Dr. Jordan B. Peterson on Crowder live

Get the fuck in here

youtube.com/watch?v=SgwZDySogbw

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE&feature=youtu.be
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I despise Stephen Crowder's face and dumb asss questions but atleast there's Kermit on to cancel that cunt out.

I fear that based Peterson is getting to involved with meme youtube interviewers, it might end up watering his message down

...

watching

>tfw on the bottom of the male dominance hierarchy

I support this thread

IF THERE IS ONE TRUE OURGUY

ITS THIS GUY

BEST
LEAF
EVER

Dawkins getting roasted

Commencing customary rare petersons dump.

Peterson is slumming.

...

peterson is always a joy to watch

...

...

how can such a gem even exist in leaf country?

...

[SORTS SELF OUT]

GIMME ALL YOUR PETERSON VIDEOS PLZ

PETERSON DUMP THREAD

>mfw someone tells a joke around me

*teleports behind you*

When did this podcast begin and when is it ending?

What Jungian archetype is embodied here?

>turning to the right
>bad

not really
He's getting his message out there
and the money certainly helps

PETERSON SUBTLY REDPILLING PEOPLE ON ANCIENT EGYPTIAN SUN WORSHIPPING CULTS

The slums probably need him more than anybody

he always does this mang

>before pol

Jesus didn't limit who he spoke with, he spent plenty of time with whores. Peterson is trying to play out the story of the meta-hero. He is well aware of that fact which only makes it more interesting

This is live?

Where is JBP? In Toronto? It's 9:23pm there, but he's sitting somewhere with daylight.

it just seems unlikely he would've considered conservatism as somehow inherently bad at any point, unless he means that people becoming conservative in large numbers is a sign of something bad

...

take a shot every time he says "sort yourself out"

Jordan is arguing the reality of christ to a true believer from a conceptual spot for the non believers (aka us canadians) really stupid show. We do not speak to real believers so it is strange he is on this show, he is trying to convert somebody with an even more unshakeable belief.

I wonder what JBP would think of the movie Mind Game?

Save us papa

I've wondered the same thing, huebro.

He most likely meant fascism/white nationalism.

what if i told you leaf land is a whiter USA with a higher social development index?

What video did the sort yourself meme come from

Canada is equivalent to a state of the USA. Some states are richer and whiter than Canada.

all of them

all of them, its pretty much the cornerstone of all his lectures

>Peterson
>Fascist

You are insane, he abhors ideologies in general and things like communism and fascism in specific. You could say he is for dialogue and debate, for finding a reasonable solution to the problems people face. That is about it

The jester in the kings court who can speak the truth without fear of repercussions because he is beyond contempt; Pretty much the same role that Sup Forums plays on the internet.

It was the Joe Rogan podcast, he says to sort yourself out before trying to sort the world out

whats a good video to start with

Joe Rogan podcast

youtube.com/watch?v=04wyGK6k6HE&feature=youtu.be

I know he does. But that statement is an observation of the world not something he advocates.

thanks m8s

what that interview with crowder was literally nothing of value, oh well at least it will attempt to redpill normies

The Peterson part is already over?

Crowder seems like a hardworking, average IQ, gregarious, charismatic normie.

Fucking scum.

The only good leaf

Seems to be. 30 minutes is way too short to explore his ideas in depth.

Crowder is so fucking awful. I hated how Peterson was trying to talk about something and then he'd just but in with some nothing quip that didn't even get the people in his room to smirk.

>implying anyone cares about Jordan "the truth changes depending upon whether people die or not" Cuckerson

>mfw

dear jesus, i love that man.

however, he should steer clear of these meme youtubers

why is his book so fucking expensive

peterson sometimes touches on interesting ways of looking at things... but I think it's ultimately masturbatory nonsense.

...

Probably below average to averageIQ. Around 95-100

kek

Normie outreach is important.

...

Except that peterson wouldn't use sam's meaning of the word either. That criticism attacks both of them, not just sam.

But peterson literally said, that the highest truth possible changes upon whether or not the survival of the human race is involved.

I believe sam was absolutely corrct in pressing peterson on a concept of truth that is inherently objective, even if we don't know it yet.

Whether or not smallpox or the research into it could end in human catastrophe, does not change the facts about the nature and reality about the virulent microorganisms and mechanisms of actions of smallpox, does it?

therefore making peterson objectively wrong.

If peterson could have just conceded that there are absolute truths regardless of morality, that convo wouldve gone way better.

Nice meme though

I love Sam, he is one of my favorite people to listen to, but he has never worked a day in his life. He is a trust fund kid who has no concept of suffering, struggling etc and this clearly showed in his conversation with Peterson. Sam will never be able to comprehend Peterson's world view. It was a useless conversation, but didn't need to be. Sam has traveled the world as a young adult, heading to hippy retreats in India to practice mediation and taking every drug under the sun. He has been more than willing to entertain these and other spooky ideas such as consciousness leaving the body after death and the therapeutic effects of psychedelic drugs, but can't even entertain Peterson's view of Truth?

you're conflating Peterson's definition of truth with scientific fact. He believes the highest version of truth is nested in an evolutionary framework. I think the "is the room on fire" metaphor illustrates this in the most clear and tangible way possible. I still think his assertion is a bit wonky and definitely isn't the definition i subscribe to, but it does have it's own merit.

Diamond tellers of truth formed from the relentless sheer pressure of the sjw socialist marxist agenda that has infected this country.

>
If peterson could have just conceded that there are absolute truths regardless of morality, that convo wouldve gone way better.

he did concede that there are absolute facts. which is analogous to your definition of truth.

You can set up a million detached, abstract thought experiments but it wont help you make a decision in the context ridden, nuanced real world.

You can have all the facts in the world and have no idea what to do with them. Sam thinks you can derive and aught from an is, for example, which I think is not possible and nobody(to my knowledge) has ever been able to prove that it is possible.

Sam's "truth" is better encapsulated by the word "fact"

And equally harris conceded that there was such a thing as "wisdom". Which he claimed peterson was referring to.

psst

Peterson tried to move passed the semantic argument, but Harris just couldn't let it go.

Holy fuck its Jordan here irl
say hi guys

Are those people behind him supporters of his?

>but Harris just couldn't let it go.
Well they were about to talk about morality as it relates to objective truth....

It's not a conversation you could have without at least having a clear idea of what the other guy means by "truth". Peterson couldn't articulate the details of his idea. He couldn't give sam straight answers for the examples that harris brought up.

Is that MyNameIsJosephine on the left?

the problem with nesting the highest truth in an evolutionary framework is its just simply not "true" in any sense of the word.


Here, let me unpack this for you.

lets say all humans are wiped out, all gone, yes?

There is no more evolution, no more ideologies, no more danger to human survival, and no more darwinian frames of thinking.

But regardless of all that, the molecule of water is still two parts hydrogen one part oxygen, the earth is still the 3rd planet from the sun.

the ultimate truth is an objective, undeniable, indisputable truth, nested solely in fact.

CUT YOUR FUCKING FINGERNAILS

...

yes, she's from toronto

he articulated his definition of truth just fine. It's just that Harris either couldn't or wouldn't accept it.

>He couldn't give sam straight answers for the examples that harris brought up.

Did you not understand the point that toy arguments don't help you on a larger scale? Because Peterson said that and he's correct.

>those nails

yes

>But regardless of all that, the molecule of water is still two parts hydrogen one part oxygen, the earth is still the 3rd planet from the sun.

That's a scientific fact, which Peterson accepts, he says as much. What about this do you not understand? Peterson is a scientist, he does clinical research, he understands what science is and what it does very well.

>Did you not understand the point that toy arguments don't help you on a larger scale? Because Peterson said that and he's correct.

If the idea is clearly defined, peterson should be able to give an answer and give a reason for the answer. "Toy arguments don't help" is just a deflection.

>he articulated his definition of truth just fine.
No he didn't. Harris was confused, and so was peterson. Peterson couldn't answer the toy example.

Sort your nails out

the clip is private now

>"Toy arguments don't help" is just a deflection.

No, it's not a deflection. The human mind can create all kinds of detached, abstract thought experiments that are completely divorced from reality, but those are a waste of time, because reality is infinitely more complicated than the 1-2 variables that are allowed in the thought experiment.

>what part do i not understand

petersons claims that what is and isnt "true" is flexible based upon its morality.

im arguing that we derive truth from factual evidence and knowledge.

so in a way science/facts do go hand in hand with truth. the ultimate truth is the scientific, factually accurate reality of whatever thing it pertains to.

PartyBoater detected.

>im arguing that we derive truth from factual evidence and knowledge.

You can't derive what you SHOULD do based on facts and evidence. You can have all the facts and evidence in existence, but it won't tell you how to act

The point of using simplified examples is EXACTLY so that there are fewer complications in the way of explaining an idea. Explaining a system with 1000000 variables will be 10000000 times more difficult.

>"They're a waste of time"

This is a deflection! It doesn't matter if it's a waste of time.... He should be able to give an answer.

well, you're just using the words truth and fact interchangeably.

I believe Pragmatists view truth as something that exists only when practiced. Therefore, without someone to practice these factual concepts there is no truth.

HEY MISS MURDER CAN I

>the ultimate fact is an objective, undeniable, indisputable fact, nested solely in fact.