Jordan Peterson on Jubilee: Part 2

The ice cream truck is sending me 😂😂😂

balatro shout

Do the final 12 minutes big Joel…

He seems to get so irritated and insecure (then gets mean and condescending) to a few of the young men. Maybe the more flippant or ~silly guys. They're making fine points, as good as any other person on the episode, but something about THEM and their demeanor just changes his whole vibe from the moment they begin talking. It seems to really bother him way deep inside idgi

I enjoyed these because I struggle with people like Peterson who have a very authoritative presence and deliberately complexity things. I'll think that he doesn't seem correct, but I can't verbalise how, and I don't understand all his reference points and rhetorical techniques. I certainly couldn't argue with him. It's interesting and cathartic to have you break down in plain language what he is doing and why he's wrong. And makes me less intimidated by figures like him. Having said that please don't feel the need to watch this if you're finding it unpleasant! It is very frustrating

you.... ASSHOLE. YEAH i consume jordan p as a HATEWATCH" you fuel my fucked ADDICTION

I played balatro like you said and ended up getting 8 kings on erratic deck. Ended up with 2 blueprints, an idol, all red seal glass kings, a last minute perkeo, and a x53 lucky cat :p

I don’t think Peterson believes his silly definitions, and I think he uses the duality of a real definition and his silly definition to accomplish a political goal. If he can create a trap wherein he “proves” that “everyone worships something” then he can tout that success to the religious right who now feel that logic proves everyone “worships” in the way it is commonly used. I grew up in a fundamentalist setting full of people who fixated on Christian apologetics and this kind of double speak is abundant.

omg patreon page screwed up and started playing two copies of the video at the same time, but i didnt realize it because you said at the start that the "audio is gonna sound bad". i watched 5 minutes of double joel before i hit pause to attend to my cats and realized what was happening

Not me dying for someone to ask JP if the terrorists of 9/11 are Christian since they did the ultimate form of worship in the belief of self sacrifice for a group.

1) please dont feel like you need to do this. like, i watched this because I paid 1 whole dollar for it, but i didn't need to watch this and you prolly didnt either lmao 2) the ice cream truck popping off while Peterson just drones on and on is sending me.

I'm an athiest, but it does not necessarily follow that if God is omniscient, that there is no "free will". Combatibilism is quite a popular position amongst philosophers, who claim that "free will" and determinism are compatible. Of course, there are different senses of the term "free will" refers to, but I don't think an omnscient God poses a problem for the sense of "free will" we are typically concerned with, e.g. the one that separates someone with psychosis from someone sane. Although, it may pose a problem for the sense of "free will" which might be employed to justify sending people to heaven or hell.

I enjoyed your analysis but understand the frustration with the material. He claims that atheists dont understand what they're rejecting because god let moses see only his back. So doesnt that mean that christians also dont know what they're acepting? Why does it matter at all then if nobody knows anything? Is gods cool back the fundamental priority that he also says god is or is god a real dude whos too big and strong for us mortals to comprehend? Its incoherent.

What have we learned from his definitions? That JP is basically an atheist / secular humanist?

Some people say JP thinks in a very postmodern way, and I think there's some truth to that, but to the extent that he is a postmodernist is arrives at it via cowardice, which is kind of interesting. Like to Derrida the project is to look closer and closer and dissect further and further in a way that ultimately dissolves meaning and leaves us with no solid truth or reality, JP sorta does it in the other direction, where his brain is too broken to make a point, so he has to talk in incredibly vague terms and when questioned he can only move backwards bc he's trying not to give you any substance to argue against, so he arrives at this place of meaninglessness and subjectivity not by looking closer and closer, but by just straight up running away. And somehow he does this all bc he believes in inherent meaning and truth? It's like reverse postmodernism, and it feels like it should be interesting to listen to it bc it's so absurd, but the experience is more like having a concussion and he just keeps making it worse so I have less and less things to look at or do until I'm only allowed to sit in a dark room in near silence. Does that make any sense?

Two responses to wondering why I enjoy this kind of thing. 1. I ALSO get to interject my own commentary, I just pause the video. 2. Watching people repeatedly call JP dumb is cathartic, it allows me to let go of the fury I feel seeing him talk. Also you missed one of my favorite bits where he says he doesn't care about common parlance. Which is just openly admitting to purposefully being obtuse.

I would add to the definition of Worship that they don't need to be an otherworldly deity, as I would fit cult leaders into it as well, and more loosely how tech bros loved Elon. It's the idea that the person or idea can do no wrong and will always get the benefit of the doubt because everything they think and decide is universally correct. However, that could then make them a demigod in someone's mind.

I couldnt get through 15 mins of the first part of this but God bless

I paused this vid and turned to my mom (we watch these together) and i was like you can ask jp a yes/no question like "do you believe that the sky is blue" and he'll respond with *insert me doing an exagerated impression of jp going on a long tangent about the semantics and "what do you mean by the word 'belief'" * and i pressed play and literally seconds later HE DID THE EXACT THING I WAS JOKING ABOUT..

I'm here to demand the rest.

I love your analysis. As I've written before, Jordan Peterson has one debating tactic and one trick and that's basically "Motte and bailey" fallacy. Say something outrageous then retreat to common sense claim while pretending you are not retreating. And its very annoying. It's also interesting that you caught on his tactics immediately, in the first video. You said, paraphrased "By that definition, that Jordan Peterson has invented, Peterson is right. He wins, we can all go home, no need for further discussion." Well, that's one half of his debate tactics. Either he invents his own definitions (asking him to clarify makes him call you a "smartass") or he makes his opponent reinvent the whole field of philosophy from scratch by going deep into semantics until the original point is forgotten. "Let's do this: I watch you redefine the whole of English language while eating popcorn" is the other half. The most annoying part to me was when Peterson admitted he doesn't deal in common definitions. While at first glance that sounds profound ("We are discussing deep truths unfathomable to common man!"), in reality it just means that he is inventing his own language and making a discussion come to a grinding halt by forcing you to play along. What makes it extra annoying is that he doesn't do that with anything else that is not religion or his personal beliefs.

Anyway, the central point of this kind of video is completely lost with Jordan Peterson as the host, because there should be some good faith conversations that allow you to change ideas and find a middle ground. But that was never JP's objective. He's here only as a crook, to promote his ideas and never move. So this kind of video is pure performance, meaningless content if you will. Sad stuff

It's so funny how flabbergasted you are by our enjoyment of this kind of video, but I think it's because you haven't yet sacrificed your soul to the content gods. This is content, and we be gobblin.

I feel the question that needs asked of JP here most is if he thinks Christian worship has more potential value than atheistic "worship." Because thats really the argument he is implying here but keeps evading it in this dumb definitional argument

Hey! I’m the Ian from the end of this video, I’m glad you liked my arguments! I love your content 💜

The most irritating thing about this is that I have video evidence of this man going on the Joe Rogan podcast and saying(paraphrased) 'What does climate mean, well it means environment , and environment means everything so it really means nothing" and here we have him seeming to define God as 'everything'

Watching this did indeed hurt me but in an entertaining way

Jesus Christ, this did actually make me really mad. Profoundly frustrating experience. But at least your commentary injects some sanity into this tbh, and it's watchable that way

The way you continuously get more frustrated about the way he defines things until it literally forces you to end the commentary is so peak. I need more of this content

I hate how he's constantly interrupting people before they get to their point, he would not and does not tolerate that behavior from his opponents

this is what i wanted to see. i need someone to cut in and say my opinions to me to get through these videos. thanks big joel worth every penny 🙏🏿