iamthecomet
30417
548
19
Originally saw it here.
https://youtu.be/1DpcE4EBQYo?si=ydLed1cF7MTr4K8e
Jun 9, 2025 10:25 AM
iamthecomet
30417
548
19
Originally saw it here.
https://youtu.be/1DpcE4EBQYo?si=ydLed1cF7MTr4K8e
JimFromMarketing
I really recommend getting his book, the 12 things to being happy, I got it in Libby just to see what was up
It's SO BAD, like, you really can't believe it until you read it yourself. I recommend it. I made it to step 2 and I just had to stop
FiftyShadesOfBroccoli
In a bunch of alternate realities where Peterson's life took an ever-so-slightly different turn, he leads a small religious cult. And in several of these realities he has pulled a Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Charles Manson. At least that's what my gut feeling tells me every time I see and hear this creep.
GCRust
Definitely brings Marshall Applewhite energy to the David Koresh party.
Blunderwriter
He just comes across as such an asshole...Canada is sorry we let him have a voice...someone should've taken it away from him before he even got started...unfortunately that's probably how it got started, and now he's just another cunt on the world stage.
Srcsqwrn
Canada spit this out because, unfortunately, this is a part of Canada
Mountons
Don't be so sure. Hahaha a
Chimaeraxxxxx
Who even is this?
marsilies
Jordan Peterson, a complete clown, but a right-winger of influence. Here's a brief video about him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSNWkRw53Jo
fartharder
voice twin to Kermit the frog
casualgenderquestion2718
RFK Jr after feminizing voice therapy
UncleMartha
JP is a clown. I'm never not baffled that people take him seriously about anything.
DSREX
I would have stabbed him with the pen and asked him if the pen was real.
rainbowsandunicorns575
He is a total moron. Quit giving him a platform.
Mirrormancer
He's just such a profoundly sad shadow of a man.
ElBivo
Its a shame he went off the rails, early on some of the things he had to say, and some of the things he questioned, were interesting and worth thinking about. Now he's a joke....
scrumby
Yeah, if you've never had drinks with pretty much any college philosophy or religious studies department I guess. The hardest thing to explain about Peterson to anyone who hasn't spent time in the upper echelons of liberal arts academia is how common his shit is. His metaphysical ponderings are what overthinking nerds do, and the challenge for the actual smart/good ones is not following the speculative thought exercises up their own ass.
ElBivo
I wasn't thinking of his more high-falooting ideas and when he starts talking about lobsters I roll my eyes for sure. I found some of his thoughts on not throwing the baby out with the bathwater on masculinity interesting, how to raise your kids - the more down to earth stuff that I think he and I obviously see that perceptions have shifted a lot in our lifetimes and possibly not all for the better.
stronomer
He has always been the parody of an intellectual.
iMcFly
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTY1YjkxZmJlYXo0c2dvcmxkbzh1YnRoazB6czB6ZzJrZ2E2aHlqdHg0b3hyZjF4diZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/69rOXF4YTDVDD6cwkt/giphy.mp4
nulmerningster
As a Canadian, I'm embarrassed that he's also a Canadian.
TheGgreen100
It's not difficult. belief = "to regard as truth"
Peterson: "well what do you mean by truth"
me: "that which is"
Peterson: "well what do you mean by 'is'"
me: "you know exactly what I mean by 'is' you obnoxious fucking asshole. You're just hiding behind language because you know the more you obfuscate the foundational meaning of the very tools we use to communicate, the more you can distract people and the less likely you'll be to have to present an actual refutable, falsifiable thought."
literallymike
The OG TERF.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Was never a feminist. Just another anti-trans bigot.
trasneoir
Gotta disagree there. He hates the idea of feminism almost as much as he hates the idea of trans people existing.
sleepinggreenidea
Why, that's just plain libel! Bite your tongue! It's merely *coincidence* that he associates chaos and darkness with the feminine; how DARE you assume that he chose that for a reason, OR that being dark or chaotic is superior to being light or orderly, OR that the fact that he argues for imposing order upon chaos means he favors one over the other! For SHAME! How could you possibly think that?!?!?1?!?!?one?!?
GCRust
My favorite part is when the one guy called him out on the fact they were invited to debate a Christian, and Peterson refused to admit that he was one. Peterson responded "You're really something." and the dude replied "Yeah and you are really nothing."
I don't care if he is an Atheist, that man won his spot in the Kingdom of Heaven with that line in my book!
xizar
"You're really something" "You're really nothing." I'm surprised halon sprinklers didn't go off.
Wafflesaur
Jordan Peterson vs 20 Kermit the Frogs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P63tK5yqFI4
parabolic000
He's not been a person to take seriously for a while now. https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAYnJpZBExSURhWmJpMk9tYkM3czM5RgEezy_FHBE14QCuPX1VBre-F2f9VzxsGz2N7IA9OkGaYXvZjWMRzKOYZXX8InU_aem_HVlRKBwyDcm2owyQlSGBrw
FrankPembleton
anyone who respects him should be considered legally mentally disabled
HumanCats
I know a lad who got massively into Peterson a few years ago. He's an intelligent guy and generally lovely person so it was a bit of a shock. But it made me realise how deeply and easily this toxic grift can cut into the male psyche and that was chilling for me. I'm just so happy he's imploded and continues to be exposed like this. But I'm still unhappy there's many others like Peterson in the sphere.
andreCosmosLord
"Don't be so sure!"
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1NXNmMngzczR2MW9hOXJsdm12aDlyYWcxeXBteHY4b2FqOTd2dDhlMyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/lREoIZngfzquY/200w.webp
DWolf
He's the Camille Paglia of this era. Hopefully, he'll soon be as forgotten.
jj86
"What does "lie" mean? Do you mean to go prostrate? Do you think it's a coincidence that "prostrate" and "prostate" sound similar?"
RedLetterMediaReactionGifs
LogicalLimes
I always hated that they sounded so similar. hahaha Many an embarrassing moments in high school English classes when that word started popping up regularly.
Prostrate that is.
I did get the right one, right?
alcaray
It depends on what you were trying to say. We can't help you with that.
parabolic000
"The victim was prostate on the floor. That's a victim alright, that hurts bad."
--Jay Landsman, The Wire.
Metallica93
Everything I have heard about this guy has lead me to believe that even higher education can't fix you if you were a clown to begin with.
habslove
bingo
DorgEndo
ACAB, assigned clown at birth
Hexrowe
Education fixes ignorance, but not dishonesty.
OldBikerDude
Truer words have never been typed
rockmanx853000
The had to change the title of the video from 1 Christian vs 24 atheists to Jordan Peterson vs 20 atheists
M4UsedRollout
Yup, and these poor atheists showed up thinking they were going to debate a Christian, but it turned out to be Jordan Peterson, a man who won’t admit to having any firm positions as an argument tactic.
One of the debaters summed it up best. “Ah but you’re really rather nothing.”
rockmanx853000
What a waste of time other then showing Jordan is full of shit like always.
hellothisispeggy
Due to another part in the video where he outright refuses to say if he's a christian or not.
rockmanx853000
Which made the argument redundant. The hosts of this show realize that the hard way
casualgenderquestion2718
Schrodinger’s Jackass
rockmanx853000
THIS
hellothisispeggy
I think i'd have laughed and walked out when he refused to answer.
IncognitoEnthusiast
It's wild, because before, he actually had some valid points that genuinely helped people sort things out but then he got addicted, and then doubled down on that medical coma detox he went to Russia for and it completely fried his brain, it's been a wild fucking ride from, I can see where he's coming from and can get that viewpoint to holy hell space man are you ok bro?
GCRust
He's never had valid points when you realize any points he makes is from the perspective of being allowed by the state to hate people for being "Other".
When your whole reason for existence is state mandated persecution, then there's an obligation to argue even if the person claims the sky is blue.
NaughtButOne
Nah, that came after. He was somewhat known for being a ... Sort of one of the first 'professional' voices of the ~2010s that would point out that, "hey, men are suffering too". Not with the intention to dismiss others, but just as like, hey, your pain is valid also.
Problem is, because of that, he was embraced by the incel / red pill types, and REALLY ran off once the whole gamergate / anti-SJW stuff started up. Maybe he always was that person, but he seemed reasonable enough at first.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
He got famous for being anti-trans, and then revealed himself as sexist too. I guess the "good points" got lost in all the bigotry, for me. If you mean stuff like clean your room and take a shower, then sure, that's decent advice.
IncognitoEnthusiast
Oh this was long before the anti-trans stuff, like I said he got addicted to various drugs and it was a clusterfuck from there. People harp on the room cleaning and such, but most people have never watched the full extent of things. He's never been a great person but he was for awhile at least a competent academic.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Maybe as a psychologist he did some good stuff. He was unknown publicly till 2016 when he spoke out against a trans bill in Canada. That's when he blew up.
IncognitoEnthusiast
I am well aware of that fact, my point is not to defend him, but to put context there. He wasn't always batshit insane. Drugs are bad kids.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
According to him, he only started to abuse drugs in 2018, but his anti-trans stuff was 2016. He was on a low dose of the drugs then, but they were prescribed and he wasn't abusing them yet. Maybe his other health issues changed him, but he was definitely a bigot in 2016 before the admitted drug abuse. It wasn't just the drugs that made him like that. From the time he came to fame, he was hurting people. Maybe he helped some in his private clinical practice before that, I don't know. But ever /1
BoblovesMac31415101
He is a lost individual.
He has started to believe his own press and lost his way.
Cultistchan
he also takes a lot of drugs
PorneliusHubertII
I used to listen to him because he sounded somewhat intelligent, then he started monetizing online haters, which i thought was funny. Then he got into the right wing drift and manosphere, and now he is just pure delusion.
ali4z
He is very good at sounding rational, but that is about it.
backrideup9
I hope he gets lost on a hike in a national park.
Hexrowe
A grifter who's bought into his own grift.
iusedtodream
He sniffed his own farts and now he thinks the world smells like shit?
IchtacaSebonhera
Respectfully, what was ever "his way"? He was never more than a right wing shill even before he did the glug glug coocoo Russian hard drugs experiment. They should've just left him for dead, frankly, save everyone the bother.
NinjaStrikeForce
Even before he was famous, there were also weird shit going on. I seem to remember that he had a dream of creating his own religion.
sleepinggreenidea
No, no, no! He just wanted to buy an old church and give *secular* sermons every week! Nothing religious about THAT...
GCRust
The man whose fame was a Self Help book about personal responsibility and willpower goes to Russia to undergo a fucked up procedure to kick his own addiction, rather than focus on personal responsibility and willpower.
IchtacaSebonhera
Nevermind that his whole "personal responsibility" thing was largely a cry for people to stop trying to improve the world and just "clean their own house" rather than push for institutional changes like stopping racism or nuking the wage gap. It's just a push for chud traditionalism (note: not actually what tradition ever used to be, just a... creative interpretation of the past).
iamthecomet
I don't know if I agree about the leaving him for dead part, I think that would speak more about us than anything else but, I agree with you on most of it.
Jacquesbo
The notion that ending a dangerous individual, who has made a lifetime career out of riling up others to cause harm, says more "about us" is rhetoric from those who have already done us harm and benefit from being given the opportunity to do it again. If we want to stop the rivers of hate in our society, we need to remove the fountain heads.
IchtacaSebonhera
Fascist lives don't matter. Being fascist is a choice that robs someone of more humanity than being queer or of colour could ever do, and paradox of tolerance, if we want a tolerant society we must not give an inch to the intolerant.
iamthecomet
You can make that choice to have that belief for yourself, but I have a different philosophy and that's fine. Thanks.
iamthecomet
When you choose to tell another person what is objectively true when it is a subjective opinion, that's tiptoeing into fascism on its own.
Ircy
Maybe it's not a fair comparison and I fail to see it but I never get this mentality, reminds me of the "I wouldn't kill baby hitler." Because like, I would. I would so kill baby hitler because if I have the chance and don't stop him then all the deaths he caused would be on me. Same with pererson, so many were dragged far right because of him. Letting him die if the opportunity presented itself would save the world from that crap.
iamthecomet
Because ultimately what you're talking about is murder on a massive scale. And who would choose where the line is drawn? How far must a person go before they are killed? Can you not see where this goes? People are so wrapped up and thinking about immediate results they cannot even see how horrific This would be. They don't even say to throw them in jail no, slaughter them.
My best friend was in the KKK when I met him. I've got three arrows on my coat. I live with curious compassion. It pays.
iamthecomet
When I was a teenager I had a button on my jacket that said if only closed minds came with closed mouths. My father kind of gave me a side eye and said that wasn't very open-minded of me. It took me a while, about 20 years, but trying to live my life with a clear head and getting a grasp on who I am has allowed me to engage in conversations with people in meaningful ways and make meaningful change. The fact that people cannot see what they would become should they choose mass murder...
casualgenderquestion2718
I have compassion for the fools and the marks, not the guys taking note of them to lift their watches.
casualgenderquestion2718
Well, no, ultimately he’s talking about Jordan Peterson’s Wacky Bender ending how most Wacky Benders end, this about “mass murder” is rather out of the blue.
flipj
He was always a clown. Pseudoscientist even in his best day.
JacktheKind
It think that's an answer that's too easy. I still listen to lectures pre 2016-2018 on his studied field of expertise. Even back when he started to gain traction outside of it, I never paid attention to that.
In his field and area you can't dismiss that brought something valuable to the table.
Outside of it - especially after his illness and onset right-wing clownery - he always was a clown. Now has become an attention seeking clown...
RocketKokket
Yeah his original hire at u of T was an attempt at getting alternative viewpoints for the sake of avoiding bias and almost immediately they were like what have we done. He’s always been a fool and a clown his whole career
CeoHuntingSeason
Yeah no, the point he started making absolutely no sense was after he went for a experimental benzo addiction treatment in Russia which is known to have a high risk of brain damage
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
He was shit before that. He became well-known for his anti-trans crap in 2016.
nclu
A real infographic from his stupid book
theplantladyisabenevolentruler
The patriarchal world of light and the matriarchal world of darkness?
nclu
He's a grade A dumdum
W0lfsbl00d
I want a few of those psychedelics he's on...
rotinaj
You just cannot handle the truth that chaos dragons and the starship enterprise are controlling all of our brains
Unclescam
He gave super basic and should be obvious advice to lost young men...that's how the nazis get you.
casualgenderquestion2718
In the sense that the Protocols are a rigorous academic critique of the landed gentry in Prague, I suppose so, sure.
Unclescam
Had to think on that one for a bit. Something to do with early Hitler speeches?
casualgenderquestion2718
Pretext vs text, if that makes sense. If it were really what it claimed and only what it claimed it’s not like that would be a problem, it’s that the text and the pretext are incongruous
RuminatingYak
See, that's not true. He's a psychology professor and used to upload his lectures on YouTube, which is what first made him sort of popular. Nothing clownish or pseudoscientific, actually the opposite. Something happend to him later.
flipj
And his lectures were terrible. I watched a few because a Canadian friend told me to. It was always boilerplate, no depth, no insight, the same stuff you can find in any textbook, only he either did not understand the material or purposefully misled the audiences.
His stance on almost anything has always been dumb as well.
No one should have ever "followed" him because he is a nonce and that was before he started believing his own myth.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
No, what made him popular were his anti-trans rants. He was always a shit-bag. Maybe his pure psychology stuff was ok, I have no idea, I'm not a psychologist. But when he became famous it was for telling lies about the trans bill in Canada, and he was already clearly sexist at that time too. Imgur completely loved him at that time, and it was so frustrating to see.
RuminatingYak
No, that's what made him controversial, he was popular before that.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Maybe among his students and other psychologists. 2016 is when he became known in the general public and started going on tv all the time.
casualgenderquestion2718
This is also how I remember it going down, surely he had some type of following to build off of, but he escaped containment around the time of c4
Voidom
He is similar to, a better version of, Ben Shapiro. What his craft is is arguing a topic. And anyone can learn from him his approach to that skill. I can stand listening to some of his early discussions. Compared to him Shapiro is copletelly crazy. Also guy is over 60 and was hit by some harsh life experiences, so I dont feel like throwing stones in his direction. Its easy to just ignore him nowdays.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Yes, his trick is to build an argument which validates the conclusion he wants, but he will slip faulty assumptions in as fact, while he's building that argument, and won't validate the assumptions. So anyone listening to him who takes his assumptions as fact (since that's what he states them as) will be led to his desired conclusion. Even when it's incorrect.
Voidom
Last few years I noticed trend that hosts of shows and politicians started doing this more and more. But early Peterson didnt have to, he had 5 arguments, his opponent had 5 argumeents and he was able to win the topic by presenting his arguments well and attack his opponents arguments at the same time. But maybe I was just not as perceptive back then.
casualgenderquestion2718
It’s probably both. You get wiser to the grift, the grifters get lazy and coast.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
He was doing it since the beginning. I didn't follow him or anything, but imgur had a huge hard-on for him between 2016 and maybe 2019 or so, so I saw a ton of his content. He always did this. And when I'd point out that his base assumptions were wrong, I'd get downvoted. :) Still kept doing it though. Remember that lobster thing, that was one that got a lot of airtime and I think maybe exposed his rhetorical tricks to more people. He claimed that since humans and lobsters have a common /1
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
ancestor, and that since lobsters have natural hierarchies that are shown to be directly impacted by serotonin, that it's also natural for humans and that serotonin drives our hierarchies the same way. So he'd state one fact, common ancestor, and then another (experiments have proven that serotonin drives hierarchy in lobsters), and then he'd state as fact that serotonin works on us the same way (it doesn't), thus proving that hierarchies are natural in humans and are biologically driven. The /2
DeadeicPrints
I hate that I used to hang on his every word. Now I go back and see the videos I thought were gospel and only hear stupid. Wtf wad wrong with me?
scrumby
Metaphysical woo is a helluva drug and Peterson uses a classic con- A wise master showing the young initiate how to read the secret of the universe in the wind, and rain and the pattern of the stars! And what do you know, they all just happen to say that everything you already think about the world and how things should be is correct. No changes needed, aren't you smart and perceptive.
trasneoir
I can relate, and I think I can answer for myself. I'm used to the far right being hat-wearing morons. Peterson's professorial affect and careful choice of words bought him the benefit of the doubt that he was being intellectually honest.
In any given minute of lecturing, 95% of what he said was correct, or at least defensible. Because his approach was so slow and methodical, you had to take three steps back to realize that his thesis amounts to 1+1+1+pronouns+1+1+1 = gulags+6.
Sticklebrickk
You grew up
sfrinlan
It's really easy to get caught up in listening to people who speak very confidently on topics you're not deeply knowledgeable on. It allows us to also be confident, even if we don't know something ourselves, we can rely on the knowledge of others. It's human. I think the lesson to learn is despite how much we think we know something, there's almost always room to dig deeper and verify. Even the genuinely best people are wrong at times.
flipj
You should be happy. You should be very glad you changed your mind. That means internal and mental growth, the hardest to achieve. I, for one, salute, and also a hat tip for that awesome username.
SupposablyPersnickity
Nothing. We often latch onto things that sound right on the surface. Then find out later that what we thought was positive reaffirmation was used to mask a horror.
You’re fine AND you’re intelligent. You learned. There’s something to be said for that.
DeadeicPrints
Okay that's a fair point. I just remember that interview where "we" all thought he totally owned that lady who asked him if he thought we were lobsters.
Now looking back im like "wtf, dude, DO you think we're lobsters??? What youre saying makes no damn sense!"
casualgenderquestion2718
If it’s see-through, it’s bad propaganda
casualgenderquestion2718
Don’t be too hard on yourself, if he was a shit propagandist he wouldn’t be paid so fucking much for it.
MrFancyPanzer
He uses language to avoid answering questions.
johnnydarkside
He has a doctorate in using a lot of words to say nothing. Just prattles one with eloquent sounding nonsense for so long you forget what the question was. Like a higher brow trump.
509tigerfish
the first victim always in a dictatorship is language!
CP3oh
Whenever he gets cornered he talks fast and loud, like throwing up a semantic ink cloud.
nclu
edgelord sophistry.
TheSecondPiewackit
I see this a lot. Idiots using big words to sound smarter than fellow idiots to the other idiots. I've seen a guy try to hide behind...1
RadioFloyd
Supercalifragilisticexpealadociois. Can’t argue with that logic, you know I’m right.
TheSecondPiewackit
... putting his arguments in formal logical notation (IE "P therefore Q"), and then gloating that no one can argue with him. 2
TheSecondPiewackit
It works great until someone who's actually intelligent examines your bullshit. 3
CrimeBrulee
Look, I never expected myself to be defending the twit, but the man debating Peterson is the one twisting language. Peterson is using the definition of belief as "a deeply held personal value;" where as the debator is using the definition "an acceptance that something is fact."
seasonwithbutter
Then why didn't he argue that instead of doubling down?
Hexrowe
Peterson is _notorious_ for using convoluted personal definitions of common terms and pretending it's what the word _really_ means - like here, defining "belief" as "If you believe something, you stake your life on it. You live for it and you die for it... It's the presupposition of your attention and your action."
That's not what ANYONE ELSE means when we say "belief"!
(Also, he flat out refused to answer when asked what he believes; so much for living and dying for it. He's a lying weasel.)
sleepinggreenidea
He's such a good example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. He'll use his bespoke definitions as if they're commonplace, and derive conclusions from people using those definitions when they would use customary definitions, but if challenged, he'll then (and only then) make clear that he's only using his personal definition to draw those conclusions.
rotinaj
You are defending the twit based on a tiny clip from quite a long video of jorp showing himself to be unable to agree to any common definitions of words. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt you are giving him
maddeninglemon
That defense almost works if all you've seen of this debate, or Peterson in general, is this short clip. But he doesn't just say 'this is the definition I want to defend', he constantly retreats to his own idiomatic definitions for everything and then acts like any push-back is unreasonable. Hell the guy has his own personal definition of truth that just straight up includes things 99.99% of people would consider lies. You can only pull that crap so many times before it's obviously malicious.
CrimeBrulee
I'm not watching the video, but yes I'm more than willing the believe (accept as fact) that Peterson is a chode, and I do not believe (have faith) in anything he says.
sleepinggreenidea
You have it almost exactly backwards. It helps if you know the rhetorical technique Peterson is, as usual, deploying. It's the motte-and-bailey fallacy. He's using an extreme and specific bespoke definition of "belief" without placing caveats on its use, so listeners would apply it to all senses of "belief". The other speaker here is calling him on this and forcing him to retreat to his narrow definition. The clip ends with his retreat to it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
sleepinggreenidea
You're claiming words have different meanings. Peterson refuses to outright disagree with you, but he IS equivocating that point: "Don't be so sure!" He's suggesting that he's only using his bespoke definition *because he's been called on his sloppy use of "belief" outside of where that narrow definition would make sense*. His position is sensible so long as he acts like he's always using this definition, but it's not useful because OTHER people don't use this definition in the circumstances he
sleepinggreenidea
does. Even if HE means "belief = I'll die for this" in all cases, most people don't in most circumstances that he uses the term. And when he's called on it, he suggests that he's always using that belief, and fine, he might actually think that. But he's talking about beliefs held by others when he uses the term "belief", so it's disingenuous to refuse to acknowledge that other people do not use the same definition as him in those contexts.
terminaI
No he is clearly twisting language, he can't answer a simple "Are you a christian?" with a yes or no.
So he's clearly just an agnostic that hasnt made up his mind yet.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Agnostic doesn't mean not having made up their mind, it means they think it can't be proven either way. So an agnostic theist believes there's no way to know if there's a god, but chooses to believe, while an agnostic atheist thinks there's no way to know but doesn't believe.
CrimeBrulee
You've got me fucked up if you think I'm willing to water my time clicking through to a whole damn video with Peterson as the star. I'm taking about this 20 second clip.
terminaI
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QgWOd8VEFWs
CrimeBrulee
Nah, I'm not that invested. I try not to poison my YouTube doomscroll algorithm with brainrot shit like Jordan Peterson.
TheSecondPiewackit
That's not the 2nd guy twisting words any more than Peterson, and in doing so, shows how bad Peterson's argument is.
CrimeBrulee
No, they're now comparing apples and oranges, and having no meaningful exchange.
It's Jordan Peterson, I'm willing to accept on credit that he was arguing in bad faith to begin with. But that doesn't mean the other man proved any point other than "sometimes the same word has different meanings."
TheSecondPiewackit
Yes... which is enough. Peterson is necessitating death as a part of belief. It never has been. Not only are they arguing apples and oranges, Peterson's arguing Porcupines and oranges, whereas the other guy is arguing tangerines and pummelos.
You could argue that they're both wrong, and Peterson's more wrong, but that wouldn't be accurate. Peterson's asserting a word has a definition it does not have, and the other guy is citing an actual definition.
TheSecondPiewackit
Peterson's making death a necessary component of belief. It's not.
CrimeBrulee
I mean... You can't just declare that lol. What authority (reference to a previously published source) or authority (ability to decree) do you have to say that definitively?
TheSecondPiewackit
Let's turn this around... by what authority could you possibly assert that he's correct about a word definition? If I hand you a knife and call it a cup, and you say it's not a knife, by what standard is either of us correct?
If you're going to argue that route, all you're doing is arguing that words are meaningless, not that one was correct or the other.
CrimeBrulee
Apropos of nothing, thanks for this fun exchange :) and I mean that in all sincerity.
TheSecondPiewackit
I mean... I can, because I can cite the definition of the word. I'm well aware that dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive, and that language is fluid, but the fact remains that "unto death" has never been a necessary component of the word "belief".
Peterson might use it that way, but he'd be patient zero of a new word usage, which still proves the point that he'd then be the exception not the rule.
CrimeBrulee
If Peterson were a good faith actor (he's not), I'd presume his definition comes from the Christian doctrine regarding denying/refusing Christ upon pain of death.
It's probably more accurate to say there's degrees of belief and ones willingness to die for them that relate to their solanimity, which obviously negates his whole point.
sleepinggreenidea
I am a native speaker of English. I can assure you that's not the semantic definition normally assigned to that lexeme by fluent English speakers. It may acquire that meaning through pragmatics, but that's necessarily context-dependent. As native speakers, Peterson bears the burden of proof to demonstrate the unqualified applicability of his bespoke disfluent assignment of a semantic - not pragmatic, semantic - referent to the lexeme "belief". He can't & doesn't. I can give references if needed.
CrimeBrulee
I'm obviously being flippant with you now. But the same thing that frustrates you (and me, same team dude) about Peterson is his abuse of language to loophole his way out of a meaningful exchange of ideas.
But it's also interesting how frustrating (obstructing the purpose of) and frustrating (causing ire) language is to the exchange of ideas.
CrimeBrulee
And at the same time, Peterson and the student in the video also inadvertently stumble onto an interesting question: should you be willing to die for the objective truth? It's the tension at the climax of "1984," and is explicitly answered in "V for Vendetta."
sleepinggreenidea
All that this is demonstrating is that what linguists call the "cooperative principle" is necessary for communication to actually work. This is only "interesting" (by which I assume you mean novel or clarifying previously unexamined principles) if we ignore the fields of study which have already considered the idea in great detail and grappled with its consequences. As usual, Peterson does exactly that. He's a clinical psychologist who is out of his depths b/c he's out of his field of expertise.