Jordan Peterson Exposes His Weird Fundamentalist Ideology’s Shortcomings
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 10. 2022
- Jordan Peterson, His Friend Jonathan Pageau, And Muslim Writer Mohammed Hijab Have A Discussion On Religion. Hijab Discusses How All Religions, Islam And Christianity Included, Have Shared Symbols, And That They All Have Central Doctrines. Peterson Responds And Alludes To A Lecture He Gave On Cain And Abel And How, Despite It Being A Biblical Story, That The Story Is Happening In The Past, Present, And Future, All The Time. He Then Deconstructs What The Word "Happening" Even Means, And Goes Even Further: Discussing The Hypothetical Question "Do You Believe In God?" Peterson Said It's Hard To Answer Because You Have To Know What Each Word In That Question Even Means. #MajorityReport #jordanpeterson #fundamentalism #politics
Watch the Majority Report live Monday-Friday at 12 p.m. EST on CZcams OR listen via daily podcast at www.Majority.FM
www.house.gov/representatives...
www.senate.gov/senators/senat...
#MajorityReport #jordanpeterson #fundamentalism #politics
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: www.jointhemajorityreport.com/
Download TMR's FREE app: www.majorityapp.com
TMR MERCH: www.shop.majorityreportradio.com
OTHER LINKS:
Twitch: / themajorityreport
Facebook: / majorityreport
Twitter: / majorityfm
Instagram: / majorityreport.fm
-What will you have for dinner, Jordan?
-Well it depends what you mean by “have”.
Like the work of a magician he only appears clever to people who have not seen how that trick works before.
"What the hell is dinner anyways, man!?"
DINNER? Anyone who would call this anything but BREAKFAST is denying timeless culinary realities. This, brought to you by criminal Machiavellian chefs, trying to shove Egg McMuffins down our throats at times other than 6am-10:30am. If the government thinks it can compel my speech on this matter... THINK AGAIN SUNSHINE. If they imprison me, I'll go on a hunger strike. Up yours, woke moralists.
[Sorry, I'm half awake and hungry]
@@KarmaKahn its a conspiracy i tells ya!
I mean can't he speak like a normal fucking person for once.
He talked for three minutes to say "I don't know if it's literal, but Cain and Abel is a pertinent allegory". Clearly the man thinks using more words indicates more intelligence.
if that half hour answer wasnt proof of that i don't think any other clip of him does it justice.
Brevity is the soul of wit, and JP is thoroughly witless.
I was listening to him squeak while comment scrolling, saw this one, read it, and then just skipped to the part where emma and sam laugh at him lolz. Thanks for the sum up and time save Daniel : )
I"d love to see him teaching high school. His schtick barely works when talking to people who are either sycophantic or hemmed in by protocol or custom from not shifting in their seats, laughing inappropriately, and making derisive comments.
And he has no ear for words. I remember Mark Twain talking about some people having no ear for words in the same way some people have no ear for music, and sharp and flat along. That's how Jordan talks. He uses too many words and they're all poorly chosen.
His entire debate strategy is "What is your definition of definition?"
Some folks like clear definitions..
Others hide behind vague ones
When he gets forced to come clean on his belief or lack of belief in a god, he distracts and confuses to hilarious proportions!
I'm sorry but I'm legitimately proud of Peterson; he made it through mentioning Cain and Able without so much as tearing up.
True. It's growth.
Maybe he increase his benzo load.😆
I was hoping he'd start to tear up thinking about how much God hates vegetable sacrifices and prefers the smell of roasting livestock flesh.
He didn’t even *mention* Raskolnikov. Progress, for sure.
They are his homies.
His insistence on derailing subjects by having to redefine terms ontologically is annoying AF. He deftly avoids arguing on even ground by moving goalposts and rule sets and then sets himself up as the reasonable one because he’s looking for “truth” as opposed to using a bloody dictionary.
Hear here.
The whole sophist game plan.
It's not that sophisticated there arent even goalposts set he's just drifting aimlessly from buzzword to bible story
but notice that when it comes to defining the "woke mob" or another of his reactionary buzz terms, he is quick and unequivocal in defining it. he is good at employing sophistry but only for things he doesn't agree with
damn, you said it better than me, now I gotta delete my comment.
here it is anyway, you decide..
when peterson doesn't like the direction of a conversation, he tries to make the questioner forget his point by getting him to focus on individual words.
peterson ignores the fact that the meaning of words is context dependent, because he isn't able to see the broader picture being presented.
“Do you believe in God?”
“That depends on what you mean by ‘do,’ what you mean by ‘you,’ what you mean by ‘believe,’ and what you mean by ‘God.’”
Holy sht, did Peterson just admit he knows what we mean by ‘in’?!
Yes...
depends what you mean by "peterson"
@@spankyx8606 depends on what you mean by depends
Omg I thought you were parodying him but then I listened to the video further. He really did say that. Bruh
@@bananatiger8371 ,
Yeah... he also conflates belief with action. Which is why he was able to say to Dawkin's "you are a Christian because you act on Christian Morality".
This was the answer given by every student who hadn’t done the readings for a seminar in university 😂
Except he has read everything! Compared to your level, if you compare his intellect to yours, you would still be in first grade and he would be done with college.
@@badboy10350 it depends on what you mean by ‘he’ and ‘has’ and ‘read’ and ‘everything’ Glen. There’s a lot of mysteries in these concepts.
@Christopher Grant lol, ok, what has he been debunked on? Most of what he has said are comments referred from sociological studies.
@@alang8710 and many of which you are unable to comprehend.
@@badboy10350 oh Glen, thank you. 😂
"If I question the questioner about questions then the question becomes the questioned question of true questions which I'm always questioning as the question questioning the questioner's question"
-Jordan Peterson, probably an exact quote
Bruh 💀💀😅😅😅
JP hits so much different when transcribed
It depends on what you mean by "questioning" and what all the other words you use to question the questioner mean, too.
Then, the questioned one may question why the questioner is questioning the question without knowing that the question is really the answer, but nobody knows how to define the answer because they can't define the what question means.
Red means go.
Green means stop.
Amber means close your eyes and hope for the best.
It depends on what you mean by traffic lights.
Question.. why is JP so fkn red?? 😂
@@bro6568 Dude, that is his inner lobster 🦞
His debunked lobster theory.
Boy. Peterson does use a lot of words to say "I don't friggin' know the answer"
I walked way for like 2 mins and he was still just fucking goin
No kidding. In too many cases someone's ego doesn't let them simply say "I don't know"
@@kurisu7885 "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing". Socrates. Like. Jordan. My dude. Say I don't know. Its not hard. I do it all the time.
He should slow it down for the slow folk .....
Yet incels think he has all the answers.
If Jordan Peterson is the "greatest living intellectual" we have, God help us.
He's the greatest living fundamentalist christian thinker. very small circles to compare
That statement would be better with a commer.
@@celestialsalamander true.
Well, keep in mind we live in a society where people think you can change from a woman to a man just by believing it to be so, and our last two presidents were a reality show guy and an old man with dementia, I'm afraid the bar isn't very high.
Peterson asks for clarification of what is meant by a specific word that everyone knows the meaning of as a hostile attempt to derail a cogent argument being made against him. He pulled this trick on Kyle Kulinski. Kyle had cornered him when he pointed out the hypocrisy of Jordan petersons claim to fame being about personal freedoms when he couldn't show support for a transman's decision to transition. Kyle said that his ftm friend said transition made his life much better. Peterson couldn't even agree that this adult ftm should have the right to transition. Peterson was enraged when Kyle cornered him by exposing the hypocrisy. He tried to derail the conversation by getting in the weeds on semantic nonsense. Kyle said to peterson, don't you think the lgbt community has been marginalized? Peterson said what do you mean by lgbt community? He along with the daily wire have built a protective cocoon around themselves. He rarely will go on a discussion panel where he will be confronted by those who don't worship at his alter.
“Dude, just get a dictionary and then we can shorten this damn segment up…” Bahahahahaha
“You become postmodern all of a sudden.” He’s exactly right, and it’s about time someone revealed such an obvious paradox to Peterson.
Nah, I did 5 years ago on his reddit, and was not the only one either.
He knows it too, I think. He admitted it once, but he still attacks it nevertheless.
While we are at it someone needs to compile all the nihilistic stuff he's said over the years. He has had some of the most nihilistic takes from anyone.
yep, he's engaging in deconstruction, right? As wiki says understanding the relationship between text and meaning?
@@benday1218 Yes. Post-structuralism is a part of the post-modernist movement.
Peterstone doesn't even understand what post modernism is!
We should lock Jordan Peterson and Kanye West in a room and let them figure out which one is crazier.
Would that work as a reality show or a game show? I can’t make up my mind
Kanye is by far crazier
LOL.
Don't forget about herschel walker
@@victorybeginsinthegarden Herschel Walker isn't crazy he's just *literally* brain-damaged. As in, his NFL career has left with an underdeveloped capacity for reason.
I Saw the whole Video on Peterson's channel Mohamed Hijab gave reasoning for his beliefs but Peterson flew in every Direction i couldn't get a Coherent Point from the guy.
Well, if I've got the choice between Peterson and fundamentalist religion, I'm still going with Peterson. And believe me I'm not a Peterson fan at all
@kmt i didn't say anything about Islam bro. I don't even know what you're talking about. I wasn't even talking about Muslims I was thinking more of the fundy Christian fanboys of Peterson. Like i said, I'm not a Peterson fan
My point was, I'd rather have someone interpret religious myths in a universal, psychological way like Peterson seems to, than a childish literalistic way. But that being said, I can't stand Peterson and his pandering to rw tropes to make money.
It's just that, ironically, on this point I actually kind of see his point when he says "what do you mean by "believe". It's ironic because what seems to be one of the most nonsensical things Peterson has ever said, actually makes more sense to me than most of the other things he says
@kmt but let me assure you, I am not anti-Muslim in any way and I agree with you and I'm sorry if my comment came across that way. I think you just misunderstood what I was trying to say. I actually forgot that Peterson was even talking to a Muslim. Believe me, I wasn't trying to say anything anti-Muslim
@@john.premose Calling the belief in literal events "childish" is a pretty childish opinion itself.
A thing can be a literal historical fact and still resonate on a universal scale. Allegory is not mutually exclusive to reality and in fact makes it more powerful.
Fictional allegory is problematic because the derived morality of it is also fictional and can be accepted or discarded at whim.
@@1994mrmysteryman what literal events? If you're talking about the Christian mythos, I don't know of any evidence that any of it was based on literal historical events.
"I would answer that question but we have to fully and go into too much detail every word in that question and basically forget what we were talking about" JP and his whole fanbase
Peterson asks for clarification of what is meant by a specific word that everyone knows the meaning of as a hostile attempt to derail a cogent argument being made against him. He pulled this trick on Kyle Kulinski. Kyle had cornered him when he pointed out the hypocrisy of Jordan petersons claim to fame being about personal freedoms when he couldn't show support for a transman's decision to transition. Kyle said that his ftm friend said transition made his life much better. Peterson couldn't even agree that this adult ftm should have the right to transition. Peterson was enraged when Kyle cornered him by exposing the hypocrisy. He tried to derail the conversation by getting in the weeds on semantic nonsense. Kyle said to peterson, don't you think the lgbt community has been marginalized? Peterson said what do you mean by lgbt community? He along with the daily wire have built a protective cocoon around themselves. He rarely will go on a discussion panel where he will be confronted by those who don't worship at his alter.
Basically😂
As someone who's been following Mohammed Hijab for quite a while now, that news18 article you quoted is not only slander, but it's accusing him of things he hasn't done. And on top of that, that same news18 article doesn't mention "Hindutva" once in it and clearly doesn't make the distinction between the dangerous "Hindutva" group and the actual Hindu community that has nothing to do with them.
It's important to mention that Mr. Pageau brought up those slanderous claims during the discussion with Peterson and Hijab and they got refuted with ease. I'm sure you're aware of that particular segment, however, since you've watched the whole Peterson-Hijab discussion before reacting to it on youtube.
If you watch videos of what actually happened while Hijab was in Leicester you'll find out he never encouraged violence against the Hindu community or anyone for that matter. In fact, he encouraged people not to vandalize, and to stay lawful. He spoke about self-defense regarding the "Hindutva" minority that was targetting, beating, attacking and persecuting the muslim community in Leicester. And, by the way, the "Hindutva" group does not represent the Hindu community. It is a group of extremists that run on violence and intolerance. Had Mr. Hijab been encouraging violence towards the harmless Hindu community, he would have been arrested and/or in prison.
Hijab has been interviewed by a Hindu woman from Channel4 following all of the accusations and the claims that stipulated that he was acting as an instigator in Leicester, and the only criticism she had in her interview was that she felt like a particular sentence of his was disrespectful, and he apologized to her and the Hindu community if his words had offended them.
Also, how could Mr.Hijab be anti-semitic like that news18 article mentions, while he himself is semitic? He's been seen engaging and discussing, for years, with numerous Jewish people in a friendly and polite way in Speakers's Corner (it's all over the internet). I challenge you to actually try to find a quote of his on the public record that proves he's anti-semite in any way, shape or form.
As a youtube channel with more than 1.2M subscribers, I think you guys should, with all due respect, look further into your sources and do a better job at researching your material.
The smear campaign is insane lol when Pageau said he called for violence against jews during a HINDUTVA protest 😭 that was too funny and sad at the same time, how easy was it for him to lie like that?
Exactly
And he is brilliant logician!
If anyone reading this is not familiar with Mohammed Hijab I encourage them to watch the several videos that Apostate Prophet has made regarding him. I can't post links but a good, short video to start with is called, "Mohammed Hijab's Disgusting Behavior EXPOSED". You'll find it on the "Apostate Prophet" channel.
@@fepeerreview3150 oh please you actually follow apostay prophet 😂 . He is a joke . He has no intellectual background . All he preaches is hate
Jordan doesn’t know what words mean… but he never shuts up.
LOL
Define “up”.
Define shut
Define "."
@@-Kal- define “define”
JP is the living embodiment of "randomly spewing 10 different fancy word to make you look smart" lol.
Dr. Prolix!
Or…
Now hear me out.
You might be a little too stupid to understand.
Calm down.
It’s just my opinion
Words aren’t Violent.
However, my opinion is spot on!
You just sound dunce
He's smarter than you but he's waffling here
How do you know? What’s the difference between him and someone who just uses fancy words because they fit the best?
"What do you mean do? What do you mean you? What do you mean believe? What do you mean God? My books? Yeah, buy them" The brain fog of abstraction cleared pretty quick there
He did have covid while he was in a coma, and the Russians DID perform a prefrontal lobotomy on him.
Guess what if his books were nonsensical nobody would buy them . Certainly not again and again
11:41 Muhammad Hijab has repeatedly responded to these allegations (a full interview with UKs Channel 4 is on his CZcams). Please don’t just google up and read the first thing you see, especially when it comes to a controversial public figure.
05:50 *"What do you mean 'you'?"*
I've just realized the dude just asked someone else to define HIM to HIMSELF in order to answer about HIS personal beliefs. 🤦♂
Dude was sealioning on-air and thought he nailed it.
"what is a woman ?"
JP : "well what do you mean when you say what , what can massive implications of different uses such what's for dinner or what hours . Asking such a rudimentary question solves absolutely nothing ." *cries*
Matt Walsh : "middle schoolers and up are fair game ."
Jordan Peterson sure uses a lot of words for someone who immediately forgets what they all mean when pressed.
He saw Clinton pull out the "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is", and just took it to its logical extreme. 🤣🤣
In policy debate when you start breaking out the definitions of words like is and be that means that you have no argument.
I'd bet money that he literally read Nietzsche's passage on "I think therefore I am" and does it to everything now.
As a young man, he was mesmerized by the phrase "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."
@@pietzsche De Carte
@@bgoodfella7413 It was Nietzsche talking about Descartes
Did anyone else die laughing when the ad played in the middle of the interviewers long ass question ?
At least Jordan understands the word "IN"
11:56, He wasn't instigating. He and his group were there if the hindu extremists were to attack any Muslims again to protect them. The police weren't doing anything by the way to stop these attacks.
It's obvious that he's still having substance abuse issues - specifically benzos.
His skin is flushed, he's jittery, he's finding profundity in the banality of his statements, and so on.
To me (this something I have personally dealt with and seen others deal with) he appears as if he's coming undone.
If had to actually "show his work (algebraically)" he would fold like a tent -
sweating and sobbing.
They're just giving each other "The Stranger".
It's gross.
Let me tell you something. I've known some benzo addicts. NONE of them wax on quite like Jordan, lol. Let's not blame the meds. It uncovered the man that is JP. Great that he's revealed as a charlatan, TERRIBLE that people still follow him! 😂
Wasn’t obvious to me. But interesting.
Dude got serious case of Covid so he likely got brain damage from long covid
I like your fancy words magic man
You think it’s gross mate, it’s sad.
OMG, he didn‘t cry? It‘s like a miracle!😂
He got his prescription filled immediately after filming this
I think because he knows the interviewer would not have appreciated it. He's strategic about it
Depends what you mean by like ?? 😆😆😆
It’s okay for men to cry crowd when a man they don’t like cries:
"When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions."
Or when you have poorly thought out ideas use vaguery
It's excruciating listening to him.
Agreed Sam is cringey AF
Listening to whom?
peterson and shapiro and that screech bag on Fox are utterly and completely painful to listen to
@@nealluczkiewicz6846 Jordan Peterson
@eduardor5417 Excruciating *and* exhausting! 😉
Before we can truly understand what Jordan Peterson is saying, we have to define "truly" and "understand" and "Jordan" and "Peterson" and "is" and "saying".
You forgot before.😆
@@totallyrandomhorror My bad.
@@dustinsindledecker154 Indeed. After all, what does "before" even mean in the context of time and space and infinity, as those concepts are relevant (or not ) to...
*It is unbelievable that he is still doing this party trick to avoid that question.* He is doing it since 2016/17...
Next time, someone needs to ask for HIM to define those terms before answering the question. That's what someone actually trying, in good faith, to answer it would do.
He'll probably retort with: "What do you mean by define." "What do you mean by terms." 🤦♂
And his fans will lap it all out.🤦♂
@@livelongandtroll9108 Pseudo intellectualism at its core: "Question everything."
Just question, though. Don't look for answers, just doubt everything you hear that doesn't conform to your preconceptions. That, THAT - is true curiosity, bucko.
We'll see who eats who, woke morsels!
What do you mean by what?
He was asked what those words meant... he redefined them to support his world view... and in the same paragraphs used both definitions (the Lobster Daddy Definitions and the actual definitions from a dictionary) interchangeably... this just highlights his dishonesty.
JP is the embodiment of that old Dilbert cartoon - “ I admire your ability to actually get paid for this.”
Love how Emma is like the mom having had enough of this Peterson guy and Sam is just "but I want to see what he said!" 😭
Yes I love how she's too low wit to understand
Jordan Peterson often engages in selective objectivity. The issue that is being debated will determine whether he is objective or subjective. Mohammed Hijab cornered him perfectly. And Jordan Peterson instantly became subjective in defining words.
Nope, it means that a Muslim theologist is convinced there is an objective "I", and not layers of conscientiousness from the subconscious to the conscious,
he is convinced there is free will, as in having the capacity to decide, and not a determinism that contradicts our most basic definition of the self, and then a "belief", which is fixed, when we have probabilities that determined the likelihood of something and we act upon it as if it was true,
but which at the same time changes through time. Most believers do not truly believe 100% of the time, because they too know there is not direct evidence of anything supernatural, and yet it will depend on how or on which they focus their attention,
that "perceptional average", will make them act as more or less than a believer, which is something that variates from person to person + their context.
That is why Einstein believed in the Spinoza God, or Roger Penrose believes mathematics exists perfect in another realm, and there myriad of interpretations of some religious strata of deities symbols that have existed through history (Bertrand Russel said the most important thing in life was "love" which is strange coming from an atheist-mathematician-philosopher, being just a biological pulsion)
People are intrinsically inescapable religious, and a theologist Muslim is convinced that certain things are fixed, while Peterson's works is on the architecture of belief (he has a long boring book about it).
He had 10 hours of debate with Sam Harris between Canada USA and England a couple of years ago. Just getting to agree on what both parts mean at certain sentences takes hours,
and that is something that regular people can't understand. It is not because of a caprice, it is the actual core of the philosophical discussion.
Cogito ergo sum seems natural, until you have Nitzsche telling you "what is that "I""?, do we really are agents? or merely spectators of a primate doing things?.
If you get into philosophical debates, you can't expect to use dictionaries, because every word will mean something different according to every author, that is pretty conventional in philosophy
(that is why Kant is studied in German or Foucault is studied in Frech at PhD levels, because even among Western languages, semantic subtleties change the entire meaning of words that we think are conventional and fixed).
I don't think people should expect that all content is accesible to them. Some things are beyond the scope of what regular people can understand.
If they want something simple, there is no shortage of that content on the internet. To each their own.
@@cristianproust Long winded just like your father Jordan Peterson.
do you know how long this show took to watch when i had to pause and look up every single word?
'Brevity is the soul of wit' -Bill Shakespeare
So in other words that was not a very witty theological discussion
Define “of”
@@shaan702 Define "define"
@@lilmoe4364 *kermit voice* “well that’s the question isn’t it? How do you *define* define? It’s easy enough to say “we’ll just look it up in the dictionary” but does that reflect how it’s used in real life? Not really. It’s like the word “man.” *eyes well up with tears* “what is a man? Is it just an old boy? Is that really all we are? Are we going to accept that’s what we’ve been reduced to. Man used to be a powerful word. Powerful! Now they’ll lock you up for even saying the word man.”
@@shaan702 holy shit this was brilliant.
To conservatives, “greatest living intellectual” means “smartest person I know of who agrees with me”
Peterson's position is not fundamentalist in a religious sense neither ideological.
This is an actual contentious topic in philosophy.
What caracterizes concepts beyond simple symbolic relations, and how can symbolic relations be factual or real if absence of evidence points to them as just abstract mental contents.
How can you differentiate chimeric, tautologic and reified analysis and prescription from fact-apt analysis.
When a question relies on premises you disagree with the fundamental point of your answer should be the fact you disagree with the premises. Specially if there are no stated or evident premises.
Peterson was asked if he believes in God. And he basically states people pressupose this is a simple question.
Then he breaks down the question to its constituents and points to the fact belief is not a stable concept much less the concept of God.
To one belief can be a simple suspicion, to another belief is unshakeable certainty, to another it can be faith in the sense of an emotion or the consequence of instinct.
The god of one's belief or religion is not necessarily the god of another.
To one God can be good, to another evil.
To one God can be a personal self-conscious agent, to another just the imovable first principle of movement.
To one God can be the first principle, to another God can be a mighty agent despite not being the first neither almighty (as we see in most hyerarchical pantheons of the past).
Peterson position is "you are ignorant about what your question can mean, and so am I at least partially, there are conditions/definitions which need delineation or specialization for this question to mean anything which could be answered factually".
Peterson is pointing to the fact discussing reality is not the same as most vulgar discussions go diagnosing how efficient communication is based only on common sense and shared emotional and instinctive reactions. Common sense and emotion is not enough to verbally face Error Theory and problems subject unto Error Theory.
@@LNVACVACthat’s not why he’s held up by conservatives though. They hold him up because he opposed the Canadian trans bill and doesn’t believe in climate change. There are plenty of philosophers who have raised all the questions Peterson does, they aren’t new. He is an intellectual, for sure, and is smart enough in his field to be a professor and explain it to his students. That’s an achievement. It’s not the criteria for a public intellectual that everyone else should pay attention to
I just want you to know I watched that SMN clip about Jordan Peterson and there's NO WAY it was 3 hours. It was super brief. Idk how long it was because Mr Cody kept telling me not to check the timestamp. Definitely not 3 hours. Was a very brief look.
It was only 2h55m :-D
Just a teensy-tinesey bit of news you can use. Honestly a very brief, unprolongued, snappy, wittily constructed little bit of fun.
DON’T LOOK AT THE TIMESTAMP!
@@steelersguy74 What does "look" mean? And what is "don't"? This is so restrictive, it's authoritarian. That's what the radical left does.
@@jochenkraus7016 What is “time”? What is “everything”?
Hijab's perceived antisemitism is no different than any legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, something majority report would be guilty of as well.
What?
Lmao what if the guy just said “…Jordan what the fuck are you talking about?” 😂
According to Matt Walsh, a woman is a 16 year old girl.
Dyebeard is a closet case
unless they're seeking gender affirmation surgery ofc
@@notarealfairy If you think Matt Walsh is inconsistent for not wanting to do TRANS SURGERY on a 16 year old girl-you've lost the plot.
@Goth Chibi That makes literally no sense.
@@anakinthemannequin69 Thats not a good comeback… It makes sense, you are simply not grasping it.
Since we're reading about Cain and Abel in synagogue this week, this officially counts as weekly Torah study.
What do you mean by reading? What is a week? What is officially? 😂😂😂
Serious academics don’t do cheeky book sale promotions in the middle of a discussion.
Dunno...I've seen it happen, but it's often charming in academic lectures or artists talks bc it's done self-deprecatingly, with wry self-aware wit, bc rather than Jordie's pushing of his bestsellers, it's a professor who's grateful an academic press is printing 500 copies of their magnum opus on wood duck gonads or the importance of cornices & other architectural features in Gothic literature or on the comparative feasibility of solar sail designs. & I say that with affection bc I love reading academic press books they totally rock & now I'm probably going to disappear for 4 hours checking out the new titles at MIT Press & UC Press (foodies gotta check out UC Press for real).
Back from opening the UC Press site in another tab & the first thing I saw was a new academic book on Stevie Nicks & her artistry. I did not expect to be so on the nose when I said "academic press books....totally rock".
I seriously recommend the book, it's great, I mean pet a cat? nobody has ever done this before.
Prove it
JP will equivocate about any stupid Bible story if it doesn’t fit his narrative, twist it into an allegory, but, if it does fit his narrative then it’s exactly what was intended, no room for interpretation or nuance.
So exactly like billions of other Christians.
He almost always compares literally everything to specifically Cain and able, and morons think he’s a theologian.
One trick pony.
Mohamed Haijab is one of the best Muslim scholars in my opinion he’s entertaining, he’s a professor, he’s young, has prescience, and can debate very well I haven’t watched him a while so this will be cool.
@하루하루 he’s a scholar bro he’s a professor and is getting a phd isn’t he
Emma's impression of jordan was on point 😂😂😂😂❤️
She also nailed the "What is a woman?" morons. "What is do?", "What is you?", "Where are my glasses?", "Are you my mother?".
@@Krocodillian lol yeah
Also, for the record books:
“THE REALITY OF THE CONCEPTS OF YOUR QUESTION ARE JUST AS QUESTIONABLE AS WHAT YOU’RE QUESTIONING”
The first job of university philosophy education is to prove to you that you can never know anything and even if you did you could never communicate it with anyone. Peterson is a hack.
What do you mean with "question"?
@@jochenkraus7016 what do you mean by “by”?
😂😂
But are they? What does "being" even mean, really?
Just a quick comment, I wouldnt use News 18 as a source for commentry on Hindu-Muslim tensions. They have a heavily pro Indian bias, as can be seen by their other reporting
Tbh i expect better
Cannot believe he used all those words to not answer the question
lmao all 3 guys were locked in a word salad competition
at 2:35 Peterson looks exactly how I look when I’m in a meeting with my superiors, they are discussing something I have no clue about, and I am trying to look really engaged as to not show how absolutely lost I am.
HAHAHAHA, this just happened to me on a webinar😂
I've never seen Jordan Smile like he does when he's pushing his incoherent books. Big ol' joker smile.
100% a tell, he knows he's running a scam and he couldn't be more excited about it
JP realized he's in the company of people really knowledgeable about religion and decided to bs his way to avoid debate
I can see why he's so often brought to tears
Oh no, "Dr." Peterson is turning into the lobsters he anthropomorphizes.
We call him and his ilk the Canadian Claw-Claw in Canada. He's a were-lobster.
This is like sitting through the world’s most pedantic dissertation defense.
We've got a lot to unpack here Jason. What do you mean by "the?"
I’ve seen bird shit with more meaning than whatever the fuck any of this is.
I don’t understand pop “intellectuals” nor the people who get their rocks off agreeing or disagreeing with these useless people.
“Don’t ask me what I believe, I won’t reveal my true intentions. You must infer the type of person I am from what I do. And then when you mischaracterise my beliefs I will blame you for that.”
Rinse/repeat. jp just grifts by omission.
You made a mistake...
It's "And then when you correctly characterize my beliefs I will blame you for mischaractierizing them.”
@@aralornwolf3140 yeah I should have put "mischaracterise" in inverted commas.
Next April 1 could we get maybe a good ten minutes of Emma quoting or reading Peterson in that voice? Thank you for your consideration.
Dr Jordan Peterson has such distinctive verbal tics, you could program a pretty convincing automated blather generator to imitate him. He's always getting down to the fundamental something or other. This time, it's brass tacks. Just nuts. Plato wept.
He is like a max headroom coded up on a Vic20, but a 10 year old in the 1980s
Are you suggesting he's a Turing Test confounder lol? Sounds about right.
Kermit the Frog talking in circles to his gullible followers in his Canadian accent about his nonsense. A-boot.
These guys read article from news18 and believed in it.
What else should we say now 😂
JBP really embodies the drunken children's magician vibe.
That was EXHAUSTING!
Jordan's brain is absolutely fried.
Benzos make you Bozo
I am lucky that my parents taught me to think critically early in life. They told me: "Question everything!" and I looked at them sidelong, through the corner of my eye, and said, wearily, "What do you mean?"
-I kid
JP is arguing semantics, it seems. To that end I say, "What one says IS what they intend, NOT the words they use"
WTF?? Really? This is what gets me about this guy. He has just said a massive pile of NOTHING. But he couches it in the most abstruse difficult language, so people blame themselves for not understanding him. That’s exactly his aim
Emma is a diamond.
Glad that Sam spared us his Peterson.
Edit: Dammit
Wow soo close. Emma interrupting JP was awesome though.
I love Sam's JP
He really caught JP’s trick and called him out on him.
Jordan " what do you mean DO" Peterson. Philosopher of our time 😭
JP literally parodied himself. If there was a sketch by comedians performing a satirical parody of JP, they'd do it just like that.
"Depends on what your definition of the word "is" is " - Jordan Peterson probably
He 100% said that when he got dragged into HR for the three people he s3xually harassed
okay that's kind of an amazing clip. I love when Hijab starts making fun of his "what is this what is that" argument . so good
Oh hell yeah, I heard the Some More News shout out. Great channel and video.
Peterson is a kid who wrote one really good book report in primary school and still uses it to sound smart at dinner parties
It's wild how right away you can tell Mr.Hijab is intelligent. Then right away you can tell Petersons coma didn't treat him so well.
Genuinely enjoy watching hijab's barely contained excitement to stick it to peterson, although i doubt I would actually agree much with a devout writer of any faith
Jordan P is a genios. He is having the whole discussing his bla bla, and who knows one day, he might write a book titled. “How I conned the world with bla bla”
Peterson's on a postmodern turn for a while now. what a time to be alive
Sam talking Jordan has been one of my favorite things lately. He just enjoys it so much!
the phrase "reheated Nietzsche" is the best thing i have heard this month
edited to correct "Niche" to "Nietzsche"
I thought he was saying Nietzsche?
Refried Jung has a nice ring to it as well.
@@bananawammabama oh thats how you spell that. Nope you fully right, im just 'tupid :P
@@domenicgalata1470 ooh it defo does but i get dif vibes from it. To reheat both puts the image of old and minimally altered by the person presenting it. Refried has more of an energy of action on the part of the person refrying the Jung, but also with the caviot that the new product is more formless and paste like having lost its initial textures and presentation.
@@domenicgalata1470 Also do you every wish you had the "ck" at the end of your name or do you like the "c"?
watching Maggie May Fish's recent videos on Joseph Campbell was extremely enlightening to me in seeing where JBP gets a lot of his personal "brand" from. seriously look up videos of Campbell talking and you'll see how similar their speech patterns + vocabulary are
the way you character assassinated M Hijab at the end using click bait article headlines ... not cool
That interviewer's beard is epic 🤣
Michellin five star level word salad...
When he first became famous, there were some things he said that made sense and now nothing does
Big up the Some More News shout out, that episode was a HEAVY lift. 😮💨😮💨
I can’t get enough of Jordan Peterson. Better than any comedian out there.
Wow, JBP makes Mohammed Hijab seem coherent. Never thought I'd see the day. Amazin!
Mohammed Hijab has always been coherent. Provide one example where he wasn't.
Nope 😘
@@robertkristofpaulsen2689 Thought so 😚 lol
@@onetouhid usually Mohammed keeps babbling on about an invisible man who made the universe and later dictated a book to some guy in a cave or whatever, and that's why gay people are bad and if you don't believe him, you'll be punished by the invisible man. Did I get that about right?
@@robertkristofpaulsen2689Lol. No you didn't get any of that right. If you don't believe in god, fair enough. But there is really no need to insult those who do with comments like "invisible man who made the universe." millions of people hold these beliefs it's a bit stupid of you to just brush it off as nonsense just because you THINK you know better. Stay humble. Don't be arrogant. Learn about religion before making nonsensical claims about something billions of people believe for thousands of years. These things didn't exist for so long for nothing. So stay in your lane and educate yourself a little bit. All the best.
I heard Peterson start talking and I heard static. Is that normal?
Edit: Also, that "very brief" video from Some More News is hell good. I recommend it for anyone wanting to understand Jorby's method of madness. Just DON'T LOOK AT THE TIME STAMP, IT IS VERY BRIEF! XD
Love this episode. Great analysis
Emma's Peterson impersonation has devolved into Jimmy Stewart making it 100x funnier.
"Noooo!!! They're all gonna laugh at you!" -Jordan Peterson
Clutch Adam Sandler reference.
He thinks words like "do" and "happened" are so nebulous but concepts like gender and beauty must be strictly set in stone
He's asking what is inferred by those words in a particular context when asked about something. Establishing the boundaries of a words implications isn't what's being discussed here.
I would also say it is impossible to know what someone else thinks with absolute certainty.
JP managed to make Hijab sound reasonable. That's an incredible feat.
What's wrong with Hijab?
@@SulaimanamialuS He's ultracrepidarian and narcissistic liar.
@@SulaimanamialuS he debated Cosmic Skeptic. Wasn’t a very honest debater.
@@Godlimate watched the debate it wasn't that he was not an honest debater it that cosmic sceptic had to carry the dead weight that was the old man on his side.
@@yousifayman642 LOL!!! So true.
Though Cosmic Skeptic did a reflection video afterwards and gave a piece of his mind to Hijab.
It was kind of cringe that the video was edited. You just don’t do that in a public debate for online viewing. I dunno it seemed a bit off to me.
Damn.. The guy called out Peterson on his bullsh*t 😂
If you can't say it simply and with brevity, you lost marks when I was at uni.
Clear, concise, correct.
I actually like what Jordan is saying. But it ultimately becomes kind of nonsensical because by the same notion we could say that any work of fiction has “happened” so long as it’s themes and morals are sufficiently relevant to our existence.
EDIT: just got to the part where he literally questions what the words “do” and “you” mean, and I take it back, this is all nonsense.
@@Randomuser2329 right. But he’s kinda of just purposely obfuscating what people mean by “happened” here. People want to know if he thinks that the events in the bible are actual accurate historical accounts of real events, and that is fairly clear and should really be a “yes” or “no” or “I’m not sure” kind of question.
In the novel Ishmael the author Daniel Quinn offers the idea that the story of Cain and Abel is about two lifestyles, two different peoples, one composed of nomadic shepherds and the other farmers. The old way of living is crushed by the new way. Nomads don't hold to property rights like farmers do. Farmers build fences and see the Earth as owned. This interpretation of the story always made more sense to me than anything else.
Nomads have property rights... everything useful to the group is owned collectively by the group...
2:57 I love how Sam can never hide his frustration 😂