Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw lurking in American leftist politics | Big Think Top Ten 2018

Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw lurking in American leftist politics | Big Think Top Ten 2018


I would like to talk briefly about depolarization
on the Left and the Right, because I think there’s a technical problem that needs to
be addressed. So here’s what I’ve been thinking about. It’s been obvious to me for some time that,
for some reason, the fundamental claim of post-modernism is something like an infinite
number of interpretations and no canonical overarching narrative. Okay, but the problem with that is: okay,
now what? No narrative, no value structure that is canonically
overarching, so what the hell are you going to do with yourself? How are you going to orient yourself in the
world? Well, the post-modernists have no answer to
that. So what happens is they default—without
any real attempt to grapple with the cognitive dissonance—they default to this kind of
loose, egalitarian Marxism. And if they were concerned with coherence
that would be a problem, but since they’re not concerned with coherence it doesn’t seem
to be a problem. But the force that’s driving the activism
is mostly the Marxism rather than the post-modernism. It’s more like an intellectual gloss to hide
the fact that a discredited economic theory is being used to fuel an educational movement
and to produce activists. But there’s no coherence to it. It’s not like I’m making this up, you know. Derrida himself regarded—and Foucault as
well—they were barely repentant Marxists. They were part of the student revolutions
in France in the 1960s, and what happened to them, essentially—and what happened to
Jean-Paul Sartre for that matter—was that by the end of the 1960s you couldn’t be conscious
and thinking and pro-Marxist. There’s so much evidence that had come pouring
in from the former Soviet Union, from the Soviet Union at that point, and from Maoist
China, of the absolutely devastating consequences of the doctrine that it was impossible to
be apologetic for it by that point in time. So the French intellectuals in particular
just pulled off a sleight of hand and transformed Marxism into post-modern identity politics. And we’ve seen the consequence of that. It’s not good. It’s a devolution into a kind of tribalism
that will tear us apart on the Left and on the Right. In my house, I have a very large collection
of socialist, realist paintings from the former Soviet Union—propaganda pieces, but also
kind of harsh impressionist pieces of working-class people and so forth—and I collected them
for a variety of reasons. Now you could debate about the propriety of
that given the murderousness of those regimes. And fair enough, I have my reasons. But I don’t have paintings from the Nazi era
in my house, and I wouldn’t. And that’s been a puzzlement to me because
I regard the communists, the totalitarian communist regimes, as just as murderous as
the Nazi regimes. But there’s an evil associated with the Nazi
regime that seems more palpable in some sense. So I’ve been thinking about that for a long
time. And then I’ve been thinking about a corollary
to that, which is part of the problem with our current political debate. On the Right, I think we’ve identified markers
for people who have gone too far in their ideological presuppositions. And it looks to me like the marker we’ve identified
is racial superiority. I think we’ve known that probably since the
end of World War II, but we saw a pretty good example of it in the 1960s with William Buckley,
because Buckley, when he put out his conservative magazine, the David Duke types kind of attached
themselves to it, and he said, “No, here’s the boundary. You guys are on the wrong side of the boundary. I’m not with you.” And Ben Shapiro recently did this, for example,
as well in the aftermath of the Charlottesville incident. So what’s interesting is that on the conservative
side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, “No, you’re
outside the domain of acceptable opinion.” Now here’s the issue: We know that things
can go too far on the Right and we know that things can go too far on the Left. But we don’t know what the markers are for
going too far on the Left. And I would say that it’s ethically incumbent
on those who are liberal or Left-leaning to identify the markers of pathological extremism
on the Left and to distinguish themselves from the people who hold those pathological
viewpoints. And I don’t see that that’s being done. And I think that’s a colossal ethical failure,
and it may doom the liberal-Left project. The Lefties have their point. They’re driven fundamentally by a horror of
inequality and the catastrophes that inequality produces—and fair enough, because inequality
is a massive social force and it does produce, it can produce, catastrophic consequences. So to be concerned about that politically
is reasonable. But we do know that that concern can go too
far. So I’ve suggested that there’s a triumvirate
of concepts that have the same potentially catastrophic outcomes when implemented as
the racial superiority doctrines. Diversity, inclusivity, and equity as a triumvirate—even
though you could have an intelligent conversation about two of those anyways. But I would say that of the three, equity
is the most unacceptable. The doctrine of equality of outcome. And it seems to me that that’s where people
who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say, “No. Equality of opportunity? Not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…?” it’s like, “No,
you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.” Now maybe that’s wrong. Maybe it’s not equity. That’s my candidate for it. But it is definitely the case that you can
go too far on the Left and it’s definitely the case that we don’t know where to draw
the line. And that’s a big problem. An example of equality of outcome are attempts
being made now to implement the legislative necessity to eliminate the gender pay gap. That’s a good example. I mean you think, “Well no, that’s not—like
there’s nothing pathological about that.” It’s like, “Oh yes there is!” You have to set up a bureaucratic inquisition
to ensure that that’s the case. It’s like—it’s not good. And that’s actually a relatively—like, of
all the things that you could push for with regards to equality of outcome, that’s rather
simple and definable. It’s not even murky. Once it starts to get murky it’s just complex
beyond any rectification. You cannot win if you play identity politics. There’s a bunch of reasons like—here’s one:
“Let’s push for equality of outcome.” All right, who measures it? That’s a big problem. It’s not a little problem. It’s not like, “We’ll figure that out later.” Oh no, no, no. The measurement problem is paramount. So you don’t solve that, you don’t solve the
problem at all. Who measures it? “A bureaucracy.” Okay, which bureaucracy? “Well, a large one that has its fingers everywhere.” Okay, that’s problem number one. And it’s staffed by exactly the sort of people
that you don’t want to staff it, by the way. Next problem. Which identities? That’s the intersectional problem. The radical Leftists have already hit the
problem of intersectionality. It’s like, “Well, we’ve got race and gender,
let’s say.” Well, okay, what about the intersection between
race and gender? That’s a multiplicative intersection, right? So you might start with three racial categories
and two gender categories. But you end up with six intersectional categories. And then you’re just getting started. How many genders? Hypothetically there’s an infinite number. What about racial groupings? Are you going to include ethnicity? Do you want to add class to that? Do you want to add socioeconomic class? How about attractiveness? And every time you add another category to
the singular entities, you increase the multiplicative entities in a multiplicative fashion. What are you going to do? Are you going to equate across all those categories? Really? And across what dimensions? What are the dimensions of equality that you
want to establish? It’s just socioeconomic? Is it just salary? What about all the other ways that people
are unequal? Are you just going to stop with economic inequality? Are you? It’s a complete bloody catastrophe. It’s an absolute mess. And intersectionality, the discovery of intersectionality
on the Left, is actually the radical Left’s discovery of the fundamental flaw in their
identity politics ideology. Groups can be multiplied without limit. That’s not a problem; that’s a fatal flaw. And they’ve already discovered it, they just
haven’t figured it out. The reason that the West privileges the individual
is because we figured out 2,000 years ago, 3,000 years ago, that you can fractionate
group identity appropriately right down to the level of the individual.

100 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw lurking in American leftist politics | Big Think Top Ten 2018

  1. “The reason that the west privileges the individual is because we figured out 2,000-3000 years ago that you can fractionante group identity appropriately right down to the level of the individual.”

    This is probably my favorite quote of all time. I use it whenever debating a leftist about “intersectionality.”

  2. Come on Jordan. What kind of Mumbo-Jumbo is this ?? "In the beginning" the socialist system was set up ~ by God ~ in Deuteronomy. Then the people decided they wanted a King. Even though God warned them AGAINST that King idea, He permitted them to have (Samuel) their own way. You act like Socialism is weak, tyrannical and useless. Socialism was the "Original System" ~ and ~ the most powerful system because ALL the people had a say in the way they're governed. Socialism is so powerful that all/any of the OTHER systems have to use OVERWHELMING force to wipe it out. You have but to look at Venezuela to see that Wipe Out operation in progress.

  3. "The fatal flaw lurking in American leftist politics" is the SAME fatal flaw lurking in right wing politics – and in fact, IN THE ENTIRE HUMAN CONDITION. And that is: EGO, which can be defined as SELFISH INTEREST, reflected in the Bible's statement that "the love of money is the root of all evil." The selfish ego is is indeed the root of absolutely ALL that is wrong in the entire human condition. And unbeknownst to most Christians, the HUMAN EGO is that which the Bible refers to as "satan," "the devil," "the serpent," "the beast," and "the antichrist." (Which is why 1John 2:18 says "there are many antichrists.") And face it: In general it is the RIGHT WING that most loves selfishness and money over men, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and cutting programs for the common man and the poor as much as possible. IF NOT FOR THE LEFT WING THERE WOULD BE NO RELIEF FOR THE POOR! So, face it: JESUS CHRIST IS A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL. And orthodox Christianity has had to totally corrupt His "good news" in order to end up with a religion that is dominated by right wingers! WHEN GOD SAYS "GOOD NEWS" HE MEANS GOOD NEWS!!! NOT "believe this manmade doctrine or you go to hell"! And if the left has often tended to avoid organized religions such as orthodox Christianity, many have obviously done so for very good reason. You ARE your brother's keeper! And, "MANY WHO ARE FIRST SHALL BE LAST, AND MANY WHO ARE LAST SHALL BE FIRST." If you are one of the few who is ready for the "narrow gate," click on my YouTube icon to learn of the many blessings that God is currently sowing in the wind, that they will grow where they find fertile soil. For the time is come. Amen.

  4. Reading the objections to Peterson in the comments is reminiscent of Muslims objecting to factual critics of Islam. They protest. They accuse the speaker of not understanding, of being ignorant, of lying, of being close-minded etc. Yet the most they offer as a real argument is this "you should read the Koran", or, you should read about postmodernism, Marxism.

    Do not be mistaken, most leftists are religious to a high degree, but their religion is Marxism, so of course they cannot accept that Marxist doctrines were the sole cause for the millions upon millions of corpses, just as Muslims can never accept that Mohammed was a genocidal War-lord and every subsequent group that aims to emulate him is a genocidal horde exterminating everything and everybody in their path.

    Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
    Marxism has nothing to do with Marxism.

  5. The left is wonderful at accusing the right of everything that the left is actually doing and representing in their actions. The Mainstream Media is in on this same trick big time.

  6. I contend that the people who know the most about Marxism are those who have experienced it, not some intellectuals on college campuses. You won't find many Marxists in Easter Europe, Russia, Venezuela or Nicaragua because they know how bad it is. Even China abandoned it in the late 70's. Yet it is being revived again, mostly by the young who either ignore history or dismiss the horrible outcomes to bad implementation. So foolish to think this time it would be different..

  7. He really demonstrates very clearly here that he has not read Marx or for that matter any neo-marxists.He should also consider the extreme center and the amount of violence neccessary to maintain the system as it is.
    The upcoming debate/discussion in april with Zizek could be a complete waste of time with so many fundamental misunderstandings on Petersons` side.Where are they going to get any purchase on the dam subjects with so many possible false starts ? I understand they are in negotiations with regard to what to talk about but with Peterson ducking Professor Wolf by making a late demand for 50,000 dollars,i don`t hold out too much faith in it happening at all.Meanwhile,on wall street,banking and the military industrial and surveillance complex,real determinative events move inexorably and inevitably on and trans people continue to plot the fall of western civ.God help us all.

  8. Are any of the socialist democracies of Europe useful in examining leftist extremism? After all we needn't spend all our time on theory when there are actual models to study. Gender equality? Do laws exist in Finland or Germany? I actually don't know but it would be germane to investigate. Equality of outcome? Any evidence of that severity of doctrine in place anywhere?

  9. He is saying both sides can go too far. But the comments and dislikes indicate that there are an alarming amount of people who don't think the left can go too far.

  10. IMHO, Dr. Peterson’s “weakness” in his analysis, is he doesn't (seem to) recognize that thought and open debate to the post-Modern left… is in itself, a form of “bigotry”. They’re just not capable of rational thought… so Peterson’s analysis as to how to make post-modernism rational and actually doable is sadly futile.  This is because (again IMHO) the foundation of modern post-modern quasi-Marxist thinking is the absolute hostility to the reality that people are different and the world's "unfair" and "unequal".  And such reality is a b*tch… it wins and cruelly bites you in the arse every time. When faced with this truth… post-modernists, most who are incapable of "course corrections"… just get angrier, more irrational, and more open to violence.  Peterson's correct in that they're doomed to failure… but sadly, they can bring the free world down with them (aka: New Dark ages).    On another point he addressed, the Commies, while even more deadly than the Nazis… by accident of history ended up on the winning side of WW2, as Nazism and Fascism were totally defeated and discredited… their horrendous crimes exposed for all to see.  That gave the pseudo-intellectuals on the Marxist Left cover as liberators… even though they were just the opposite. The sad post-WW2 history was the unfortunate people in the areas the USSR "liberated" just exchanged one set of murdering oppressors for another. Yet the Serpent lies of Socialism still finds an audience among those who see themselves as the  "losers" in our society. They demand "equality" even if in reality, the only equality they'll see is that of the slave. #RustyIrony

  11. Just because youve outlined two extremes on a spectrum does not mean those extremes are equally bad or equally distant from the center. Also if stalin is the extreme left and hitler is the extreme right, then the two ideas and people associated with those ideas should be rejected by the mainstream. I would concede like jordan does that the mainstream right does a good job rejecting nazism. The left does not have an opportunity to reject stalinist ideas because they dont exist in western culture. Who supports stalinist politics in the US or Canada? If he is equating a bernie sanders supporter or even a castro-maduro supporter to an extreme on par with nazism then his argument is nonsense. He is setting up his ideas of what extremes are.

  12. the markers of the left: a) total chaos in the cities run by teenagers and starvation in the villages (China), b) the country turns in a giant concentration camp (the Soviet Union), c (half of the population tries to escape to the US (Venezuela), d) a third of the population is murdered (Cambodia). The markers on the right. a) saying that there are only two genders (Canada), b) identifying rapists by name, ethnicity and religion (Britain), c) having boy scouts (USA) and d) trying to deport rapists (Sweden).

  13. AI will replace 40% of all jobs in the future, were going to have to change our very meaning of purpose of life. Means of production will be made by robots, so marxism will have no place in the future.

  14. I think Peterson muddies the water talking about equality of opportunity vs outcome. It's equality in law that is needed. If something is illegal for you, it should be illegal for me and the punishment should be the same. If bribing a government official is illegal for me then it needs to be illegal for lobbyist as well. If someone is good at providing a product and gets rich from it, well good for them. It's when they use political bribes to gain an advantage that I have a problem with.

  15. I think all narratives are dangerous. And they’re inherently lazy. I realize researching the truth takes a lot of time and effort, a mere google search won’t cut it anymore. But don’t rely on any narrative… just say you don’t know… until you can spend a week or two researching something.

  16. I reject the notion that the Nazis were "on the right"… what was right-wing about National Socialism? You cannot define right wing by racial superiority. The left currently believes in racial and gender supremacy of blacks and women. And weren’t the Kulaks considered an inferior evil race? Or at least treated as such. Racial supremacy bullshit has nothing to do with left or right. It’s just bipartisan human stupidity based on our innate tribal nature.

  17. I cannot understand how racism has been linked to the right; throughout history the left has been the racists. It was the Democrats that had slaves pushed segregation and jim crow laws and even the KKK was started by the Democrats. The Nazis were socialists which is a far left ideology. Most of the Nazi policies towards the Jews were based on the Democrat policies for blacks.

  18. It will never happen. Fascism and socialism are both directions. What we already learned is that appeasement of any kind will only lead to more demands. Any socialist and fascist idea should be opposed. There are no acceptable 'degrees' in either.

  19. "Derrida and Foucault were barely repentant marxists" Peterson is clueless – how does stuff that is simply factually wrong get on Big Think? Derrida and Foucalt were both vocal and explicit anti marxists. They both rejected class struggle as a meaningful endeavour and considered great social change to be futile. But suure they were "bArElY rEpENtaNt MArXistS" .. For fucks sake o.O

  20. Stop the difference of "Left or " Right. Just talk about things as you normally do. You are too young to a 'Why' communism . I like your logic but not typically 'North American" talk about Left or Right.

  21. Well, you have sex race and sexuality "superiority" on the left too. Thats like their main thing. They blame white straight men for everything, literally every single bad thing that has ever happened. I would also say that there is a boundary at free speech, crossing that line puts you in the unacceptable authoritarian camp. The mainstream left has crossed both these points, they are to far left AND to far down or whatever the direction for authoritarianism is. I guess one could say that line would lie after physical harm, encouraging physical attack is probably on the right side of that barrier, but crossing it is DEFINITELY and undeniably something that does not fit the description of modern liberal democracies. They already do this all over the place, all the semi socialist parties and even some of the "conservative" parties spout their belief in free speech as the cornerstone for democracy while swiftly removing it for the good of political correctness. We know where the line is, problem is that the infantile socialists dont give a shit. I would be all for just leaving free speech as free speech except when directly and indiscreetly encouraging people to physical attack, and having the severest of punishments our societies can dish out to anyone that infringes upon it. Democracy is western society, without free speech democracy cannot exist, any limitation to speech is therefore a attack on democracy and society itself. Its the only crime I could accept executing someone over. Its attacking peoples right to think, to exist, their ability to be fulfilled and happy. A murderer is way less dangerous than someone willing to part with free speech. Free speech is the line for the authoritarians, racial or gender superiority is the same for both sides. Now that we have established the line, how do we enforce it? How do we make people really understand this is where the line is? Also curious if anyone can figure out where the line between liberalism and anarchism is? I think that one is harder to define. Anarchism is so blatantly obviously not a functional thing in any capacity that it would probably never be a problem, but one never knows.

  22. The Nazis did very few good things. One good thing however was that they put a lot of communists into their KZs and killed a lot of them. This saved post war western Europe from becoming a communist hellhole like eastern Europe.

  23. Nothing Is more interesting than people who don't grasp the essential nature of the left. You're not going to have an honest intellectual discussion with them; they will lose every debate based on reason and they know it. The strategy they employ has nothing to do with reason. Narcissism is rampant amongst the lefties, as are borderline and persecution disorders. What you're looking at is primarily a psychological disorder. You're wondering why nihilists throw bombs? Do you wonder why birds fly?

  24. 6:47 – "…'There's nothing pathological about that', (It's like) Oh yes there is!" (about the feminist 'gender wage gap')
    I wish he wouldn't make assertions like that without explaining why. I dislike it when lefties make unfounded assertions, and it makes me very uncomfortable when JP does it, because I like him and agree with much of what he says.

  25. Oh man, I totally screwed up watching this. I already know Peterson's stuff is great but should have realized the leftist leaning Big Think would have a comment section full of illogical and ill conceived arguments.

    Though it is nice they have 3:1 ratio of likes to dislikes. Usually their videos are almost completely disliked it 50/50. Gotta channel my inner schoolyard kindergartner…Big Think? More like Big Stink.

  26. I'm surprised JP hasn't brought up Vonnegut's short story, Harrison Bergeron. He describes the problem of equality perfectly.

  27. The right can claim all day that they believe that there is an overarching narrative structure to the universe. That doesn't mean shit when they call welfare "insurance" and empires-like the US-"nations".

    Pretty rhetoric is worthless if it doesn't actually govern your words or deeds.

  28. The reason that the Left does not want to separate itself from the radicals of it's side is because of it's fundamental belief . Previously in your presentations you stated that "Conservatives are naturally Hierarchical" if that is the case, then for them to separate themselves from other Conservatives they disagree with is easy, they just put them lower on the Hierarchy, not only is that effective, due to the conservative's morals it forces them too understand that if they continue such actions they will permanently score lower in the social Hierarchy, which is already defined for them as a core belief. Leftists are collectivists by definition, so for them to separate themselves and possibly harm the collective as a whole would mean that they are killing their chances of success, subconsciously they understand this and they try to not do so, because of this they forcefully make the boundary murky, because if they didn't then they would be subdivided into many more extreme and less extreme collectives, stumping their core belief that "the collective is first and foremost", so the issue isn't and unsolved problem but a direst result of the collectivist Nature of American Leftists

  29. The problem is that humanities courses give people of essentially mediocre intellect the impression that they are smart. I would withdraw all funding for non-STEM courses at universities. They provide no benefit to society and do damage by creating such nihilistic nonsense as "post-modernism".

  30. "What's interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum, we've figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, 'No, you're outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'"
    Blatant BS, usual misrepresentation of reality.

  31. Post-modernism doesn't define the left, if anything secular humanism does. Post-modernism wasn't supposed to create a value structure, it was literally just a critique of modernism which was strictly from a white male hetero European value system. Just as atheism wasn't supposed to provide a value structure, its a critique or disbelief in god, it says nothing about your personal belief system, or what you value. You have emptied out perceived bad ideas so you are ready to fill them in with better ideas. You can be humanist, Buddhist, Taoist, secular Jewish, UU, satanist, nihilist, or secular humanist, or in cases of totalitarian dictatorial communism, a cult of personality. Those are all still atheist but their atheism doesn't say what they believe, just as you can be post modernist, but as he says that doesn't define what you do believe just what you don't. Its like saying "if you don't believe in leprechauns then you must believe in nothing because your disbelief in leprechans doesn't say what you DO believe". This is tunnel vision on his part and he knows it to spread his message. You couldn’t be Marxist? Not you couldn’t be marxist Leninist or Maoist you liar they aren’t the same.
    Repeating the same bullshit that keeps people in the dark about what Marx even thought, Marx would be appalled at the leaders that ran any nation called communism except for Chile, which was destroyed by American interference which we replaced with a fascist. Buckley was a sophist and only pointed out the arguments he wanted to show, just like Peterson. He is a scam artist pure and simple. Equity is not the about equality of outcome, its about as equal a starting point as everyone else. Read John Rawles for fucks sake, his theory on equity is clear and coherent. Once you are in the workplace the best should rise to the top, but until then there should be systems in place to help you all get to as close to the same starting line as possible. And his arguments are fake arguments like the "trans term jailing laws" that didn't fucking exist and sprung him to fame among young pseudo intellectuals who because he said complex things peppered with random tidbit facts or truth and personal stories ate anything he said up completely ignorant of what he wasn't telling them because reality and history are complex as hell and you pick and choose what complex topic you want to discuss and be completely right about it but ignore the half that disproves your point. That is sophism and exactly what he is.

  32. How the fuck is it possible that such a intelligent guy is not able to distinguish between Marxism and Postmodernism? I am a socialist und have a partly marxist worldview but i am fully opposed to identity politics and postmodernism and so are a lot of others. Don't think a small fraction (overprivileged us academia) stands for the left.

  33. Keep it simple, Jordan. True lIberals want justice for everyone, which means they want fairness for everyone in every venue, in court, in school, and in the workplace. Conservatives have twisted the liberal position to mean equality for all, but that argument is the strawman conservatives like to beat up. To understand true liberalism, you need a PhD in political science, which I have.

    I like Jordan, but he misses the point. True liberals do not want equality of outcome, and they do not want identity politics based on race, gender or creed. The only thing true liberals want is for everyone to be treated justly. Again, justice means fairness. You cannot have too much fairness, but you can have too much equality. No true liberal hates entrepreneurs who make their money fairly. However, if some clowns defraud people to make billions (i.e., Enron), the clowns need to be held accountable in a just court that does not overturn convictions based on some technicality or legal argument that is available only to those with significant financial resources. In America, you are innocent until proven broke; then, you are guilty as hell. True liberals hate nepotism, which is not fair at all. You would think that liberal-arts schools in the Ivy League would detest nepotism, but their massive endowments are grounded in nepotism. Liberals hate that money dictates the level of fairness that is available to people. Now, if some douchebag is unfair to a black person because the person is black, then a sense of fairness needs to jerk the douchebag into court.

  34. I'm waiting for a good, short, simplified and calm appeal to dialogue to post to my polarised friends on social media. I was hopeful but unfortunately this is far from it. JP, starting off hostile and polarising, was all over the place in this

  35. The fatal flaw in Peterson's false equivalence fallacy: violence in the name of accumulation vs. distribution. There is an asymmetry here.

    The left goes too far when it turns into the right (accumulation). And yes, that is a real problem.

  36. JP is a net positive for American society, BUT he gets postmodernism wrong. He wrongly conflates postmodernism with Marxism. For more on this, look up Thaddeus Russell. Post-modernism is a rejection the materialism of Marx and the over-confident scientism of progressivism. Post-modernism is an ally of free market proponents. F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did not identify as postmodernists, but they held fundamentally postmodern philosophical presuppositions, and it was those presuppositions that made them great defenders of individualism.

  37. Cancerous left wing has produced a cancerous right wing in America.
    The same is happening right now in India, but in reverse.

  38. The left is not nearly as organized. I think its way less descriptive because theres democrats and the establishment left but then theres people who dont subscribe to the system at all, on the left and right. Its a weird line though because as many people that supported Bernie the establishment didnt necessarily agree. I think the left has a harder split between antiwar movements and more militant groups like the black panthers. Just my perception of it anyway I feel like the left does not really agree enough among factions to have an agenda or barrier for entry. The democratic party is struggling to find a policy identity to they're pretty much taking whoever will show up to the polls lol

  39. When it comes to equity, we need to do the following:
    If you are homeless, and can prove sobriety through a piss test on a daily basis, you get access to a government funded building/program that provides you water, food, and clothes, and public shower. This will allow the most important base Maslow's needs to be met for struggling people who deserve help. Once you enter the program, you have a 3 strike system to prevent abuse of the system. In order to get continued access to the program, you have to take a piss test EVERY DAY, to show you are serious about sobriety, and not just trying to game the system for some short term benefits, then going out after a couple days of free food, clothes, shower, etc.etc. then going to do your drugs again, then come back in a few days after the drugs are out of your system for free stuff again, then rinse and repeat. If you do this, you will receive a *strike*.

    After 3 strikes, you're on your own and you don't deserve help anymore, because you have demonstrated you are just a manipulative, un-conscientious dead weight on society who just wants to do drugs and not produce anything of value and still get as much free stuff as you can from manipulating people's empathy.

    As you progress through the system and continued proof of long term sobriety, you gain access to free government funded shelter, and a group of workers who will help you find employment.

    Long story short: *we need a system that allows people who deserve to get help to get it (the people who are conscientious and want to add to society) while simultaneously weeding out the manipulative lazy people who are just taking advantage of the system*. Thats what the political spectrum boils down to. The far left wants to help EVERYBODY regardless of if they deserve help. They wont admit some people are just liars and manipulative and don't deserve help. Probably because they're the liars and manipulative ones themselves. The far right wants to help NOBODY regardless of if they deserve help. They wont admit some people were just dealt an extremely shitty hand and do deserve help. Probably because they were dealt pocket aces. Lets meet in the middle guys.

  40. Why does he never address why German Nazism is considered more evil than Russian Communism? I think the answer is quite simple – Western popular culture has identified Nazis as more villainous in modern history. The question is why? Is it a more artists lean left and favor communism thing? Is it a Jews are more predominant in Hollywood thing? Or how about a banking/corporation investment thing that sees communism as a better method for globalism? I like Peterson but he needs to dig deeper, to start asking some hard questions about both modern and some ancient history, mainly concerning why it is written the way it is.

  41. The right-wing has a linearity with increasing human rights abuses. The left has one with a welfare state. It is extremely difficult to draw the line with that.
    Jordan is beyond unqualified mostly because he seems to want to police ideology as if there is a linearity with Marxism which is not the case.

  42. The postmodern marxist answer is: "since there is obviously no valid over-arching narrative on which to derive a morality from, we (the elite intellectuals) will compose one for you…. And you will comply, or else."

  43. This is a documentary exposing Jordan Peterson's agenda to subvert and destroy the rising political right wing, and neutralize European nationalism.

    This video completely exposes Peterson's anti-White agenda and his strategy for implementing it. Any Peterson fans who are not beyond saving will be deprogrammed by watching this video.

    Jordan Peterson's primary goal is to neutralize the political right and White identity. He does not care about the Marxist take over of our nations, in fact he was hired by the United Nations to help usher it along. Peterson's only reason for stepping into the limelight was because he saw a massive right wing backlash fomenting, and realized it was going to destroy the left.

    His job is to implement "plan B", to steer the rising tide of nationalism into an impotent cul-de-sac of centrist individualism, giving our enemies just enough time to tip the demographic balance of our countries so that our destruction is sealed.

    Peterson is explicitly targeting young White males for indoctrination with an insidious political ideology he calls radical individualism. He has created a pseudo-religion self-help cult; he is delivering his ideology to the disaffected youth by combining it with a self-help regimen wrapped in empty religious metaphor.

    While our enemies are working tirelessly to destroy our nations in a ruthlessly calculated and organized fashion, Jordan Peterson is brainwashing a generation of young White men to be atomized individuals who perceive group cooperation based on ethnic identity and nationality as the height of evil.

    And in the process of doing so, Peterson and his friends are making untold millions of dollars. –
    https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2019/01/video-of-week-jordan-peterson-dismantled.html?fbclid=IwAR3rRmjqcgvORm_kPi04Np888NoD_eZc_-UX_v7sZEd32mx0ItJslO4sRXg

  44. Not sure why this guy keeps popping up making me dislike this channel more but ok I'll do a live commentary comment for it

  45. Polarization on left AND right, true. Not sure what post modernism is what are you talking about? Going in on post modernists why idk… Oh you're talking about leftists, so this isn't about depolarization on both sides. We're incoherent because we think it's crazy we let people die from being poor when poverty isn't a crime. Weird he's talking about old France and tribalism and Soviet Union but ignoring this richest country in the world being set up to benefit the rich AT THE EXPENSE OF THE POOR. ok now he's talking about his perception of progressives, not what the progressives actually talk about. Now he's saying conservatives "box in" their radicals but not liberals. If that's true why is the current conservative PRESIDENT someone who says climate change is a Chinese hoax, although his own scientists say it's gonna destroy civilization as we know it. But the recent "liberal" president saved the economy from big bank misconduct, by bailing out big Banks? During me writing that he's somehow justified the gender pay gap, while seeming to imply it doesn't exist. Now he's arguing that when it's pointed out there is no equality of opportunity he gets to argue against the equality of outcome like they are the same things. Now hes arguing against equality of outcome. It's almost like he can't debate my positions so he chooses to strawman and pervert my positions, then argue against those perversions. Why is he here?

  46. Jordan Peterson…….pretends to be open minded, then proceeds to describe only the left in pejorative terms…..the point made on both right and left needing a boundary of what is acceptable is a very good point, the left is lacking in this respect and I applaud that observation….but I think the term equality of outcomes has been misappropriated in Jordan Peterson's diatribe…..if equal work is done given equal opportunity, why should the pay not be equal?

  47. I see a lot about the dislikes here. As a right-winger I disliked it, extremists should be included in the conversation otherwise they fester elsewhere and people listen to these lunatics and never hear an argument against the extremist argument.

  48. I understand what Jordan is saying, and have listened to him for a while. But if you didn't live in a Liberal Metropolis or as a college professor, you'd think there was an encamped Leftist hoard holding little red books in one hand and torches in the other.
    The other side of the coin of his social, ethical and philosophical difficulty to identify what crosses the line of reason on the left is mirrored by the other economic side of the coin for supply side economics. Where does it need to be reined-in? Those with the resources or aspirations will always be pushing for system and society that tips towards material accumulation to the top (them, of course.) Like Marxism: I'm never the aggrieving party.

  49. Wow! Hit the bottom line on the head! I'm amazed at that final statement to come out of his mouth!
    The problem WAS solved 2000 years ago. If only humans were smart enough to figure that out.

  50. Ok. Still amazed. Because if you go three comments down, you see the left and the right ranting and raving at each other, when they missed the ENTIRE point, the last comment. This problem was solved 2000 years ago when Jesus Christ was born, offering salvation, and placing absolute value on the INDIVIDUAL life, regardless of ANY factor. We've had thousands and thousands of years as humans to get it right. Have we? Has ANY bad thing really been eradicated? Is anger and hatred gone? GREED? The lust for power? I think not. We are CORRUPTIBLE. We'll never get it right, no matter how we strive. And this life is to show us that and convince us to choose God, life and salvation as opposed to Satan and death. Time is growing short.

    And atheists? We all know how you feel, so unless you're just totally juvenile and have no control, please pass right on by the denigrating comments, please.

  51. I'm half Ukrainian and half Irish. Some of my family were interned in camps during WWI. Where's my apology, Mr. Trudeau? Where are my reparations for 800 years of oppression by the English, Ms. May?

    Well guess what: I DON'T WANT YOUR APOLOGY AND I HAVEN'T EARNED ANY REPARATIONS! Collective guilt was invented as a weapon against SUCKERS who are easy prey for useless parasitic idiots with no talent except for narcissistic manipulation and greed for free money.

    Jordan Peterson would be the best leader my country (or the USA for that matter if it were possible) ever had, but his talent would be wasted in government. As a psychologist who's obviously spent his entire adult life in self-reflection and observation of human behavior, he's learned he can be far more influential talking to real people, something government never bothers with. On which subject, a message to all leftists: THIS MAN IS SMARTER THAN YOU. Honestly, what the FUCK have you ever done with your life? Been a clinical psychologist, been educated at Harvard, sat on a UN council on sustainability? Or just run your stupid mouths on social media like trained parrots? SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LET YOUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BETTERS TEACH YOU SOMETHING USEFUL.

  52. So bigthink finally pulled their head out of their ass and got Jordan on here. You guys were so leftist, I seriously hope you've learned your lesson.

  53. and it is interesting.. if you are disliking the concept of equal distribution of resources (ie MONEY) to all… I will take what i think is the REAL issue underlying ALL of this inequality.. THE RELIGION OF MONEY. I refer you all to Mark Passio's work on his thoughts on MONEY as a REligion and as of mind control..

  54. You can't have "no overarching ideology" yet be in a state of cognitive dissonance. The very term mandates that the psyche of the subject simultaneously hold TWO opposing views hence the dissonance. The first minute plus of this are a word salad that yields zero sustenance. This video comes from a well-understood perspective of lack of concern for coherence.

  55. There is no significant political left in America; nothing that compares with the political right. There is a small and fairly marginalized academic left. On the other hand there is a significant and well financed presence of an extreme right. It is inflexible and much less peaceful. The spectrum has been shifted so far to the right that Dwight Eisenhower would be a leftist. Today you are a leftist if you support public schools , organized labor, and modest social insurance programs. You can't find anyone in Congress so far to the left as to advocate the abolition of private land ownership. Peterson's mode of expression is muddy and jargonized and occasionally nonsensical. He is delivering a straw man argument.

  56. Funny thing is, the EXACT opposite of what JP claims is true. Like most arguments from right wing nutjobs like JP, he ignores the facts and real arguments and instead constructs a flimsy strawman and proceeds to stroke his ego with its envisoration. And his braindead drooling sycophants lap it up quicker than Pavlov's puppies. 😔

  57. There are two main categories of "leftists" in the US: 1) Moderate leftists: those who truly sympathize with those who struggle economically, and 2) Those who will take any position to undermine the "established status quo" for their benefit. #1 types are generally good hearted people want to help the less fortunate, #2 types harbor visceral hatred for the majority and societal norms, and are essentially left-wing Nazis.

    Type 2 leftists are the Nazis of the left, and follow Marxist Communism, which includes far more than economics. Type 2 leftists follow the Marxist doctrine economically and socially, which calls for violent overthrow of the establishment. A few tenets of Type 2 leftists:
    -overthrow democratically elected political leaders, weaken the ethnic majority, destroy the majority culture, heritage and religion through media and political means, tax working people, take property from those who own their home, even subvert the nuclear family unit. All of this was successfully accomplished by the Soviet revolution in Russia, where leaders, clergy, and white christians were displaced or mass murdered (you can google for more a more detailed history).

    This is playing out in Europe and the US today, and should be condemned like fascism by moderates on the left and the right.

  58. Don't be fooled by his trimmed graying beard, jacket and tortured complex academic schtick – Peterson is like a fraudulent art-dealer with a degree in art history who runs a museum, and tries to explain the complexity of modern "art" where someone took a shit on a piece of canvas and has a bunch of idiots overanalyze what it means.
    If what he says doesn't really make any sense to you, take solace – you're a free thinker who can smell BS miles away. If what he says sounds like a steaming hot pile of shit – a Cleveland Steamer, or even a Boston Pancake – don't worry, you have a finely tuned BS detector.
    Key words of a pseudo-intellectual BS artist:
    "post modernists"
    "standard deviations"
    "Jungian/Derrida/Foucalt/Nietshcke/ Randian"
    "archetypes"
    "objectivism"'
    "canonical"
    "narrative"

    There are more just keep your ears and mind open.

  59. He draws a line from Marx to Stalin and acts as if Stalinism is the inevitable consequence of Marxism. He then uses that to condemn Marxism. No – Stalinism is a corruption of Marxism. Marxism is purely an alternative model economic system. Too many people blithely make it synonymous with the horrors of the Soviet Union. Dr Peterson needs to re-examine his logic.

  60. Why is this uneducated hack on big think? Seriously Jordan Peterson is a hack and even be never knows what the fuck he is on about.

  61. People telling you, what to think is the problem here not a line that divides. I remember when nobody talked about politics because of this nonsense, that a Canadian even has a opinion here (Gavin McInnis) as well. Not my problem.

  62. Huh Peterson has aligned himself with the Right and uses its language: lefties. He used to consider himself more in the center at least in the forums he gave. Is that due to the antagonism he faced? Interesting.

  63. Blah blah blah postmodern neo-marxist blah blah blah. This dipshit only knows one fucking song and he sings it to death. Same shit different day. BORING.

  64. Oh Big Think this has made your name ironic. Christian Conservatism rebranded with no understanding of post-modern thinking bummer

  65. The problem that Peterson mentions about the markers of the left only happens in countries like the USA where the left has no political power whatsoever. Identity politics is something you have to compromise if you want power to make the big economical changes in a country.
    Proof of that is that none of the "pink tide" govs of Latin America who identify themselves with the Left won because of identity politics, if anything, there where detrimental to their voting base.
    That being said, he raises a really good question.

  66. I agree with Peterson in many ways but also disagree with just as much. In about 10 years time I feel he may very well publish the greatest book ever written on trolling, because he is one hell of a go get'r. If he's not trolling to prove a point about a lot of our detrimental culture in the long run, then the purpose behind his videos may be taken at face value, which, for a Prof. of psychology, I will argue is seemingly seriously lacking in proportion. His emissivity is oddly low and I feel that I — the audience — receive practically zero of his character to absorb and relate to. Manipulation is one of those words in many cultures that tends to trigger inherently negative connotations, regardless of its context, but it's just another tool that can be used for good or bad. He is an expert in the field of psychology and I feel he should be able to use this tool to his advantage and convey his arguments more efficiently to achieve what seems to be what he wants the audience to perceive, and therefore absorb, as a paradigm shift for the better. He could be using this tool for good or bad; the greater good or just his. The only thing I know is that this is the last thought I want to have on this matter… lolahahahahahahahaha

  67. Peterson's endless repetition of meaningless historical and political analysis rooted in a stunning level of ignorance. Peterson is deeply unhealthy. Peterson is not fighting against collapse. He is an agent of collapse.

  68. I like how so many young, neo-intellectuals that have read the Communist Manifesto and can throw around buzzwords without having thought the Communist ideology through, are defending Communism with buzzwords and over-simplified summaries while attacking Peterson for using buzzwords and oversimplified summaries and not having thought about this much at all. The hypocrisy is palpable.

  69. Dear Big Think and JP fans, can you help me out with the hype? After following him for about a week his thought pattern looks pretty chaotic; maybe I am missing something. As a rule, JP fans describe his brilliance with awe. I do not get the hype, but I invite any JP fans to defend or explain the brilliance of the below, e.g. all brilliant, some brilliant, some junk science…?

    1. JP on Trump: "Trump is a strange person. He is impulsive, he is disagreeable. What I am hoping for is normative incompetence, stupidity, foolishness among politicians. Just exactly what we need is for Trump to be normally incompetent for the next 4 years. I am not too worried about the situation in the US."

    2. "I don’t think that the Caucasians should revert to being white. I think that is a bad idea. It is a dangerous idea, and it is coming fast … I think the whole group identity thing is seriously pathological … Where we’re making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression."

    3. "The post modern ideology of the toxic Left characterizes the sociological landscape as an idiom of responsibility for protracting the hierarchy inequality and genocidal ideology of western civilization".

    4. ''As you flatten out the sociological landscape you maximize the biological differences, no one saw that coming."

    5. "Agreeableness negatively predicts success in the workplace."

    6. "The ignorant Left says you can place the responsibility for hierarchy and inequality at the feet of western civilization and capitalism…that is unbelievably wrong."

    7. "You should always view people as individuals first and as members of a collective far second….this is what accounts for the spread of freedom and democracy."

    8. "The world is in a messy state, whose fault is it, yours, its not some identifiable group."

    9. "No one goes to a sports event and boos the star, people can celebrate success, but the game needs to be fair, there are plenty of sins on the conscience of the west, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water, people don't understand the knowledge how rapidly we are making economic advancements, that is not well distributed knowledge."

    Just to briefly analyze, JP says 'The world is in a messy state, our thinking is unbelievably wrong, we are quickly approaching the ultimate expression of devastating genocide' … but 'I am not too worried about the situation in the US'. This seems like he totally contradicted himself; a pattern of chaotic minds.

  70. There is no coherence to you, Dr. Peterson. It's pretty clear to me you miss religion, though you're willing to settle for mythology, but wait! Aren't they the same thing? Maybe you just need a strong father figure.

  71. the right don’t care about anything,they cheer when they see a dead Mexican at border,poor people starving don’t bother them,they sit on the internet trumping,narrow minded as a thread,I’d never vote with Rush Limbaugh

  72. the Stinking liberals will win in the end,I think everyone knows this,they win whatever happens,even if the country disbands,they win,they said they would win,and they want to see the look on Republicans faces when they do….tell me if I’m wrong

  73. Yeah but does the equality of outcome also include the subset of racial superiority ? if it does then it is an intersection of where the left and right go too far . Carry on Mr. Peterson

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *