Conservatives: Racism is just a matter of bad individual choices. There is no societal problem here. But Cancel Culture and the War on Christmas, those are totally a thing.
"First allow me to blow your mind: things need to be particularized, so allow me to generalize about the particularization of the particulars. Words, things. It's a peculiar particle of pompous palindromes. Shout out to all the incels who still think I'm smart! I'll be at the lobby at the Radisson all night doing shots after this. Feel free to join me." -JBP
@Paul Puglisi But Peterson has acknowledged that the problem exists. Watch his speech at Harvard (on YT) where he claims there is "no such thing as "white privilege" only to go on and explain that, of course, in all societies the people in a minority culture will be at a disadvantage, so I guess he means the term "white" in front of privilege is what offends him; although the phenomenon is still there which he acknowledges. Maybe he wants us to call it "majority culture privilege?" Or maybe he thinks it's okay for the dominant majority culture to have such advantages and nothing should be done about it? He didn't say.
@@BadAssElf810 he is right. But not entirely. The problem is that yes teh dominant culture has the advantage in all places but the method of enacting that dominating and discriminating is skin color and skin superiority or any such superficial visual factors. So a people that went all 'white is superior' shouldn't really feel offended by 'white privilege'
@@BadAssElf810 Black guy here. He is right in that it exists everywhere, but we don't live everywhere. We live in the West, so the term makes perfect sense. "In group privilege" equates to the exact same thing.
@@BadAssElf810 in the same diatribe he says thats what privilege is , its to favour the majority population, in other words in all his denial ,he admits the truth in the same sentence .
@@akshayde he is entirely wrong and he admits it, even when he gets to the end of this interview, he admits."of course racism exists, I'm not saying it doesn't, of course it does", the guy is a flim'-flammer of the first order
According to Peterson, 100 years of Jim Crow was the result of the unrelated actions of individual actors. And he's supposed to be an "intellectual?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
According to modern day, the effects of Jim Crow are all but non-existent outside of using it for fundraising black causes that just go into the pockets of shysters and politicians.
There's no such thing as tourism, only people in transit. There's no such thing as transit, only people going from one place to another. There's on such thing as going, only a succession of moments in which a thing exists in slightly different locations. There's no such thing as a thing, only a group of interrelated phenomena perceived as a cohesive unity. There's no such thing as a phenomenon, only the image in an observer's mind of that phenomenon. There's no such thing as an image, but look at this picture of some tourists.
2 different points, one should be particularized and the other was a general rule in which in which to filter. maybe it went over your head. Also you can tell in his awkward smile at the exact moment he said it, knowing it sounded contradictory but it was not because again, 2 different things
It’s extremely difficult for people who never experienced racism to come to grips with it, and because they’re not affected by it they have the tendency to not see it as systematic but in that thought they actually proved that it is….they’re whole view is counterproductive because it allows it’s to exist by denial….
@@54blewis you were the one making the claim! Defend your position! It’s like me saying “God exists” then you say “prove he exists” and I say “prove that he doesn’t”. It’s a logical fallacy. Now defend YOUR claim.
What it sounds like to me, is that he is saying we should deal with the players who were initiating the racist acts instead of just moving up the ladder and calling the whole organization racist.
So you've never heard of organisations being complicit in racism? Or trying to hide it? Or not holding people accountable? As an example, if a bunch of people are racist towards an individual and the org knows but does nothing/nothing helpful, are they not responsible too? Ofc they are.
Responsibility exists at the individual level after all is said and done. Also, if Seder and company really believe that all thinking should be broad and not individualized, then they should not be focusing on the case of one particular victim. It would also mean that recourse should be dealt out collectively and not individually.
Lipstick on women doesn’t mean women are asking to be raped. Individual women wearing individual sticks of individual brands of lipsticks are asking individual men to rape them. Individually. Makes so much sense.
"We shouldn't analyze structural racism, because that leads to divisiveness". Isn't that a logical fallacy? The appeal to consequences fallacy if I'm not mistaken.
i think youre right. another one the right likes to use when speaking about bigotry, or any problem, is the 'Perfect solution or Nirvana fallacy' which states that if an action is not a perfect solution to a problem, it is not worth taking.
It is a logical fallacy. Let us assume structural racism exists, how would Peterson ever be able to tell? His analysis will forever be stuck on the level of the individual. How will Peterson ever be able to talk or look or think about history, politics, religion, society, values, etc. If we are all independent individuals that exist in a vacuum and just do stuff, without explanation from outside forces? How will Peterson ever be able to talk about western values or Marxism again? Are does not low resolution abstractions? The same way that thinking only in abstractions can make you blind to important distinctions, the same way thinking only in particularities can make you blind to important similarities. But who really cares? Peterson is to stubborn and convinced of his own profundity to care, that he makes absolutely no sense and his followers are to stupid to even think about anything he says
He's technically right, though. We want to pit people who aren't racist against the people spreading and maintaining racism. I somehow don't think that was the groups he was referring to...though, given it's him, maybe that's exactly the conflict he doesn't want to happen.
Even worse his entire statement is a logical contradiction. He claims we should particularize and not generalize or abstract, but that entire statement is a generalization. High resolution thinking would be to assess something and then to decide whether or not this is best understood as part of a bigger phenomenon or only a particularity best assessed on its own. The response by the panelists was dissapointing, he should not have been able to get away with something so stupid.
It's sad alot of comments are saying how can he know racism . People can study people can see with thier owns eyes living in places where it exists . Anyone who immediately gives this older white man no credibility to speak because he us white make me want to give up .
No he didn’t, he said “it’s easy for me to be seen as a representation of he patriarchy because I’m white, and because I’m old, and because I’m successful”. I don’t see how this isn’t true anyways. Also for your information, he never actually denied racism exists, you should watch the full interview.
I think Jordan went here wildly unprepared and he's trying to retrofit his agenda onto the facts. As someone who's a die hard cricket fan and who's followed this case for a while, I can tell you that there's undeniable proof of a clear, concerted effort to brush aside Rafiq's accusations by the entire administration that's behind the club (i.e. the domestic Yorkshire club). Further, Rafiq has named at least 5 people in his team who were direct perpetrators of racial abuse and others who were tacit supporters. All of this is pretty clearly proof of a general problem of racism.
One cricketers experience is a general problem of societal institutional racism? Or it could just be that some people on that cricket team were racist and the club didn’t want to much publicity on it because being a racist nowadays is one of the worst things you can be labelled with. Doesn’t mean that there is institutional racism just because a cricket player had experiences with racism.
I doubt Peterson knew any more about cricket or this particular case than he knows about racism or, indeed, most cultural issues. Which is to say: nothing. He's a weirdo right-wing self-help guru whose relevance outside that very narrow context is nil.
@@josephbayliss9464 Are you the slightest aware of the facts? He repeatedly complained to his cricket club about the constant use of racist names and that as a practicing Muslim the teammates pinned him down and poured wine down his throat one time, and when he complained to the club they wrote a report saying he should just suck up the banter and blaming him for being too thin-skinned. The institution said that.
@@josephbayliss9464 Yep, it's just a coincidence that he is a Pakistani Muslim in the UK. Next time it could be someone who gets harassed for being white and a Catholic. For totes.
Why the hell does Peterson insist on communicating his ideas in the weirdest way possible? It's like, he's shy, and he's trying to hint at his argument instead of actually saying it. I bet he does it on purpose so that he has the option to use the "they didn't get me" defense, which he seems to use a lot whenever someone criticizes him.
Yes, yes he does. He's never specific or concrete about anything. He always talks about a vague group of people he never actually defined that are somehow incredibly incompetent but also subverting all of human culture. He'll never state a demand or belief, he'll ask questions and make empty statements that hint at a certain opinion.
He's demanding others be specific when he fails to do it himself. It was funny when the panelists went on to answer his nonsense about " where how who". He's vague to hide behind plausible deniability. Which he does all through this when he gets called on his bs. He's not use to people being unimpressed by him
Because he really does not know what he talking about on a lot of these subjects, but has an impressive lexicon of high point Scrabble words he can throw into a conversation.
Yes! They will cut out parts to make him look bad, and they will try to argue against him but they can only do so even half decently when they take him out of context.
No he did deny the that systemic racism exists. On weak premises. I don't think he is "a clown" etc. Some of his ideas are interesting. But this was actually weak and wrong. You can't both claim there's no structure or system, while talking about the "western world is the light of the world", "good western women", like monoliths. It's one or the other. Individual or group? Or depending on what suits him? That was dishonest on his part. Not just the sophistry but the fact that, as a psychologist he knows exactly what he is doing. That is not the act of impulse of your average troll trying to be right. It is an influential scholar abusing his status and credentials to give credence to something he knows to be inaccurate.
Peeps, he also said "abstractizing doesn't solve the problem", which means he denies structural racism, plus critques through a false sophist claim about problemsolving.
It's even scarier watching this for the second time. Sam was so focused on making a mockery of Petersen's case that he applied the same "low-resolution" thinking. He along with his staff applied aggressive misinterpretations of Petersens arguments. No where in the video does he state that racism doesn't exist, or deny racism although Seder states "actually that is what he is really saying" several times. @ 8:41 Petersen states, "That does NOT mean that racism does not exist." But then, Seder follows up @ 9:08 implying that Petersen said "there is no racism." Its almost as if Seder and the guests on the show- those too focused on hand movements- wanted to hear things incorrectly. How about the fact that structural racism exists, but Petersen provides for a path of figuring out where, which allows for solutions. By just ignoring his statements to get a rise out of your audience does no good.
@Sky Gardener I think part of the problem here is that there are two different definitions of racism circulating in common parlance. One of them holds that racism = racial prejudice. This definition is essentially individualistic. The other definition holds that racism = racial inequality and everything that causes it. This definition is essentially collectivist. These are two very different ideas. We would have more productive conversations if we differentiated these ideas with two different words.
@@micahgelfand8282 who create fan clubs and sub reddits to make plans to further interconnect their message to more individual like minded people. unless its state law its not racism
....Then vote for, exclusively live and spend money with those who hold the same views @@jerseyjackrabbit2829. All completely in an unconnected, non-systematic manner. 😆😅😂🤣
I've got one: There is no nefarious dastardly push for neoliberal Marxism(whatever that means), there are only individuals who think that maybe getting our citizens a system of healthcare as effective as Canada or Britain would be nice, or believe that our government shouldn't let billionaires grossly extract every penny they can from the surplus labor of destitute workers. When you talk about those things at such a high layer of abstraction, that's low resolution thinking. I love that his criticism of systemic racism could be applied to probably everything he says. Somewhere deep within the pool of frothing abstraction in his brain is a legible point, yearning to be free.
That’s insane! “Neoliberal Marxism” is a contradiction in terms. These “conservatives” think “neoliberal” is an extension of their understanding of “liberalism” being tantamount to “progressivism” and don’t realize the “neoliberal” describes corporate, laissez-faire capitalism. It’s like saying someone is a “Marxist capitalist”.
haha. well done. this goes to prove how jorp is totally full of shit. no way in hell would he ever in a million years apply the same "individualist" logic to the feminists/sjws/radical leftists/postmodern neomarxists that he complains about endlessly.
All the abstract nonsense he spews exists to drown out the little voice that's screaming, "I just want to sexually harass women in the workplace and get away with it!"
@@luna-p Right? And he has done it to at least three women, and so far gotten away with it, too. He's also pathetically inept as a shrink and probably done more to harm his patients than help any of them. And if anyone out there can sift any real meaning out of his dissertation at all, they must have a cast-iron stomach just to wade through it all. The man's a grifter, and has been one since the beginning of his academic career, and no one's had the nerve to say "This is garbage, this is bullshit, go back and write it again, and this time say what you REALLY mean!"
I'm glad the other panelists called out his nonsense. I think he is too used to lecturing teenagers. ... wow, did not think this comment would attract so many JP fan boys. I do think it is odd that people would defer to a pop psychologist about a matter of history when they could just go read any number books that detail systemic racism in the US, past and present, written by actual historians who are qualified to speak on the matter.
@@keirfarnum6811 Trust me, if you believe there is structural racism in Britain then you've been programmed and brainwashed, the British have gone above and beyond to cater to every foreigner, migrant, refugee, they're in every facet of government, they're fused in society, store owners, businessmen, everything and they've been accepted by everyone, and for the left to hurl accusations and label the native population like that shows their disdain and hatred for the British is disgusting, and for you at 51 to accept that and believe it is worse
I was on twitter and the majority of the UK folk were laughing at JP, they were gobsmacked he is considered to be some kind of intellectual. The word "waffle" was trending beside his name
A low resolution way of thinking, essentially means you're looking at something through the broadest category you can assign it to. For instance, you're grocery shopping, walking past the aisles looking for Tylenol, you see the soup isle, the paper towel isle, the milk isle, - you don't need to know what brands of soup they had, or the sizes or flavors- because you already know, you won't find Tylenol in this section. Once you find the medicine isle, then you break it down between cold medicine, vitamins, eye drops, etc., then by brand, then by size. You're using a low resolution until you need to use a higher one, and it always begins that way. He's saying that we understand there's a problem, but you have to look at each case individually to identify similarities between them and actually come up with a way to fix it. To just make a blanket statement of "all ... are bad" its not helpful in any way. You have to get a higher resolution image of what is really going on, before you start condemning anyone for a collective crime of their group. Because guess what, what a shocker, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. 🙄
@Sky Gardener yeah, thats how that should start - but not where it should end. You have to keep going to figure out the root of the problem, otherwise it's just not helpful and you're making biased generalizations.
Did.....did Sam just say that crime isn't on an individual level, it's on a group level of people more likely to commit crimes? Did he just make a racism??
@@samuelmerkel2888 Sam is saying that only analyzing phenomenon at the individual level is not sufficient and ignores that structural forces do shape how people interact. Regarding the video, he's staying that Peterson's call to only look at individuals ignores the fact that structural forces like concepts of race can have an impact that coordinates individual action So he's not saying that "crime isn't on an individual level" he's saying that crime is perpetrated by individuals who are parts of larger structures, and those larger structures have an impact on what/if/how those crimes, or in the case of the incident in the video, racist actions, are carried out
JP never said structural or institutional racism didn't exist, he was saying the way to tackle the issue was to first start by being precise, who exactly said/did what exactly, before abstracting it to a higher level
This why I ain't watching his show anymore . He never said what the show says he said . It makes me feel gross that they can say he doesn't think structural racism exists . The hosts jumped to that conclusion to be a social justice warrior of the worst kind . The kind who doesn't recognize an Allie.
Even with that, his own definition actually does what he fears. Because he says that this idea puts ethnical groups against each other. When instead, structural racism doesn’t mean that the *individuals have those inherent traits or behaviors.* It means the structure corrupts them. The view of Peterson just blames the individual actors as atomized from any influence. When the reality of society doesn’t work like that. We are going to blame racist people to their own racist ideas? Forgetting the influence from family, school, the internet, where they are borned… things that individuals *don’t choose.*
I’m a Psych student, we talk about societal structures all the time. The reason he fetishes the individual is because he’s enjoying his right wing grift. If you are to understand the individual you need to understand the society and environment that influences the individual.
@UCfXSigP0r1bLxyf7JQgoDOw i think Sam's point was that he's using psychology as a platform to back his narrative of the individuality of the issue. Psychological ailments and issues occur very often without the structural and societal effects therein right? So that's his base line. I've seen this single mindedness on certain issues in psychologists. They have success or failure in their endeavours and it dictates their treatments from then on, regardless of success in others. I don't think it's a slight of psychologists it's a slight against the adaptability of some of them, and him as an INDIVIDUAL if you will. But then again i don't know shit so there's always that....
@@aliamjon2550 that’s not what people are saying. There is no such thing as “individuals”, we are all products of factors and influences outside of us as an individual person. Your thoughts and your actions don’t happen within a vacuum.
I wonder if it ever crossed Peterson's mind that his following don't actually care for what he has to say, just so long as what he says reassures their world views.
If tomorrow he started saying something like “I previously misunderstood feminism and it’s actually pretty good I learned, and includes men!” he would receive massive backlash.
@@misterdemocracy3335 his Twitter comments are so depressing it’s like a quarter hard right people and the rest are firm right, and most of them mention they buy bought his book… 😓 how can they not see the grift?
@@misterdemocracy3335 feminists are actually masculinists because they want to wear pants and suits and work like men and never have babies. An actual feminist loves being feminine and being treated like a princess
He didn't say you should talk about structural racism...he is saying that it is bad practice to talk about a structural problem based on individual experiences. And - in the USA at least, and most western societies - there is no such thing as structural racism. You will not be denied a job/opportunity because you are black. However, as times progress, you are growing likely to be denied a job because you are white based on root-level implementations of affirmative action. Those are in fact becoming a systemic problem.
From Canada: Deepest apologies. In fairness when we threw him into the St. Lawrence we didn't know he was such a good swimmer, let alone that he'd make it all the way down there! 😊
I cant believe that this is how you twist his words. He said Specifically "The people who were racist to him should be held accountable, you should not call an entire institution racist due to some people being ass holes" not "its a coincidence"... Nowhere did he state anything like that remotely. WTF are you talking about..........
I must say, as a mathematician who deals almost entirely in abstraction, structural racism (the idea that there are rules, systems or incentives in place which tend to or always leads to racist outcomes) really isn't that abstract or hard to wrap one's head around.
@@sidarthur8706 Once it's "on a larger scale", it can already be analysed on a structural level. For instance, if so many people are being brought up with such racial prejudice that would by itself explain the racism experienced by Rafiq, this is clearly a failing of society-in particular education. However, this is a gross simplification I expect, because there are many other structural issues that will likely be involved-for instance, I think the environment within a sports club might be partly to blame; by that I mean certain "traditions" being passed down and that sort of thing.
@@sidarthur8706 ask the museum of London why they won't return artifacts back to the places they stole them from if you wanna hear an explicit summarization of racism in Britain
@Luke Alexander it's been my understanding that systemic racism and institutional racism as in this case are separate things. i thought systemic racism doesn't have to involve any overt interpersonal discrimination but it causes ethnic minorities to end up with less than their fair share. i get the argument about education in theory but i don't know how much more british schools can do to promote tolerance
So according to him these individuals were racist but I guess they came up with that idea to hate that person based on his race because actually racism doesn’t exist 🤔
It is strange how much they talk in this video about what peterson is meaning if he says something instead of addressing what he is actually saying. Interesting bubble you have here.
Saying it doesn't exist at higher level isn't really what he said. He said its not useful to think of it like that. Because any benefit you get from trying to solve it at that level ends up drumming up tribal instincts that are far more dangerous. I think there is a fair bit of evidence to support JBPs concern.
I don't think he was saying that those guys were not racist. He's saying you are more likely to solve the problem of racism by holding people in individual instances of racism accountable than you are by saying the system is racist.
Bwahahaha. "Peterson is serving white rich dude." Yeah. That's it. You guys can't even represent what he is actually trying to say so you sum up with the straw man of what you think those baddies on the right are doing. This is too much. Take responsibility for not being a bigoted asshole and hold individuals responsible instead of blaming the ether of some systemic racism that can't exactly be pointed to, we just know it must exist because, ya know, evidence, so lets tear it down without any kind of plan or evidence that there even exists a system without the terrible systemic racism that is feared. Yeah okay. Peterson makes the claim that each individual has the potential to make the world a better place and each individual has the responsibility to do so and that somehow serves rich white dudes?
“There is no increase in crime. There are just individuals who commit crimes and there’s a coincidence that there’s an increase in crime”. - jordan b peterson
Scenario: There is rising crime in a certain town/city. Solution 1:You lockdown/condemn the entire town. Solution 2: You raise alertness and target and process the criminals.
Comparing Peterson's "denial" of structural racism to a denial of an increase in crime rate" is a pretty weak analogy. A better analogy to structural racism would be the statement that every [white | black | male | teenage | whatever] person is inherently criminal - as "structural racism" suggests that every white person is inherently racist.
There is a piece missing from this - the inquest into the abuse essentially led to victim blaming and said the victim of the abuse "should have taken the jests in the nature they were intended". I.e. the disciplinary body tried to sweep it away. I don't know how else you can define this as anything but structural racism.
@@zombiematt2006 In the report the P-word (as associated with anyone from Pakistan) was just 'team-mate banter' But a word I personally had never heard of until now 'Zimbo' (as associated to anyone of white heritage from Zimbabwe) was 'outrageous and disgusting racism, and if Azeem was still a player at the club would have faced punishment/sanction. while the player(s) who used the P-word would face no punishment. consequences are now being felt by individuals names in the report.
Literally says he's not denying the man's experience. Just questioning whether using anecdotal evidence to define societal narratives is the best course of action.
I definitely agree. I can't believe he's been taken seriously at all. The existence of large systemic problems in our society (including racism) is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80 despite denial by conservative grifters. Various long-held bigoted cultural values engrained in society obviously lead to problematic behavior by individuals within that society, even if the laws themselves aren't explicitly bigoted anymore. The system is made up by groups of people and those people can ignore the laws when convenient if nobody enforces them. Also keep in mind a lot of people that lobbied and protested against the Civil Rights movement and desegregation are still alive with children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who they influence daily, and that's an easy example of a large systemic issue leading to current racism and other problems. And remember even though Peterson and the wingnuts don't believe in systemic racism, they believe in systemic group issues in the culture when it comes to things they think are bad like feminism, minority crime rates, LGBTQ+ rights, and concepts like "Cultural Marxism" and "Postmodernism" (which they misapply), revealing Peterson's not only gaslighting but also a hypocrite along with the rest of the conservative movement.
@@danielmortimer532 his argument is that "systematic problems" are a lot harder to solve than punishing racism on an individual level. Structural racism types never can identify actual specific racist laws or institutions that currently exist; mostly because they've been wiped the fuck out over the last 50 years.
According to conservatives, analyzing an issue means that you create that issue. This makes sense, because any time they bother to analyze something, it's because they made it up.
you are from the left, you say its a horrible thing to generalize, and yet you generalized and entire political community, kind of shows the hypocrisy...
The fact you even say that explains everything. You will join ignorant people just to be accepted rather than use critical thinking for 5 seconds. Or just study some history and see the truth. Its so sad that so many people will be against someone spreading truth. Why? Because you want to be apart of something and you are to lazy to become educated enough to understand what Jordan Peterson is saying. You know how to tell when you are smart? When people think you're crazy and talk nonsense. How is that? Because majority of people choose to stay in ignorance because this has become popular. Its cool to be dumb and not know anything about history or the human mind. Its cool to reject religion especially christianity. Its cool to be immoral and follow rappers spewing the satanic agenda. It's good vs evil. Not black vs white
@@Kubaaano He's educated and obviously has a relatively high level of intelligence as evidenced by his academic career. However, he has deluded himself that his expertise in psychology makes him an expert in anything he turns his hand to, when he clearly isn't. And is apparently either too foolish/arrogant to realise it or too dishonest to admit it. He is a long way from being brilliant.
“Racism is only a concept that exists in a m-dimensional synchronized warp bended neurological psycho field anomaly that we usually perceive in a elated state of mind from a meta-behavioristical point of view” Quite simple, everybody can understand that. You only need a jacket, a tie, some fame to regurgitate this assessment in professional and stupid fair seriousness.
He's not actually intelligent enough to troll, he's merely overly verbose with a slightly broader than average vocabulary and an overestimation of his own capacity for logic. He says words, and he has a vague understanding of what they mean, but he doesn't realize that some of them contradict each other despite being used in the same argument. The greatest example of that was on Joe Rogan's podcast when Peterson was arguing for "enforced monogamy" on college campuses. Rogan, rightly confused, pointed out that that's exactly the "cultural Marxism" that Peterson decries, and Peterson had to stop and say "hm, I see your point," before quickly changing the subject and avoiding that contradiction altogether. In other words, Peterson is a complete and total hack. He's not trolling, he's genuinely that dumb.
@@imcallingjapan2178 @Aliam jon is a lost cause. He subscribes to Steven Crowder, The Rubin Report, Dan Bogino, The Fallen State, Jesse Lee Peterson, Daily Caller, TheDC Shorts, Liberty Hangout, Timcast, Mr Reagan, TheQuartering, MICHAEL SAVAGE, Mark Dice, Matt Walsh. He is disingenuous and will claim he is not rightwing.
@@haroldjones8521 Imagine being subscribed to TheQuartering, Rave Dubin and Dim Fool (the rest of the list are equally as terrible tho) and telling people on the internet to "grow up" lmao
This analyst is extremely smart. He can twist and distort Jordan's words to great effect. We both know which of them would come out on top in a head on argument though
I don't considet him smart at all. He's delusional. He pretends Peterson said things he in fact did not say, draws false conclusions both on the things actually said *and not said that he himself invented*. He then contradicts himself by gigglimg like a baffoon at Peterson saying that he finds it counterproductive to escalate individual cases of racism to an accusation of general racism since it pits one group against the other (something tthe analyst seems to be intent on doing). Far from intelligent at all.
'There's no such thing as a 'structural' crime syndicate, you have to address each individual criminal act to the criminal that perpetrated it, any 'mafia' talk is dangerous, and pits good people against bad people'.
If Peterson had just said "I think this is just an example of bad apples and not systemic", it would have been coherent. But Peterson being Peterson he must be as obscurantist as possible to play his Jedi Mind Trick on his credulous fans. Post-coma Peterson is just not charismatic enough to get away with these poor arguments.
So help me out with this one. According to Jordan’s individual experience structural racism doesn’t exist and it’s important for us as a collective to deny the cricket player his individual experience because it aims to deny Jordan’s experience rather than help him self and others. Cancel culture on the other hand is a structural problem, hence the name, and when anyone feels they been cancelled it’s obviously not just an individual experience.
Help me out here: Why do you care? I mean you’ve taken the time to watch the video, read some comments and write one yourself. Why? What about him justifies him living rent free in your head?
@@firewithfire848 Because he's being given a platform to espouse his pseudo-intellectualism, hypocrisy, and other harmful stuff that doesn't help solve the issues but rather feeds into it. And here you are, missing the entire point of OP's post.
Note „Low resolution thinking“ is useful to count incidents for example in a district, but probably not cost efficient in tackling the problem efficiently.
It's actually way worse than that. Jordans position is basically that he arrived at the n-word on his own without any outside influence, and it's coincidental that many other people also arrive at that word. Therefore no action outside of individually discouraging these people should ever be considered.
Oh I can assure you it does. In my workplace outside the woke the remaining 95 per cent have fallen silent - no humor, no questioning, no banter. Just silence. It is toxic
@@MJ-qb5ph So... wait, what does "woke" mean to you exactly? 95 percent out of it means that there's a 19-1 ratio so you're claiming that one tiny "per cent" of the group silences everybody else somehow? Just examining your story from face value (it sounds pretty made up tbh)
Hilarious that Trump came right out and said it to their faces, "I love the uneducated" and like good little idiots they loved him more for it. Peterson is running a similar grift with a slighly smarter portion of the right wing audience.
Without analyzing this subject too deeply, as a white European, it feels like I have been a witness of structural, endemic, blatant racism in the US all my 60+ years ....Period!
Lol Europe is hella racist too dude. UK is hyper racist. Ireland got racists. I'm sure Italy and Germany and Hungary all got racists dude I had a Russian man say "don't trust Moldovans" I'm like "what the fuck is a Moldovan". Also ask anyone in Europe about "gypsies or travelers" and you'll see a frothing tirade come out of their mouth and ass
@@spacemanx9595 True! We all have racists in our countries, that is why instead of erasing History, most of the European countries choose to remember it (i hope that at least we are still doing that). No country on Earth has a clean History. What you pass-on to your kids is either a +/- accurate Historical recounting of the events (with the purpose of leaving the entire world a better place as you die and fade-away) or then just deny facts because you can't own -up to your own mistakes as a society in time A.K.A CRT-deniers!... Just because other countries have racism it doesn't mean you don't want your country to be better than that, specially when they have the greatest economy on Earth (ever) and also specially, when they're not close to close that gap in comparison to many other countries around the world.
Hey if racism doesn’t exist, then let’s pass all these anti racist policies, if racism doesn’t exist they obviously won’t have much effect, so let’s get them passed :)
Just the first sentence: "Things need to be particularalized, rather than generalized, as a general rule" said without irony or any indication of awareness, and his audience/cultists eat it up. He's a charlatan quack who (to use his framework) has a messiah complex.
@@davedd7803 Well, that depends on Cultural Marxism which depends by abstractions caused by the inner self conscious which depends on Postmodern Jungian subjectivist social constructs.
Jordan Peterson: cancel culture is a thing and therefore a problem. Also Jordan Peterson: institutional racism isn't a thing and therefore not a problem.
The difference is Jordan can point at individuals in cancel culture who are dictating punishment to people for expressing their views. While people who claim institutional racism can't name one person who has committed a racist act, they just talk about the "system" like it's a ghost that doesn't exist.
@@MiguelCruz-oz7km A culture contains individuals. You can't fix the issue without interacting with individuals. That's the difference, it's the method. Left wing authoritarians are focusing on equity which treats people differently based on imutible characteristics, right wing authoritarians do the same thing, like white nationalism and kkk treat people differently based on skin color. So in a way, authoritarianism is the problem. Not left or right. People should defend liberty, freedom, and respect individualism (holding individuals accountable for poor behaviour, rewarding good behaviour like skills, art, work ethic) I hope this answer works for you. It's about time the left and right stop fighting and start working together again.
5:00 He literally advocating what conservatives have spent the last couple years bemoaning as "Cancel Culture": exonerate larger structures and institutions, single out individuals, and try to fight prejudice and discrimination by personally shaming them.
5:36 that face there is beyond brilliant, just the look of resignation that peterson doesn't just have a different opinion but that peterson has so little knowledge on this topic at all he thinks structural racism doesn't exist
When did he say it wasn’t an issue? He says it WAS an issue when he says those people need to be held accountable. His argument is that we shouldn’t just elevate it to institutional or structural racism if it’s a particular case.
I thought he was a Jungian? Didn't he write a book about psychological/sub-conscious archetypes that exist across all of humanity? Also I thought his whole deal with the lobsters was about hierarchies and the "natural" hierarchies that exist throughout nature. Seems to be contradicting his own core beliefs here.
@@aliamjon2550 Change systems. CRT analysis would be helpful were it not under attack and being banned, which to me is evidence of an agenda to maintain the status quo i.e. structural racism aka white supremacy
@@PeacockPoverty Are you saying that racism only comes from White people and not blacks, hispanics or asians ? Because if you are you're talking nonsense
@@aliamjon2550 No need to be insulting. I'm not inclined to engage with that. I asked you a question, that's all. We're talking about structural racism.
Conservatives: Racism is just a matter of bad individual choices. There is no societal problem here. But Cancel Culture and the War on Christmas, those are totally a thing.
Fragile, christian nincompoop. Leave him be.
"First allow me to blow your mind: things need to be particularized, so allow me to generalize about the particularization of the particulars. Words, things. It's a peculiar particle of pompous palindromes. Shout out to all the incels who still think I'm smart! I'll be at the lobby at the Radisson all night doing shots after this. Feel free to join me." -JBP
Also "reverse racism".
Yes
I'm trying to think of a funny comment to write but I can't get down to JBP's level of stupid.
The existence of Jordan B. Peterson implies the existence of a superior Jordan A. Peterson.
that would be just a coincidence, only particular cases exist and no structure. that's some low resolution thinking.
Lol you both gave me a good laugh. ]
I think you’re optimism is uncalled for:-)
The old “The problem is not the people being racist, it’s that people get offended from people saying racist things” 😂
@Paul Puglisi But Peterson has acknowledged that the problem exists. Watch his speech at Harvard (on YT) where he claims there is "no such thing as "white privilege" only to go on and explain that, of course, in all societies the people in a minority culture will be at a disadvantage, so I guess he means the term "white" in front of privilege is what offends him; although the phenomenon is still there which he acknowledges. Maybe he wants us to call it "majority culture privilege?" Or maybe he thinks it's okay for the dominant majority culture to have such advantages and nothing should be done about it? He didn't say.
@@BadAssElf810 he is right. But not entirely. The problem is that yes teh dominant culture has the advantage in all places but the method of enacting that dominating and discriminating is skin color and skin superiority or any such superficial visual factors. So a people that went all 'white is superior' shouldn't really feel offended by 'white privilege'
@@BadAssElf810 Black guy here. He is right in that it exists everywhere, but we don't live everywhere. We live in the West, so the term makes perfect sense. "In group privilege" equates to the exact same thing.
@@BadAssElf810 in the same diatribe he says thats what privilege is , its to favour the majority population, in other words in all his denial ,he admits the truth in the same sentence .
@@akshayde he is entirely wrong and he admits it, even when he gets to the end of this interview, he admits."of course racism exists, I'm not saying it doesn't, of course it does", the guy is a flim'-flammer of the first order
It's amazing what passes for intellectualism these days.
Yeah, Sam Cedar is pretty bad
The fact that Sam hasn't monetized his trademark phrase by starting a pet grooming service called "Paws It" still astounds me.
⚰️😂
I'm surprised he doesn't have a shirt.
Maybe you should posit that idea.
For one second
not monetizing stuff is sam's media plan
According to Peterson, 100 years of Jim Crow was the result of the unrelated actions of individual actors. And he's supposed to be an "intellectual?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That's a one hell of a coincidence.
Thank for summarising the representation so well. Good job
According to modern day, the effects of Jim Crow are all but non-existent outside of using it for fundraising black causes that just go into the pockets of shysters and politicians.
@@ocarinaplaya damn, really went mask off there with "shysters" huh? Get it together
@@ocarinaplaya I didn't hear anything coming out of that fancy whistle of yours, but my neighbor's dog just went nuts.
To be fair, he never said structural racism doesn't exist, he said it's not a framing that will help solve the problem.
People choose to hear what they want to hear. Don't matter if you rewind and replay hundred times
"Things needs to be particularized rather than generalized... as a general rule." - the genius Jordan B. Peterson
And he says "Rasism" low resolution thinking. What does this mean? I can't make head nor tails out of Peterson.
Some people don’t realize how stupid they are. Good for them.
There's no such thing as tourism, only people in transit.
There's no such thing as transit, only people going from one place to another.
There's on such thing as going, only a succession of moments in which a thing exists in slightly different locations.
There's no such thing as a thing, only a group of interrelated phenomena perceived as a cohesive unity.
There's no such thing as a phenomenon, only the image in an observer's mind of that phenomenon.
There's no such thing as an image, but look at this picture of some tourists.
Extremely underrated comment.
2 different points, one should be particularized and the other was a general rule in which in which to filter. maybe it went over your head. Also you can tell in his awkward smile at the exact moment he said it, knowing it sounded contradictory but it was not because again, 2 different things
This is the moment jordan peterson became jesse lee peterson
Amazin
@@bertthompson4748 😅😅🤣🤣
fuck that's good!
*Bayyyduuuuhh*
😂😂👍
It’s extremely difficult for people who never experienced racism to come to grips with it, and because they’re not affected by it they have the tendency to not see it as systematic but in that thought they actually proved that it is….they’re whole view is counterproductive because it allows it’s to exist by denial….
Preach
Let’s be specific. What systems? And what ppl in them? They say the justice system but in black majority communities they have majority black cops.
Prove Jordan Peterson hasn’t experienced racism. You can’t.
@@rubiksgaming358 prove that he has..
@@54blewis you were the one making the claim! Defend your position! It’s like me saying “God exists” then you say “prove he exists” and I say “prove that he doesn’t”. It’s a logical fallacy. Now defend YOUR claim.
What it sounds like to me, is that he is saying we should deal with the players who were initiating the racist acts instead of just moving up the ladder and calling the whole organization racist.
Yeah that’s not necessarily a bad approach.
Yep. Pretty sensible.
So you've never heard of organisations being complicit in racism? Or trying to hide it? Or not holding people accountable? As an example, if a bunch of people are racist towards an individual and the org knows but does nothing/nothing helpful, are they not responsible too? Ofc they are.
Responsibility exists at the individual level after all is said and done. Also, if Seder and company really believe that all thinking should be broad and not individualized, then they should not be focusing on the case of one particular victim. It would also mean that recourse should be dealt out collectively and not individually.
His entire brand is analyzing super macro trends of archetypes people believe in across cultures…
but racism is too abstract
Lol, exactly.
I thought he did better than most dude . Plus yeah racism is not even explainable in less than pages upon pages.
Lipstick on women doesn’t mean women are asking to be raped. Individual women wearing individual sticks of individual brands of lipsticks are asking individual men to rape them. Individually. Makes so much sense.
Only if they put it on both lips individually though.
"We shouldn't analyze structural racism, because that leads to divisiveness". Isn't that a logical fallacy? The appeal to consequences fallacy if I'm not mistaken.
i think youre right.
another one the right likes to use when speaking about bigotry, or any problem, is the 'Perfect solution or Nirvana fallacy' which states that if an action is not a perfect solution to a problem, it is not worth taking.
It is a logical fallacy. Let us assume structural racism exists, how would Peterson ever be able to tell? His analysis will forever be stuck on the level of the individual. How will Peterson ever be able to talk or look or think about history, politics, religion, society, values, etc. If we are all independent individuals that exist in a vacuum and just do stuff, without explanation from outside forces? How will Peterson ever be able to talk about western values or Marxism again? Are does not low resolution abstractions? The same way that thinking only in abstractions can make you blind to important distinctions, the same way thinking only in particularities can make you blind to important similarities. But who really cares? Peterson is to stubborn and convinced of his own profundity to care, that he makes absolutely no sense and his followers are to stupid to even think about anything he says
He's technically right, though.
We want to pit people who aren't racist against the people spreading and maintaining racism.
I somehow don't think that was the groups he was referring to...though, given it's him, maybe that's exactly the conflict he doesn't want to happen.
Even worse his entire statement is a logical contradiction. He claims we should particularize and not generalize or abstract, but that entire statement is a generalization. High resolution thinking would be to assess something and then to decide whether or not this is best understood as part of a bigger phenomenon or only a particularity best assessed on its own. The response by the panelists was dissapointing, he should not have been able to get away with something so stupid.
Not an observation petersons audience is likely to understand I'm afraid
So where did Jordan Peterson say racism doesn't exist?
exactly
In a russel Howard interview he says that the reason his critics target him is because he is a white middle age man.the irony is beyond me.
And beyond him too, evidently....
It's sad alot of comments are saying how can he know racism . People can study people can see with thier owns eyes living in places where it exists . Anyone who immediately gives this older white man no credibility to speak because he us white make me want to give up .
No he didn’t, he said “it’s easy for me to be seen as a representation of he patriarchy because I’m white, and because I’m old, and because I’m successful”. I don’t see how this isn’t true anyways. Also for your information, he never actually denied racism exists, you should watch the full interview.
I think Jordan went here wildly unprepared and he's trying to retrofit his agenda onto the facts. As someone who's a die hard cricket fan and who's followed this case for a while, I can tell you that there's undeniable proof of a clear, concerted effort to brush aside Rafiq's accusations by the entire administration that's behind the club (i.e. the domestic Yorkshire club). Further, Rafiq has named at least 5 people in his team who were direct perpetrators of racial abuse and others who were tacit supporters. All of this is pretty clearly proof of a general problem of racism.
One cricketers experience is a general problem of societal institutional racism? Or it could just be that some people on that cricket team were racist and the club didn’t want to much publicity on it because being a racist nowadays is one of the worst things you can be labelled with. Doesn’t mean that there is institutional racism just because a cricket player had experiences with racism.
I doubt Peterson knew any more about cricket or this particular case than he knows about racism or, indeed, most cultural issues. Which is to say: nothing.
He's a weirdo right-wing self-help guru whose relevance outside that very narrow context is nil.
@@josephbayliss9464 Are you the slightest aware of the facts? He repeatedly complained to his cricket club about the constant use of racist names and that as a practicing Muslim the teammates pinned him down and poured wine down his throat one time, and when he complained to the club they wrote a report saying he should just suck up the banter and blaming him for being too thin-skinned. The institution said that.
@@KillThemMr the club isn’t an institution, if it happened at most the clubs then yes that case could be made but it didn’t.
@@josephbayliss9464 Yep, it's just a coincidence that he is a Pakistani Muslim in the UK. Next time it could be someone who gets harassed for being white and a Catholic. For totes.
Why the hell does Peterson insist on communicating his ideas in the weirdest way possible? It's like, he's shy, and he's trying to hint at his argument instead of actually saying it. I bet he does it on purpose so that he has the option to use the "they didn't get me" defense, which he seems to use a lot whenever someone criticizes him.
Yes, yes he does. He's never specific or concrete about anything. He always talks about a vague group of people he never actually defined that are somehow incredibly incompetent but also subverting all of human culture.
He'll never state a demand or belief, he'll ask questions and make empty statements that hint at a certain opinion.
He can’t say it in a simple way because then people would see it for the nonsense it is.
He's demanding others be specific when he fails to do it himself. It was funny when the panelists went on to answer his nonsense about " where how who". He's vague to hide behind plausible deniability. Which he does all through this when he gets called on his bs. He's not use to people being unimpressed by him
Because he really does not know what he talking about on a lot of these subjects, but has an impressive lexicon of high point Scrabble words he can throw into a conversation.
Who said that if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it...
He literally said and I quote " That's not to say racism doesn't exist"
Yes! They will cut out parts to make him look bad, and they will try to argue against him but they can only do so even half decently when they take him out of context.
No he did deny the that systemic racism exists. On weak premises. I don't think he is "a clown" etc. Some of his ideas are interesting. But this was actually weak and wrong. You can't both claim there's no structure or system, while talking about the "western world is the light of the world", "good western women", like monoliths. It's one or the other. Individual or group? Or depending on what suits him? That was dishonest on his part. Not just the sophistry but the fact that, as a psychologist he knows exactly what he is doing. That is not the act of impulse of your average troll trying to be right. It is an influential scholar abusing his status and credentials to give credence to something he knows to be inaccurate.
Peeps, he also said "abstractizing doesn't solve the problem", which means he denies structural racism, plus critques through a false sophist claim about problemsolving.
It's even scarier watching this for the second time. Sam was so focused on making a mockery of Petersen's case that he applied the same "low-resolution" thinking. He along with his staff applied aggressive misinterpretations of Petersens arguments. No where in the video does he state that racism doesn't exist, or deny racism although Seder states "actually that is what he is really saying" several times. @ 8:41 Petersen states, "That does NOT mean that racism does not exist." But then, Seder follows up @ 9:08 implying that Petersen said "there is no racism." Its almost as if Seder and the guests on the show- those too focused on hand movements- wanted to hear things incorrectly. How about the fact that structural racism exists, but Petersen provides for a path of figuring out where, which allows for solutions. By just ignoring his statements to get a rise out of your audience does no good.
Scary xD
@Sky Gardener I think part of the problem here is that there are two different definitions of racism circulating in common parlance. One of them holds that racism = racial prejudice. This definition is essentially individualistic. The other definition holds that racism = racial inequality and everything that causes it. This definition is essentially collectivist. These are two very different ideas. We would have more productive conversations if we differentiated these ideas with two different words.
"Sure, some people act like racists... But that doesn't mean racism exists" - Jordan Peterson, 2021
There is no racism, just millions of interconnected yet individual bigots
@@micahgelfand8282 who create fan clubs and sub reddits to make plans to further interconnect their message to more individual like minded people. unless its state law its not racism
....Then vote for, exclusively live and spend money with those who hold the same views @@jerseyjackrabbit2829.
All completely in an unconnected, non-systematic manner.
😆😅😂🤣
@@micahgelfand8282 that's not what was said but ok
@@aliamjon2550 then what WAS said? because he didn't seem to communicate his point very well if that's not what he meant.
I've got one: There is no nefarious dastardly push for neoliberal Marxism(whatever that means), there are only individuals who think that maybe getting our citizens a system of healthcare as effective as Canada or Britain would be nice, or believe
that our government shouldn't let billionaires grossly extract every penny they can from the surplus labor of destitute workers.
When you talk about those things at such a high layer of abstraction, that's low resolution thinking.
I love that his criticism of systemic racism could be applied to probably everything he says. Somewhere deep within the pool of frothing abstraction in his brain is a legible point, yearning to be free.
If I were to try to think of a word that means the opposite of marxism, neoliberalism would probably be it.
That’s insane! “Neoliberal Marxism” is a contradiction in terms. These “conservatives” think “neoliberal” is an extension of their understanding of “liberalism” being tantamount to “progressivism” and don’t realize the “neoliberal” describes corporate, laissez-faire capitalism. It’s like saying someone is a “Marxist capitalist”.
haha. well done.
this goes to prove how jorp is totally full of shit. no way in hell would he ever in a million years apply the same "individualist" logic to the feminists/sjws/radical leftists/postmodern neomarxists that he complains about endlessly.
All the abstract nonsense he spews exists to drown out the little voice that's screaming, "I just want to sexually harass women in the workplace and get away with it!"
@@luna-p Right? And he has done it to at least three women, and so far gotten away with it, too. He's also pathetically inept as a shrink and probably done more to harm his patients than help any of them. And if anyone out there can sift any real meaning out of his dissertation at all, they must have a cast-iron stomach just to wade through it all. The man's a grifter, and has been one since the beginning of his academic career, and no one's had the nerve to say "This is garbage, this is bullshit, go back and write it again, and this time say what you REALLY mean!"
"Low-resolution thinking" man talks like a parody of himself. 14 year old Redditor who reads Lovecraft energy
He’s right tho right? Saying a specific example so particular like one person, you can’t use that to show evidence for systematic racism.
I just watched the whole show. He specifically said that "It does NOT mean that racism does not exist."
I'm glad the other panelists called out his nonsense. I think he is too used to lecturing teenagers.
... wow, did not think this comment would attract so many JP fan boys. I do think it is odd that people would defer to a pop psychologist about a matter of history when they could just go read any number books that detail systemic racism in the US, past and present, written by actual historians who are qualified to speak on the matter.
What nonsense?
Trust me mentally these are teenagers, they've all been brainwashed
@@aliamjon2550
I’m 51. Try again.
@@keirfarnum6811 And spellbound by Peterson. A minor tragedy.
@@keirfarnum6811
Trust me, if you believe there is structural racism in Britain then you've been programmed and brainwashed, the British have gone above and beyond to cater to every foreigner, migrant, refugee, they're in every facet of government, they're fused in society, store owners, businessmen, everything and they've been accepted by everyone, and for the left to hurl accusations and label the native population like that shows their disdain and hatred for the British is disgusting, and for you at 51 to accept that and believe it is worse
I was on twitter and the majority of the UK folk were laughing at JP, they were gobsmacked he is considered to be some kind of intellectual. The word "waffle" was trending beside his name
Yep same here in Australia
@@Lizziee247 he is a Canadian based man
I wish someone would just gobsmack some sense into him.
I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is a very credible clinical psychologist.
They didn't understand , even though they were majority , some of us understand. This was not an easy argument to understand at all.
A low resolution way of thinking, essentially means you're looking at something through the broadest category you can assign it to. For instance, you're grocery shopping, walking past the aisles looking for Tylenol, you see the soup isle, the paper towel isle, the milk isle, - you don't need to know what brands of soup they had, or the sizes or flavors- because you already know, you won't find Tylenol in this section.
Once you find the medicine isle, then you break it down between cold medicine, vitamins, eye drops, etc., then by brand, then by size.
You're using a low resolution until you need to use a higher one, and it always begins that way.
He's saying that we understand there's a problem, but you have to look at each case individually to identify similarities between them and actually come up with a way to fix it. To just make a blanket statement of "all ... are bad" its not helpful in any way. You have to get a higher resolution image of what is really going on, before you start condemning anyone for a collective crime of their group.
Because guess what, what a shocker, EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT. 🙄
@Sky Gardener yeah, thats how that should start - but not where it should end. You have to keep going to figure out the root of the problem, otherwise it's just not helpful and you're making biased generalizations.
Did.....did Sam just say that crime isn't on an individual level, it's on a group level of people more likely to commit crimes? Did he just make a racism??
No and no, he didn't
@@justr6982 kinda, yeah
@@samuelmerkel2888 no, that's not an accurate representation of what was said at all
@@justr6982 then please elaborate
@@samuelmerkel2888 Sam is saying that only analyzing phenomenon at the individual level is not sufficient and ignores that structural forces do shape how people interact.
Regarding the video, he's staying that Peterson's call to only look at individuals ignores the fact that structural forces like concepts of race can have an impact that coordinates individual action
So he's not saying that "crime isn't on an individual level" he's saying that crime is perpetrated by individuals who are parts of larger structures, and those larger structures have an impact on what/if/how those crimes, or in the case of the incident in the video, racist actions, are carried out
He’s back I guess. Wonder how many times he’s going to melt and cry on live tv before going back to rehab
He's on a hero's journey to find out how many xanax it takes to forget racism is a thing
@@samus598 beautifully said! I couldn't have said it better myself.
😂😂😂😂
He's already cried on Dave Rubins show about the existence of God
@@tommiddlebrook1500 Yes, he did and Rubin looked uncomfortable. Lol
The story here is really: "The BBC Let Jordan Peterson On TV."
The BBC likes to indulge in quite a fair bit of conservative propaganda.
That's what I was thinking 🤔.
The BBC hates trans people so it makes total sense to me
lol
....kinda telling they went through with this after their recent scandal, huh?
This headline is misleading, I just got back from watching the full debate, he didn't say Racism doesn't exist.
JP never said structural or institutional racism didn't exist, he was saying the way to tackle the issue was to first start by being precise, who exactly said/did what exactly, before abstracting it to a higher level
This why I ain't watching his show anymore . He never said what the show says he said . It makes me feel gross that they can say he doesn't think structural racism exists . The hosts jumped to that conclusion to be a social justice warrior of the worst kind . The kind who doesn't recognize an Allie.
Even with that, his own definition actually does what he fears.
Because he says that this idea puts ethnical groups against each other. When instead, structural racism doesn’t mean that the *individuals have those inherent traits or behaviors.*
It means the structure corrupts them. The view of Peterson just blames the individual actors as atomized from any influence. When the reality of society doesn’t work like that.
We are going to blame racist people to their own racist ideas?
Forgetting the influence from family, school, the internet, where they are borned… things that individuals *don’t choose.*
I’m a Psych student, we talk about societal structures all the time. The reason he fetishes the individual is because he’s enjoying his right wing grift. If you are to understand the individual you need to understand the society and environment that influences the individual.
@UCfXSigP0r1bLxyf7JQgoDOw i think Sam's point was that he's using psychology as a platform to back his narrative of the individuality of the issue. Psychological ailments and issues occur very often without the structural and societal effects therein right? So that's his base line. I've seen this single mindedness on certain issues in psychologists. They have success or failure in their endeavours and it dictates their treatments from then on, regardless of success in others. I don't think it's a slight of psychologists it's a slight against the adaptability of some of them, and him as an INDIVIDUAL if you will. But then again i don't know shit so there's always that....
Whats wrong with individuality ? More people should be think as individuals and there would be less racism, group think invites racism
@@aliamjon2550 that’s not what people are saying. There is no such thing as “individuals”, we are all products of factors and influences outside of us as an individual person. Your thoughts and your actions don’t happen within a vacuum.
What is this "grift" that you people always talk about
@@deankruse2891
Since when ?
I wonder if it ever crossed Peterson's mind that his following don't actually care for what he has to say, just so long as what he says reassures their world views.
If tomorrow he started saying something like “I previously misunderstood feminism and it’s actually pretty good I learned, and includes men!” he would receive massive backlash.
@@misterdemocracy3335 his Twitter comments are so depressing it’s like a quarter hard right people and the rest are firm right, and most of them mention they buy bought his book… 😓 how can they not see the grift?
@@misterdemocracy3335 feminists are actually masculinists because they want to wear pants and suits and work like men and never have babies. An actual feminist loves being feminine and being treated like a princess
@Titus Andronicus Did you get that straight from JP, or from Chris Williamson, Matt Walsh or Michael Knowles?
@@moe433 You have an incel level of understanding when it comes to women.
and this guy is praised as the intellectual of our Era...
He didn't say you should talk about structural racism...he is saying that it is bad practice to talk about a structural problem based on individual experiences. And - in the USA at least, and most western societies - there is no such thing as structural racism. You will not be denied a job/opportunity because you are black. However, as times progress, you are growing likely to be denied a job because you are white based on root-level implementations of affirmative action. Those are in fact becoming a systemic problem.
Peterson can't even follow his own baseline ideological framework. Couldn't care less about what he says.
Sadly he has a huge following
So true. Joe Rogan proved that.
He’s an overrated clown.
Please explain in your own words where Peterson contradicts himself. Puking Ad Hominem is for dimwitted trogladites.
@@DavidStnl83 Repeat Jordan’s words in the same order and you’ll find the contradiction for yourself. Don’t be lazy, please.
From Canada: Deepest apologies.
In fairness when we threw him into the St. Lawrence we didn't know he was such a good swimmer, let alone that he'd make it all the way down there!
😊
he didn't so much as swim as opposed to slither.
:)
Dang it@@deannasmith4443! Didn't consider that‼️
😊
Also, shit floats.
👏🏾@@SinewRending👍🏾
😆😅😂🤣
I'd like to watch this panel discussion in the full. Link it.
I cant believe that this is how you twist his words. He said Specifically "The people who were racist to him should be held accountable, you should not call an entire institution racist due to some people being ass holes" not "its a coincidence"... Nowhere did he state anything like that remotely. WTF are you talking about..........
I must say, as a mathematician who deals almost entirely in abstraction, structural racism (the idea that there are rules, systems or incentives in place which tend to or always leads to racist outcomes) really isn't that abstract or hard to wrap one's head around.
ok but is it personal racial prejudice but on a larger scale? and does it exist in britain the way it does in america?
@@sidarthur8706 the monarchy exists... so yes, there is a structurally racist system in the UK. Have you met the Tories?
@@sidarthur8706 Once it's "on a larger scale", it can already be analysed on a structural level. For instance, if so many people are being brought up with such racial prejudice that would by itself explain the racism experienced by Rafiq, this is clearly a failing of society-in particular education.
However, this is a gross simplification I expect, because there are many other structural issues that will likely be involved-for instance, I think the environment within a sports club might be partly to blame; by that I mean certain "traditions" being passed down and that sort of thing.
@@sidarthur8706 ask the museum of London why they won't return artifacts back to the places they stole them from if you wanna hear an explicit summarization of racism in Britain
@Luke Alexander it's been my understanding that systemic racism and institutional racism as in this case are separate things. i thought systemic racism doesn't have to involve any overt interpersonal discrimination but it causes ethnic minorities to end up with less than their fair share. i get the argument about education in theory but i don't know how much more british schools can do to promote tolerance
So according to him these individuals were racist but I guess they came up with that idea to hate that person based on his race because actually racism doesn’t exist 🤔
I know, it's absurd. If we embraced seeing each other as groups rather than as individuals, we could fix racism.
It is strange how much they talk in this video about what peterson is meaning if he says something instead of addressing what he is actually saying. Interesting bubble you have here.
Saying it doesn't exist at higher level isn't really what he said. He said its not useful to think of it like that. Because any benefit you get from trying to solve it at that level ends up drumming up tribal instincts that are far more dangerous. I think there is a fair bit of evidence to support JBPs concern.
I don't think he was saying that those guys were not racist. He's saying you are more likely to solve the problem of racism by holding people in individual instances of racism accountable than you are by saying the system is racist.
Bwahahaha. "Peterson is serving white rich dude." Yeah. That's it. You guys can't even represent what he is actually trying to say so you sum up with the straw man of what you think those baddies on the right are doing. This is too much.
Take responsibility for not being a bigoted asshole and hold individuals responsible instead of blaming the ether of some systemic racism that can't exactly be pointed to, we just know it must exist because, ya know, evidence, so lets tear it down without any kind of plan or evidence that there even exists a system without the terrible systemic racism that is feared. Yeah okay.
Peterson makes the claim that each individual has the potential to make the world a better place and each individual has the responsibility to do so and that somehow serves rich white dudes?
'Limiting free speech is limiting the freedom to think' - Jordan Peterson. Also JP: 'never talk about structural racism'
Don’t talk about racism because it will upset racists
Peterson went around with a list getting signatures to try to have Marxism banned from universities
@@the1andonlytitch "Would you sign my petition?"
Fragile, christian nincompoop. Leave him be.
@@Celestina0 exactly racists should be the only ones mad when we talk about racism
JP - the most postmodern anti postmodernist
Yeah no it doesn’t work like that lmao
Idk. A lot of his philosophic analysis is postmodern af
@@LukeMcGuireoides yah you’d have to provide evidence breh
“There is no increase in crime. There are just individuals who commit crimes and there’s a coincidence that there’s an increase in crime”. - jordan b peterson
L🤭L Coincidentally Hormonal 😅
You hold individuals accountable to fix the problem. That's how justice works commie.
So stupid, totally off his point. If you don’t understand it, why have an opinion?
Scenario: There is rising crime in a certain town/city.
Solution 1:You lockdown/condemn the entire town.
Solution 2: You raise alertness and target and process the criminals.
Comparing Peterson's "denial" of structural racism to a denial of an increase in crime rate" is a pretty weak analogy. A better analogy to structural racism would be the statement that every [white | black | male | teenage | whatever] person is inherently criminal - as "structural racism" suggests that every white person is inherently racist.
@7:10 13/50? Are you making the case for 13/50 just to own Peterson? Lol. You clown.
There is a piece missing from this - the inquest into the abuse essentially led to victim blaming and said the victim of the abuse "should have taken the jests in the nature they were intended". I.e. the disciplinary body tried to sweep it away. I don't know how else you can define this as anything but structural racism.
Didn't they call it banter said in jest or something along those lines?
@@zombiematt2006 exactly, fucking mindblowing response
@@zombiematt2006 ...and some of that "banter" involved force feeding him alcohol. you know, normal non racist stuff.
@@zombiematt2006 In the report the P-word (as associated with anyone from Pakistan) was just 'team-mate banter' But a word I personally had never heard of until now 'Zimbo' (as associated to anyone of white heritage from Zimbabwe) was 'outrageous and disgusting racism, and if Azeem was still a player at the club would have faced punishment/sanction. while the player(s) who used the P-word would face no punishment. consequences are now being felt by individuals names in the report.
Jordan Gaslighting Peterson.
Literally says he's not denying the man's experience. Just questioning whether using anecdotal evidence to define societal narratives is the best course of action.
I definitely agree. I can't believe he's been taken seriously at all. The existence of large systemic problems in our society (including racism) is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 80 despite denial by conservative grifters. Various long-held bigoted cultural values engrained in society obviously lead to problematic behavior by individuals within that society, even if the laws themselves aren't explicitly bigoted anymore. The system is made up by groups of people and those people can ignore the laws when convenient if nobody enforces them. Also keep in mind a lot of people that lobbied and protested against the Civil Rights movement and desegregation are still alive with children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren who they influence daily, and that's an easy example of a large systemic issue leading to current racism and other problems. And remember even though Peterson and the wingnuts don't believe in systemic racism, they believe in systemic group issues in the culture when it comes to things they think are bad like feminism, minority crime rates, LGBTQ+ rights, and concepts like "Cultural Marxism" and "Postmodernism" (which they misapply), revealing Peterson's not only gaslighting but also a hypocrite along with the rest of the conservative movement.
@@danielmortimer532 his argument is that "systematic problems" are a lot harder to solve than punishing racism on an individual level. Structural racism types never can identify actual specific racist laws or institutions that currently exist; mostly because they've been wiped the fuck out over the last 50 years.
@@danielmortimer532 Well said
Agreed
You can see Jordans face go red as he realises that his usually shtick isn't flying with the British panel =)
Can you link the video being referenced?
Would like to see it
According to conservatives, analyzing an issue means that you create that issue. This makes sense, because any time they bother to analyze something, it's because they made it up.
Savage af. Great point
Quite post-modern of them, really
That’s not true, they say starting from a point of racializing everything creates racism.
you are from the left, you say its a horrible thing to generalize, and yet you generalized and entire political community, kind of shows the hypocrisy...
You've already drawn the conclusion. That's not an analysis.
It always boggles my mind how anyone thinks Peterson is "brilliant".
Big time.
Aren't you throwing the baby out with the bath water there?
As a white person who grew up spoiled and not know about how the society works, Jordan Peterson appears to me a smart guru.
The fact you even say that explains everything. You will join ignorant people just to be accepted rather than use critical thinking for 5 seconds. Or just study some history and see the truth. Its so sad that so many people will be against someone spreading truth. Why? Because you want to be apart of something and you are to lazy to become educated enough to understand what Jordan Peterson is saying. You know how to tell when you are smart? When people think you're crazy and talk nonsense. How is that? Because majority of people choose to stay in ignorance because this has become popular. Its cool to be dumb and not know anything about history or the human mind. Its cool to reject religion especially christianity. Its cool to be immoral and follow rappers spewing the satanic agenda. It's good vs evil. Not black vs white
@@Kubaaano
He's educated and obviously has a relatively high level of intelligence as evidenced by his academic career.
However, he has deluded himself that his expertise in psychology makes him an expert in anything he turns his hand to, when he clearly isn't. And is apparently either too foolish/arrogant to realise it or too dishonest to admit it.
He is a long way from being brilliant.
First rule of Jordan Peterson: There are no systemic phenomena other than those I create which support my worldview.
Jordan Peterson is literally a satirical cartoon figure of himself at this point
Jordan Peterson is basically trolling us at this point.
It's not trolling. He's getting paid to say that. He's a grifter.
"Things need to be particularalized, rather than generalized, as a general rule"
Ffs! 😑
“Racism is only a concept that exists in a m-dimensional synchronized warp bended neurological psycho field anomaly that we usually perceive in a elated state of mind from a meta-behavioristical point of view” Quite simple, everybody can understand that. You only need a jacket, a tie, some fame to regurgitate this assessment in professional and stupid fair seriousness.
@@micahgmiranda .. It goes further than being a "grifter" for Peterson. He actually believes the CRP that he spouts.
He's not actually intelligent enough to troll, he's merely overly verbose with a slightly broader than average vocabulary and an overestimation of his own capacity for logic. He says words, and he has a vague understanding of what they mean, but he doesn't realize that some of them contradict each other despite being used in the same argument. The greatest example of that was on Joe Rogan's podcast when Peterson was arguing for "enforced monogamy" on college campuses. Rogan, rightly confused, pointed out that that's exactly the "cultural Marxism" that Peterson decries, and Peterson had to stop and say "hm, I see your point," before quickly changing the subject and avoiding that contradiction altogether.
In other words, Peterson is a complete and total hack. He's not trolling, he's genuinely that dumb.
In his defense, he's got a lot to deal with personally. It's not easy being green.
Please don't associate my guy Kermit with a neo nazi
@@NicSantiagoG
Jordan Peterson is a neo nazi now ? Smh, dude come on, grow up
@@aliamjon2550 He's a pitiful and disturbed fraud.
@@imcallingjapan2178 @Aliam jon is a lost cause. He subscribes to Steven Crowder, The Rubin Report, Dan Bogino, The Fallen State, Jesse Lee Peterson, Daily Caller, TheDC Shorts, Liberty Hangout, Timcast, Mr Reagan, TheQuartering, MICHAEL SAVAGE, Mark Dice, Matt Walsh. He is disingenuous and will claim he is not rightwing.
@@haroldjones8521 Imagine being subscribed to TheQuartering, Rave Dubin and Dim Fool (the rest of the list are equally as terrible tho) and telling people on the internet to "grow up" lmao
This analyst is extremely smart. He can twist and distort Jordan's words to great effect. We both know which of them would come out on top in a head on argument though
Exactly.
I don't considet him smart at all. He's delusional.
He pretends Peterson said things he in fact did not say, draws false conclusions both on the things actually said *and not said that he himself invented*.
He then contradicts himself by gigglimg like a baffoon at Peterson saying that he finds it counterproductive to escalate individual cases of racism to an accusation of general racism since it pits one group against the other (something tthe analyst seems to be intent on doing).
Far from intelligent at all.
'There's no such thing as a 'structural' crime syndicate, you have to address each individual criminal act to the criminal that perpetrated it, any 'mafia' talk is dangerous, and pits good people against bad people'.
Well Jordan needs to be black for 30 days and the. Come back and report.
If you want to see what would happen if JP was black for 30 days you just need to go watch Sam Jackson's character in jango unchained.
I gotta axe….what would he find ?
Hasan thoroughly debunked Jordan. This guy gaslights and talks in circles.
I got an advertisement for a Jordan Peterson product on this video. No thank you algorithm.
Where can I find the Full video?
If Peterson had just said "I think this is just an example of bad apples and not systemic", it would have been coherent. But Peterson being Peterson he must be as obscurantist as possible to play his Jedi Mind Trick on his credulous fans.
Post-coma Peterson is just not charismatic enough to get away with these poor arguments.
Pre-coma Peterson wasn't, either.
So help me out with this one. According to Jordan’s individual experience structural racism doesn’t exist and it’s important for us as a collective to deny the cricket player his individual experience because it aims to deny Jordan’s experience rather than help him self and others. Cancel culture on the other hand is a structural problem, hence the name, and when anyone feels they been cancelled it’s obviously not just an individual experience.
This is so satisfying to read, my thoughts exactly
Help me out here: Why do you care? I mean you’ve taken the time to watch the video, read some comments and write one yourself. Why? What about him justifies him living rent free in your head?
@@firewithfire848 All the same questions could just as easily be asked of you.
@@BinaBecker I know that. So what?
@@firewithfire848 Because he's being given a platform to espouse his pseudo-intellectualism, hypocrisy, and other harmful stuff that doesn't help solve the issues but rather feeds into it.
And here you are, missing the entire point of OP's post.
I usually watch question time here on the BBC, luckily I missed this episode.
Note „Low resolution thinking“ is useful to count incidents for example in a district, but probably not cost efficient in tackling the problem efficiently.
Damn, I guess my ex's dad calling me the n-word was a figment of my imagination. Jordan Peterson has defeated racism everyone.
Come on now, that was only a single word spoken by a single person. You need to think in higher resolution 🙄
@@micahgelfand8282...LOL, yeah Peterson is ridiculous
Air quotes over the n-word 😄
That may have happened but please don't mention it. We don't want people do think that racism exists do we?
It's actually way worse than that. Jordans position is basically that he arrived at the n-word on his own without any outside influence, and it's coincidental that many other people also arrive at that word. Therefore no action outside of individually discouraging these people should ever be considered.
So “cancel culture” literally doesn’t exist.
It does
It was always the conservatives though it would seem
Oh I can assure you it does. In my workplace outside the woke the remaining 95 per cent have fallen silent - no humor, no questioning, no banter. Just silence. It is toxic
@@MJ-qb5ph So... wait, what does "woke" mean to you exactly? 95 percent out of it means that there's a 19-1 ratio so you're claiming that one tiny "per cent" of the group silences everybody else somehow?
Just examining your story from face value (it sounds pretty made up tbh)
@@MJ-qb5ph yeah cancel culture doesn’t exist it’s just Conservatives getting angry over things they made up themselves.
High-rezolution-thinking is: Let's not generalize, but: "As a general rule, don't generalize!"
Ah yes, Sam “clickbait title with someone more intelligent and popular than me” Seder.
Jordan "king of sophists and professional grifter" Peterson at it again.
People who watch this show love the term "grifter"
@@moe433 I agree, the term grifter is overused, but Peterson is indubitably a sophist. His circumlocutory method of dialogue is enervating.
Hilarious that Trump came right out and said it to their faces, "I love the uneducated" and like good little idiots they loved him more for it. Peterson is running a similar grift with a slighly smarter portion of the right wing audience.
I don't know if he's a grifter, just a crazy old man who thinks he's brilliant.
I'd take a sophist over an ideologue any day.
Without analyzing this subject too deeply, as a white European, it feels like I have been a witness of structural, endemic, blatant racism in the US all my 60+ years ....Period!
Lol Europe is hella racist too dude. UK is hyper racist. Ireland got racists. I'm sure Italy and Germany and Hungary all got racists dude
I had a Russian man say "don't trust Moldovans" I'm like "what the fuck is a Moldovan".
Also ask anyone in Europe about "gypsies or travelers" and you'll see a frothing tirade come out of their mouth and ass
@@spacemanx9595 Two wrongs don't make a right though, do they?
@@spacemanx9595 True! We all have racists in our countries, that is why instead of erasing History, most of the European countries choose to remember it (i hope that at least we are still doing that). No country on Earth has a clean History. What you pass-on to your kids is either a +/- accurate Historical recounting of the events (with the purpose of leaving the entire world a better place as you die and fade-away) or then just deny facts because you can't own -up to your own mistakes as a society in time A.K.A CRT-deniers!... Just because other countries have racism it doesn't mean you don't want your country to be better than that, specially when they have the greatest economy on Earth (ever) and also specially, when they're not close to close that gap in comparison to many other countries around the world.
In the US?
Now I just need Kermit the Frog to talk about "Low Resolution Thinking" and my day will be made 🤣
“British cricketeer” 😂
Hey if racism doesn’t exist, then let’s pass all these anti racist policies, if racism doesn’t exist they obviously won’t have much effect, so let’s get them passed :)
Ha!.The Peterson defending trolls are already here. I guess their drugs are kicking in.
ok. good someone else is seeing them, i know its real now.
fr tho. there are so many
I cant believe they're still around. I thought they would have seen that the emperor has no clothes after his stint in rehab.
@@MichaelCasanovaMusic I wish, but I work with a bunch of college kids who are already JP apologists/considerers 😐
@@MichaelCasanovaMusic Right-wing circles tend to be nudist enclaves with that analogy
@@scottsbarbarossalogic3665 ha! Accurate!
"I understand he himself is experiencing racism from the entire organization, but to call it structural is absurd"
Jordan Peterson is having a slow motion nervous breakdown. This guy is a time bomb.
he admitted to spending 3 hours a day pacing in his room being frustrated .. lol
The real irony is he's a Jungian. So he sees nothing but archetypes (generalizations) everywhere else he looks.
Just the first sentence: "Things need to be particularalized, rather than generalized, as a general rule" said without irony or any indication of awareness, and his audience/cultists eat it up.
He's a charlatan quack who (to use his framework) has a messiah complex.
Boom!
You could say he's.....(puts on shades).... Jung at heart
*CSI Miami theme*
*YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH*
@@dynamicworlds1 if you didn't see any awareness there your horseblinders are screwed on tighter than his 😭
how is wokness and postmodernism a problem for him.... fing clown show
Weird thing for JBP to say, considering that he deals in abstractions all the time.
Well, that depends on what you mean by "abstractions"..
Jordan Peterson in a nutshell
Well, that depends on what you mean by "Postmodernism"..
@@alexnahan969 Well, that depends on what you mean by "depends"..
@@davedd7803 Well, that depends on Cultural Marxism which depends by abstractions caused by the inner self conscious which depends on Postmodern Jungian subjectivist social constructs.
@@alexnahan969 Bunch word salad.
“Things need to be particularized rather than generalized as a GENERAL rule”. That’s some high resolution thinking right there.
He was talking specifically about racist actions. That was the background.
Anybody with a brain knows that is true. Stop pretending like you caught something!
Hierarchy and proclivity 🤣🤣🤣what a tool.
I'm still laughing, great video
Jordan Peterson: cancel culture is a thing and therefore a problem.
Also Jordan Peterson: institutional racism isn't a thing and therefore not a problem.
Both are a problem. You make the issue bigger by not holding INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE. Complaining about groups doesn't fix the issue.
Thats not what he says at all . Thats what the they are saying he says . You didn't understand .
The difference is Jordan can point at individuals in cancel culture who are dictating punishment to people for expressing their views. While people who claim institutional racism can't name one person who has committed a racist act, they just talk about the "system" like it's a ghost that doesn't exist.
@JGAS so if it's individuals doing something, then can it really be said to be "culture".
@@MiguelCruz-oz7km A culture contains individuals. You can't fix the issue without interacting with individuals. That's the difference, it's the method. Left wing authoritarians are focusing on equity which treats people differently based on imutible characteristics, right wing authoritarians do the same thing, like white nationalism and kkk treat people differently based on skin color. So in a way, authoritarianism is the problem. Not left or right. People should defend liberty, freedom, and respect individualism (holding individuals accountable for poor behaviour, rewarding good behaviour like skills, art, work ethic) I hope this answer works for you. It's about time the left and right stop fighting and start working together again.
Racism: low resolution thinking
Cultural Marxism: 8k UHD thinking
What if you prefer HDR?
Post-modern neo-marxism lmao
Racism doesn’t exist, allow me to go back and pull out some literal Nazi talking points because systemic racism threatens my world view that much
Anyone with Dr in their name who thinks racism doesn't exist needs their license revoked. There is nothing vague about it. There never was.
"those specific people should held to account for their actions"
the institution of the crocket club didnt hold them to account for their actions
How does the institution do ANYTHING apart from the people who run it?
5:00
He literally advocating what conservatives have spent the last couple years bemoaning as "Cancel Culture": exonerate larger structures and institutions, single out individuals, and try to fight prejudice and discrimination by personally shaming them.
If racism wasn't structural, then it wouldn't even be racism. Then it's just making fun of someone's looks.
That's high resolution, abstract, individualised thinking right there
But the particularizations!
@@Randomstuffs261 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Good video, but for whoever is pausing the video with the mouse, you can usually just hit space bar.
I'm just surprised he didn't try to blame it on "Frozen".
This was just a long-winded way of saying "Not All White People".
5:36 that face there is beyond brilliant, just the look of resignation that peterson doesn't just have a different opinion but that peterson has so little knowledge on this topic at all he thinks structural racism doesn't exist
'Talking about structural racism is causing the problem of structural racism' - R.I.P. Jordan "Fuckboi" Peterson
Shorter Jordan Peterson: "It doesn't impact me negatively therefore it is not a real issue."
When did he say it wasn’t an issue? He says it WAS an issue when he says those people need to be held accountable. His argument is that we shouldn’t just elevate it to institutional or structural racism if it’s a particular case.
I thought he was a Jungian? Didn't he write a book about psychological/sub-conscious archetypes that exist across all of humanity? Also I thought his whole deal with the lobsters was about hierarchies and the "natural" hierarchies that exist throughout nature. Seems to be contradicting his own core beliefs here.
Everything he says is a contradiction of something else he's said. He's a pseudo-intellectual hack.
The issue is structural racism creates individual racists.and it will continue to do so until we fix the problem.
And how do "we fix the problem" ?
@@aliamjon2550 Change systems. CRT analysis would be helpful were it not under attack and being banned, which to me is evidence of an agenda to maintain the status quo i.e. structural racism aka white supremacy
@@PeacockPoverty
Are you saying that racism only comes from White people and not blacks, hispanics or asians ? Because if you are you're talking nonsense
@@aliamjon2550 No need to be insulting. I'm not inclined to engage with that. I asked you a question, that's all. We're talking about structural racism.
@@PeacockPoverty i wasn't intentionally being insulting, it was a genuine question
I like the look on the face of the BBC panelist "who invited this clown on?" 😄
The problem with these youtubers is that the title is misleading and they had no proof that what Peterson said was nonsense.