all trying to figure out is "what is fair?" Capitalism is fair when everyone follows the rules. BUT everyone does not follow the rules. People are being cheated put of their ability to pull themselves up. You can either be a worker or an innovator. If you are a worker you deserve a livable wage. If you are an innovator yky deserve to keep EVERYTHING you earned with your blood, sweat, and tears. Period. I dont understand what is so controversial about saying that. We get into trouble when innovators AND workers become greedy. Workers asking for more than a living wage and innovators penny pinching to fatten their own pockets. We should be compassiomately competitive.
Ok, so the only dissenting voices and comments on JP are always the first comments. Then its hundreds or thousands of people who agree with him. Basically SJWs troll his CZcams appearances.
@Jim Bo That's true *cough* leftist media *cough*
Jordan “ as far as I’m concerned “ Peterson
Arguing a stance for equality of outcome is like demanding your money back from college if you don’t get the grades you want😳😂😂🍺 good luck with that....
Is it correct that assume that,
"The Ends Justifies the means" is the same as "Equity" and "Equality of Outcome"
Stuck at zero?? Bootstrap your way to the top dog
If you use the language of the left, you don't necessarily need to see it as Peterson said. He said that the people at the top won't want to give up their power, but that's only true in some cases. I think you need to see it more as - people in positions of power want to build others up and they use their power in order to help other people and create more fairness in society. So being in a higher hierarchal position, your sense of identity then needs to shift from wanting to gain more power (people in lower positions), to fairly distributing it amongst the population.
JP PURE LEG!
love this
The only JRE clip that came across my feed with less than a million views. Lol
someone once said that in this system the government would seize control of houses and redistribute them.. well how the hell does that work, now this guy gets a mansion but i get a trailer, how is that fair? "well they would build communities" they? "well we would" right.. and we would all be living in the same house? wearing the same clothes even?
Bro this shit is happening in America right now
The explanation at 9:20 is way too simplistic, inaccurate and inadequate. It paints the wrong dynamic. Other than that, I do love professor Peterson.
simplicity for the sake of brevity.
we are in harrison bergeron territory here.
he is the only one telling the complete truth, truths we all want to deny
"Do you have access to art and literature?"
Yes. We have public libraries.
I think he is referring to a more general circumstance. For example some one who lives in a 3rd world country my not have access to a library. Therefore their equality of outcome could be different than yours.
I don't live in a major city. I do not have ready access to major art museums, grand concerts, etc. Libraries or no, I am "disadvantaged" in this regard.
I dont find the strive for equal outcome to be very prevalent right now in the USA.
How about now
@@silenced8630 yup, still feel the same way.
@@channinghainan8282 personally i see it more than ever, but it is extremely possible that social media has increased my outlook on how many people striving for equal outcome exist, and i have a distorted view of the world because of this
From what ive seen and read, theres more of a desire for equality of opportunity. In terms of equality of outcome, i think its a straw man argument from the right to paint anyone who disagrees as socialist or communist or whatever term they throw out to make their audience's skin crawl.
Ill piggy back off what you stated though and admit that this is largely a perspective based view.
So... What episode is this from?
MrLM002 its the next one. It hasn't aired yet
Cliff Prowell That's what I thought, though they didn't put the episode number in the description
have you ever had to go along way to go get your cross you tryed to leave behind
Near the end of WW2 4 million Bengales died of starvation because Winston Churchill believed that British citizens needed their crops more then they did.
By the way...where are all these marxists ? Why have i never met one? Remember what Orwell said about fighting endless wars against invisible enemies. ..
Exactly what I was thinking about equality of outcome. Unless you are a true Marxist or a true Communist equality of outcome is not a priority, equality of opportunity is something the rest of us agree upon. Equality of opportunity is routinely conflated by many with equality of outcome whenever disparity is pointed out via statistics on crime, poverty, education and healthcare to name a few which are disproportionately skewed in favour of white people.
It’s horrible being in the middle
ill stand in front of you on that one
You will put Jordan on but not Trump. Come on Joe.
There's not enough equal advantages for us to assume we will all live happily. Evolution has been for survival, what do we really want to do with our government in the year 2022 ???
The more I grow older the more I'm detached from religion.. I have trust issues with people written by other men in the Bible
"Poor at 18, rich at 80"
So poor, alive and healthy(-ish) or,
rich, most likely dead, or having lost most of your autonomy...
Nice choices.
So, the foil to tribalism is individualism?
Peterson is just plagiarizing Friedrich Engels who wrote:
"Between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen''.
the nba should have a diversity program for other races not blk. we need more chinese nba players!!!! we need more jewish nba players!!!!
We demand for equal pay for porn actors
When JP says that starving farmers to feed the cities is an obvious extension of Marxism, he enables the same thing among capitalists. The only reason so much trauma was so easily inflicted was thanks to the sure certainty by those with authority that they were ABSOLUTELY correct to do so. I wish Jordan had the ability to perceive that simple trigger and how it doesnt require ANY system to exist, but thrives when it is incorporated into a system. So yeah, marxists think they have it all figured out and feel justified imposing any amount of force neccessary to impose their vision. Probably doesnt sound familiar because that level of certainty both blinds and deafens you to the consequences of being wrong.
Marx didnt support equality of outcome
Neo marxists do, thanks to postmodernism
jordan you need 7 minuts every day to be a troll
every week for godsake
you could do alot of damage in 7 minuts ..might just get 3
dont just say young ..there is a generation
i want hear the mediphoric prophecy fullfillments
How is communism relevant to anything today?
+Jim Bo He isn't a conservative.
Are you slow? lol He talks about it because he sees parallels in the things that lead to communism and things going on in the world today.
Jonathan Fuentes good Lord. We can't even get universal healthcare and are run by an oligarchy in the US. Let's worry about real shit relevant to us
Every school and university will mention the Nazis and extreme ring wing ideologies, but almost none will teach or mention the horrors of the Soviet Union or Maoist China.
Jim Bo yeah, it's the conservative politicians deciding which sections of text books we read. You might be impaired
Here after the Kamala Harris tweet
What tweet
Slike
I have an argument in favor of equality of outcome across gender. Suppose you equalize 50/50 across the stem fields. What happens? Some conscientious men get 'wrongfully' knocked out of the work force. So what? Then the would be engineer just ends up being a stay at home dad. And that could work fine. Also, men have a proclivity to raise less clingy children. So what is the problem?
If they steal your 400 lbs weight, just find another one, there are plenty.
Your argument displays exactly what he warns against. How do you get a 50/50 split across all STEM fields? It must be enforced from the top down. Many men who want it are barred for simply being men, and many women who do not want in are forced to simply for being smart women. The only way that can be achieved is to have a massive, totalitarian system in place whose sole purpose is to crush free will.
You’d end up with a lot of people that suck at their job as they never chose what they do. You don’t think women can be engineers in this day? They do exist but most women that could be choose to be architects or teach etc. Why do we need a 50/50 spilt if people that have that opportunity don’t already sort themselves into that. It’s so dam simple. Women don’t want to do those jobs. Can you not understand that?
Why do we have to categorise people all the time anyway?
@@Drewbyy I agree with you. I just figured the more ambitious plan was to try to argue against Jordan Peterson. Has anyone ever won an argument with JP that you've seen? I thought that Sizek guy got close at some point.
He was doing so well until he broiught up religion
I’m a fan, although I don’t always agree with Peterson.
I must admit, however, that I have corrected my understanding realizing that, like many, I mistook his statements of facts for his personal opinions.
-Having said this, I wanted to point out that although equality of opportunity certainly is more important and fair than equality of outcome, the latter being an absurd expectation for obvious reasons (amount of work invested; talent; ambition; etc...), I don’t agree that equality of outcome is always unfair.
The fact that there are physical and metal flaws at birth and disadvantages from environment and upbringing is enough to throw equality of opportunity out as anything but utopia. Hence, at least for certain disadvantaged humans, equality of outcome is the least a society can offer.
I was fooled by Peterson's reasoning for about six months. Common sense and a number of facts finally kicked in.
Such as?
@@possiblepilotdeviation5791 he identifies as a pussy now
Please cite the facts that enlightened you.
You need tyranny to enforce equality of outcome? My guy inequality of outcome is feeling pretty tyrannical these days.
WRONG. Carl Marx didn't want a political state to be name by his name. He was an economist. And it was Lennin who replace jésus as an idole. The one that as his face hang in russians room.
you're wrong.
Get ur life together after he just said people have 0 and can’t get out of 0 he’s Contradicting himself
Equality of Outcome is nessesary in some ways, it's not as black and white as Peterson puts it. For example, does a man with more money have the right to pollute this planet more than every other man? There is no way that you can rationalize this with logic. The price of some things that rich people buy is not what it should cost in reality. For example flying a private plane regulary, you pay for the plane, you pay for the pilot, you also pay for the fuel. You don't pay for all the CO2 your plane emits in the air. The effects of CO2 and greenhouse gasses is litterally going to be Trillions of dollars, and no one is going to take responsibility for their part. The superrich are litterally spitting in the face of normal people, all people have the right to pollute the same amount, to say that rich people have the right to pollute more, and get away with it, is insane.
Gamercatsz equality of outcome isn’t necessary the radical left can beat 10s of thousands of years of evolution that makes men and women make different choices when it comes to work and getting higher paid jobs. Only equality of opportunity is possible. How far are you willing to take equality of outcome is it only the gender of male and female or is it the other 1000 genders. Trying to achieve equality of outcome is impossible without taking away personal choice it is not social constructs built by a patriarchal society but evolution that makes men reach for higher paid jobs and strive for promotions due to predominantly male characteristics and women are more likely to enter fields of work that pay less not cause society has pressured them as they have equal opportunities to make those choices to get higher paid jobs but they choice not too. That’s why you can’t have equality of outcome as it takes away from the capitalist market and could lead in an extreme case the way the far left wants to go communism
Poor Jordan, capitalism and patriarchy are dying.
Fear is a male contrived notion so they can rule over others. Competition has prevented cooperation which is needed to advance humanity. So squirrelly go grab some nuts, cause change is here. Get used to it.
See above and you should take the same advice...
ditsylilg Sorry i type slow, i dont do the internet thing so well. Oh and ok
Jacob, sorry for your small mindedness, that comes from a small appendage that you think with.
Poor squirelly, your fee fees are hurt. Go ask mommy to hug you.
Its a gigantic strawman to sort of assume the left wants equality of outcome. Its more equality of opportunity and the fact that we clearly don't live in a world that offers equality of opportunity. Capitalism, at least certain kinds, can't give people equality of opportunity either. In fact it seems to do the complete opposite. You clearly need some type of oversight and intervention to make up for the shortcoming of blind market forces that frequently can turn on themselves and end up in contradiction.
I don't think equality of outcome should be the goal. Even in the most fair world, where everyone starts in the same place and has the same opportunities, people arn't going to be all equal, because humans arn't all the same and thats okay. I just disagree that the current level of inequality we have in the world, and in the U.S., is solely because of natural forces. I think its at least half due to a poorly structured system that fosters and even somewhat relies on inequality.
I love this man❤️