Jordan Peterson | ContraPoints


My lords, ladies, and those that lieth betwixt. Tis evident nor sensation nor the passions
possess dominion over the mind of man, which be ruled instead by reason, sovereign of all
faculties. [sniff] It must needs be remarked, that the power
of the commonwealth deriveth not from the despotical acquisitions of conquerors, but
from the that covenant amongst men whereby they most resembleth the lobster. Ugh, Foppington, are we doing this again? Lady Foppington. I’m so happy to finally meet the real you. Enchanté. I’m not gonna kiss your hand you freak,
I’m more of a woman than you are. That’s not what they were saying at the
Parisian salon. Clock me Amadeus. Don’t break the fourth wall. I’m trying to make a video about postmodernism. Get out of my drawing room you 18th century
sexual deviant. So much for the tolerant Jacobins. Hm! Reason. Power. Truth. These are the kinds of topics that I simply
don’t care about. Unfortunately we have to talk about them because
of a guy named Jordan Peterson. So who’s Jordan Peterson? [Sigh] Well, he’s a psychology professor at the
University of Toronto who got famous for sounding the alarm about how protecting transgender
people under Canadian human rights law shall surely lead to Stalinism. Since then he’s been touring North America
as a celebrity lecturer. David Brooks called him the most influential
public intellectual in the Western world, and his self-help book 12 Rules for Life is
a national and international bestseller. I’m starting to think we may need to take
this guy seriously. He’s got a ton of fans on YouTube, and I
hope you guys are here watching this video because I wanna talk. A lot of leftists who have responded to Peterson
haven’t really engaged with his ideas very much, he’s often caricatured, avoided, or
talked past, as in the infamous BBC interview where Cathy Newman keeps repeating back very
uncharitable interpretations of everything he says. So you’re saying that by and large women
are too agreeable to get the pay raises they deserve? No, I’m saying that’s one component— You’re saying that women aren’t intelligent
enough to run these top companies? No— You’re just saying these things though to
provoke, aren’t you? I mean you are a provocateur. You’re like the Alt Right that you hate
to be compared to. You’re saying that we should organize our
societies along the lines of the lobsters. I think to people watching this it comes off
as if leftists are like, afraid of his actual ideas. But I’m not afraid of his ideas. I’m not afraid of anything. I just smoked a bunch of fuckin PCP. [heavy breathing] Daddy. So I spent the
last couple weeks listening to hours of Peterson’s lectures and podcasts and reading his books,
and honestly I think I get why people like him. Clearly he has real talent as a public speaker
and as a kind of life coach. His book 12 Rules for Life echoes past bestsellers
like Steven Covey’s The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People or Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven
Life. The difference is that Peterson takes basic
self-help insights like “take responsibility for yourself” and “don’t envy other
people,” and he renews them with the intellectual trappings of psychology, philosophy, Jungian
psychoanalysis, and Bible readings. He’s telling us a pretty classic story:
life is suffering, happiness is not enough to sustain you through suffering, so you need
a higher purpose in your life. But I knew that already. I learned it at the AA meetings I refuse to
go to. These are like basic insights of world philosophy
and religion. But they’re insights that today’s youthssss
apparently haven’t heard before, I guess because not enough of them are alcoholics. Or at any rate they haven’t heard them in
a vocabulary that they connected with, so to a lot of people Peterson’s ideas seem
new and urgent. And I don’t really object to any of this
self-help stuff. Most of Peterson’s fans are young men, and
I mean someone has to whip the neckbeards into shape, and if Peterson can do that, more
power to him. I mean sometimes boys just need a daddy. And sometimes girls do too. But there’s a big problem here. And the problem is that all this life coaching
is basically just a Trojan horse for a reactionary political agenda. Peterson advocates an ethics of self-help
not merely as a guide to private life, but as a replacement for
progressive politics, which he characterizes as totalitarian and evil. There’s no comparison between Mao and a
trans activist is there? Why not? The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances
is the same philosophy. Now Peterson doesn’t use the word progressive
politics because that doesn’t sound scary enough. His new, scarier word is Postmodern neo-Marxism. Now we have to be careful not to confuse postmodern
neo-Marxism with Cultural Marxism the Nazi conspiracy theory about Marxist intellectuals
plotting to destroy the West. Surely this is not the same thing as that,
right? Right? So look: I genuinely do not think Jordan Peterson
is a fascist. And you may quote me on that. But I’m wondering, if it’s not a fascist
conspiracy theory about Marxist intellectuals plotting to destroy the West, then what is
postmodern neo-Marxism? Well JP, that’s what I’d like to talk
about. So Jordan—sorry, Dr. Peterson, Professor,
Daddy—Let’s talk. And for once I’d like to actually treat
this discussion with the seriousness and respect I think it deserves— [Sultry sax music] Mm, that’s good, it’s a good temperature. Hand me the oil, would you daddy? [beeps and boops] Thanks Daddy. It’s really an honor to bathe with a public
intellectual of your… stature. [beeps and boops] You know, I never like to argue in the bath,
so I want to start by telling you the things I like about you. The first thing is that I think some of your
criticisms of the Left—the stifling of even slightly different opinions, the gratuitous
loathing of Western cultural monuments, the politics of resentment—are, within a certain
mediocre corner of academia, valid complaints. I even made a video about that a long time
ago when I was a different person, oh god the dysphoria, please don’t watch it. But my worry is that you’re leading an international
political backlash against what is a very localized problem, and I worry that some of
our society’s most vulnerable people could be hurt by that backlash. Like fine, you hate postmodern intellectuals
and overly-sensitive student activists, but if your backlash also targets gender equality,
LGBT acceptance, and civil rights, that would be bad right? [beeps and boops] I also like that you tell people how to live
their lives. I mean I personally hate taking orders outside
of the bedroom but clearly the sheep need a shepherd, and you’ve really stepped up
with these twelve rules. You know on the left we don’t really tell
people what to do. We tell them what not to do. Don’t exploit the workers, do not do blackface. I guess we tell people what pronouns to use
for trans people, but that’s a pretty small rule compared to some of your rules like how
to raise your children or when it’s okay to criticize things. [beeps and boops] The last thing I like is that you talk about
deep shit. I was watching a video where you and a couple
of zany goons were talking about Plato and Aristotle and the meaning of life and I thought
huh, on the Left we don’t really talk about that kind of thing, all we talk about is how
society oppresses people. And that might not be enough, because people
need to have a positive purpose in life. I mean personally I don’t give a shit, I’m
pretty happy to sit here watching the same three seasons of Strangers With Candy until
I die. But other people like Dostoyevsky, Camus,
other white guys who talk about lobsters, they have this need to have purpose in the
face of suffering, and like not just complain about patriarchy. I guess it’s easier not to complain about
patriarchy when patriarchy isn’t the thing that’s making you suffer. But I do think an education that only teaches
people about oppression is inadequate. We spend four years teaching undergraduates
why capitalism is bad, and then we say, well you’re educated now, good luck getting a
job under capitalism, bye! And that really kind of sucks. But you know I think that’s a point that
could probably be made without comparing transgender activism to Stalin. [beeps and boops] I feel like this has come across a little
more sarcastic than I intended. See this is why you’ve got to use a firmer
hand with me Peterson. If you don’t establish dominance I’m just
gonna mouth off. They use all this compassion language, and
I’m on the side of the oppressed, all of that posturing. It does nothing but mask the underlying drive
to power. And I’ve just been starting to review their
curriculum for children from kindergarten to grade eight. It’s pure social justice postmodernism. The people who hold this doctrine, this radical
postmodern communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender
identity or some kind of group identity paramount, they’ve got control of most low to mid-level
bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well, but even in the United States where— [Sultry sax music] [Summer crickets] So you gotta give it to JP, when he says “stand
up straight with your shoulders back” he means it. So Jordan Peterson has succeeded largely by
drawing in audiences with fairly popular opinions: political correctness often feels stifling;
student activists are sometimes inarticulate and overreactive; angry transsexuals are telling
me what words to use and I don’t like it. But once he draws you in with these inviting
preludes, he leads you to a pretty weird place. His central political message is that leftist
professors, student activists, campus diversity initiatives, and corporate HR departments
are collectively following the philosophy of postmodern neo-Marxism to destroy Western
civilization and sink us all into a totalitarian nightmare. Now there’s just no avoiding that this idea
is actually pretty similar to the cultural Marxism or cultural Bolshevism theory, but
I’m just going to ignore that because if I dwell on it I’ll sound like I’m saying
Peterson is a fascist and then everyone will think I’m crazy. Look I’m not afraid of psychologists… I have nothing to hide. So let’s just try not to think about that
and instead just straightforwardly ask, is it true that postmodern neo-Marxism is out
to destroy us all? Well, why don’t we analyze the concept of
postmodern neo-Marxism? We all know what Marxism is, the idea that
society should be understood as a class struggle between workers and capitalists, and that
the workers will eventually revolt. Some college professors definitely do believe
that, but 0% of corporate HR departments do, so… that… okay… So what is postmodernism? Well, it’s the vaguest word in the English
language. Some people try to explain it by listing all
the things that are called postmodern and then trying to guess what they have in common. That’s basically what the YouTuber ArmouredSkeptic
did in his video about it. So many daddies in this video. We should invite them all to a barbecue, complain
about postmodernism, listen to some Zeppelin. I’ve had worse evenings. I don’t really think there is a common thread
linking all the things called postmodern. Basically postmodernism is everything that
happened after 1945 that seemed new at the time. But when Jordan Peterson says postmodernism
he’s not talking about Andy Warhol or Quentin Tarantino. He’s talking about postmodern philosophy. So what’s that? Well [sigh] basically it’s a kind of skepticism. Not YouTube skepticism, but actual skepticism,
you know like having doubts about whether humans can really know things about the world. Now skepticism is obviously not a new idea,
that goes way back to ancient times (mmm) but more specifically postmodernism is skepticism
about modernism. So what’s modernism? What’s what? What are words? What’s anything? I’m gonna divide modernism into two periods
because I feel like it. First there’s early modernism. Early modernism is the philosophy developed
by a bunch of boring 18th century queens which says that we can form universal theories about
the world through observation and reasoning AKA the scientific method. Now that turns out to work pretty well for
whatever questions you have about plants and crystals and how to medically reconfigure
human genitals but it has some limits, which was pointed out by David Hume, one of the
least boring 18th century queens and one of the only philosophers I can actually put up
with in small doses even though he was a fucking racist and also Scottish. THIS IS A CALL OUT. Hume argued that from a strictly empirical
perspective you can’t really know much about important things like morality, causation,
and the self, because those aren’t the kinds of things you can observe. Anyway then the late modernists came along
and they said fuck Hume we’re gonna do science about those things anyway. So the late modernists were a bunch of boring
19th century neckbeards who one way or another tried to discover universal scientific truths
about humans. So for example you have psychoanalysis which
said human nature can be understood in terms of unconscious drives, which is of course
ridiculous, I’m conscious of all my drives. And you got Marxism with its analysis of bourgeoisie
and proletariat, you got early sociology and anthropology which started out with racist
social evolutionism and progressed to a kind of we’re-all-the-same universalism. Jordan Peterson is right at home with the
late modernists. His first book Maps of Meaning is an attempt
to describe how humans make sense of the world and create order out of chaos through universal
myths and archetypes, which he claims are a product of our species’ evolutionary past. Boy this is a lot of explaining. It’s so much explaining it’s triggering
my gender dysphoria. I’d better put on some longer nails. Nails? Is that all womanhood means to you? … mhmm! Postmodernism is skepticism about modernism. So whereas modernists try to create eternal
and universal theories about reality, history, and humanity, postmodernists say actually
no, that’s not possible. For example the French postmodernist Michel “Faux-coo” Sargon! You little goose! Michel “Faux-coo” wrote intellectual histories
of subjects like psychiatry, medicine, and criminal justice in which he argued that we
should not understand these histories as straightforward progressions toward liberty and scientific
truth but rather as mere shifts in the way that power orders our institutions and populations. The other postmodernist I’ve actually read
a lot of is Richard Rorty (yeah fuck you Derrida, if you wanted me to read you, you should have
been easier to read). Rorty advocates an attitude toward knowledge
he calls “ironism,” irony being the skeptical caution with which we should regard our own
beliefs in our awareness that our vocabulary for describing and understanding the world
is not the final or best vocabulary. Alright, that’s enough explaining. And my nails are done, check it out! Do you enjoy having long glamorous nails,
but do lesbians and queer girls keep glaring at them with barely concealed visceral rage? Well I have a solution for you! The bisexual manicure! One hand for the V. One hand for the D. Both for degeneracy! It’s absolutely filthy! So we’ve got all the pieces on the table,
now we just need to put the puzzle together. On the one hand we have Marxism, a fundamentally
modernist worldview that theorizes the human condition in economic terms. On the other hand we have postmodernism, a
skeptical worldview that denies our capacity to know any universal truths about anything. On the face of it, it would seem these two
ideas are not compatible. And there is an extensive history of dispute
between them, with for instance the Marxist Sartre calling Foucault “the last barricade
the bourgeoisie can erect against Marx.” And of course as we all know, when Foucault
died capitalism did end forever. [Internationale] So where does Peterson get off talking about
“postmodern neo-Marxism.” Well, it’s true that a lot of postmodernists
were in some way influenced by Marxism, so the phrase could just refer to that continuity. But that’s not what Peterson means. It’s clear from the way he uses the term
that the concept is even more jumbled and nonsensical than it initially appears. Peterson uses the term postmodern neo-Marxism
to include not only postmodern intellectuals and Marxist intellectuals, but also liberal
politicians, academic administrators and corporate HR departments that care about diversity,
and so-called identity politics activists, including feminists, LGBT, and civil rights
activists. Basically it’s the entirety of the modern
left. Now I’ve already mentioned how Marxism and
postmodernism are fundamentally at odds, since Marxism is a big story about a struggle between
two clear and distinct groups, and postmodernism is skepticism about big stories like this
and about the stability of binaries like bourgeoisie and proletariat. But that’s not the only tension in Peterson’s
clusterfuck idea of postmodern neo-Marxism. Anyone with any experience in leftist circles
knows that Marxists and identity politics activists are constantly at each others’
throats, because the Marxists accuse the activists of being bourgeois dogs who want more female
CEOs of color and more disabled transgender drone pilots, while the activists accuse the
Marxists of being a boys club of brocialists no more woke on gender and race issues than
the average Jordan Peterson fan. Most often these accusations are correct because
everyone is problematic and I disown them all. And then there’s also the conflict between
the identity politics activists and the postmodernists. Why does everyone think that identity politics
is postmodern? There’s nothing postmodern about it. Identity politics advocates for rights, equality,
and justice for particular groups, such as women, people of color, and gay and trans
people. This kind of activism presupposes that these
group categories exist and are a useful basis for political organizing. Postmodernists do kind of the opposite; they
want to show that these categories—race, gender, sexual orientation—are contingent
social constructs and are themselves potentially oppressive. This is why conventional feminist activists
often hate postmodern feminism. Because the postmodern feminists want to show
that the whole concept of womanhood, for instance, is contingent and potentially oppressive,
and they think we should be working to destabilize and undermine it. And then the conventional feminist activists
say the fuck? We need the concept of womanhood to organize
around women’s political interests. How are we supposed to do that if we destabilize
and undermine the concept of womanhood? And in turn, the postmodern feminists say—well,
here’s a quotation from Judith Butler, the most famous postmodern feminist ever: “Is it not a sign of despair over public
politics when identity becomes its own policy, bringing with it those who would ‘police’
it from various sides? And this is not a call to return to silence
or invisibility, but, rather, to make use of a category that can be called into question,
made to account for what it excludes.” If you take the first part of this quote out
of context, it almost sounds like something Jordan Peterson could have said. The difference is that JP actually does think
we should return to silence and invisibility—or does he? It’s hard to tell what he thinks. More on that in a moment. I bring all of this up to show that 1, the
idea of postmodern neo-Marxist identity politics as a unifying concept of the left is nonsensical,
and 2, identity politics is not this dogma that must go unquestioned. There are sophisticated debates about this
going on within leftist academia but Jordan Peterson either doesn’t know that or doesn’t
care. He uses the term postmodern neo-Marxism to
characterize the left as a unified philosophical force bent on destroying Western civilization,
when in fact it’s a bunch of bumbling buffoons who can’t stop squabbling with each over
every goddamn little issue. The only reason I can think of that the Left
would appear to be a unified philosophical force is if you’re so far to the right that
literally everyone who supports the economic and social advancement of disadvantaged groups
looks like one homogeneous enemy. But is that what Jordan Peterson is saying,
that he opposes all social progress for women, racial and sexual minorities? Well, it’s difficult to say, because while
he spends much of his time comparing activists for these movements to 20th-century mass murderers,
he resists being pinned down to any more specific position. I was maybe too harsh on Cathy Newman earlier. She came out of that interview looking bad,
but she had a tough job to do. Peterson’s rhetorical strategy involves
saying something that’s more or less uncontroversially true, while at the same time implying something
controversial. For instance, Jordan Peterson will make a
claim like “there are biological differences between men and women,” which is obviously
true. But he’ll say it the context of a conversation about the underrepresentation of women in government, which implies what exactly? So how do you respond to this? Well, either you fall into the trap of arguing
against the obviously true statement, or you have to guess at what he’s implying, in
response to which he can accuse you of misrepresenting him, which is exactly what happened with the
Cathy Newman interview. The most famous moment where Peterson does
this is the notorious lobster argument. So he starts by saying: There’s this idea that hierarchical structures
are a sociological construct of the Western patriarchy. And then he goes on to say that lobsters exist
in hierarchies, and lobsters predate Western patriarchy by millions of years, so, checkmate
postmodern neo-Marxists. You’re saying that we should organize our
societies along the lines of the lobsters. I’m saying that it’s inevitable that there
will be continuity in the way that animals and human beings organizae their structures. The problem with that is that no one has ever
said that every hierarchy is the product of “Western patriarchy.” This is such a massive strawman that it overshadows
any uncharitable interpretation of Peterson suggested by Cathy Newman in this interview. No one on the left denies that there are some natural hierarchies. Even the anarchists, whose whole thing is
abolishing hierarchies, limit themselves to the abolition of unjust hierarchies. No one wants to abolish lobster hierarchies,
the hierarchies we’re interested in are those of gender, race and economics
within our own society, to which the lobster case is a complete non sequitur. I mean you could use Peterson’s lobster
argument in the same way he uses it to justify literally any hierarchy or authority, no matter
how unjust. You could be an 18th century republican arguing
against the monarchy and the monarch could turn around and say, “Well hierarchies are
inevitable. God save the lobster queen.” [God Save the Queen] Oh dear god. My lords, ladies, and those that lieth betwixt. The present rumor of republican rumblings
amongst the rabble has compelled us to summon you together. Let us remind you that nature hath so made the
lobster that some individuals be stronger than the others. Therefore let not the power of our crustacean
sovereignty be anywise impugned. And as for parliamentarians, well, let them
vote for cake. Very good. Thank you. I need new roommates. So I’ve argued that Peterson is invoking
the incoherent concept of “postmodern neo-Marxism” as the supervillain in a childishly simple
worldview he’s promoting where these evil leftists are out to destroy “the West.” Now it’s time to inspect the other side
of this coin. What exactly is “the West”? Well there’s an academic usage of the term
“the West” that describes the intellectual tradition that runs from ancient Athens to
modern day Europe and its colonies. Now a true postmodernist would want to deconstruct
the whole concept of “the West” and show how the very idea is racist and exclusionary
and supremacist and justifies imperialism and all that kind of thing but we don’t
have time for that right now. So I’m just going to grant that the West
is thing, and look at how Jordan Peterson thinks about it. For Peterson the West seems to be equivalent
to capitalism, individualism, the idea that each human has a spark of divinity, and he
therefore equates it with “Judeo-Christian values,” a term more popular with conservative
pundits than intellectuals historians. Peterson contrasts Judeo-Christian values
with postmodern neo-Marxism, which he describes as anti-Western, collectivist, relativist
and totalitarian. This framing of a conflict of ideas in terms
of geographical chauvinism and external threat is inaccurate and scaremongering. Marxism is Western philosophy. Postmodernism is Western philosophy. If you’re really concerned about preserving
the geographical boundaries of the intellectual tradition you should be ranting against the
influence of Buddhism. Likewise there is no feature of “SJW ideology”
that is meaningfully non-Western. The very idea of people requesting different
pronouns to suit their individual needs is exactly the kind of thing a person who values
individual liberty over collective dogma should be on board with. You could even argue that Marxism is an extension
of Enlightenment philosophy, with its concern for human progress, science, and liberty. I think a lot people like listening to Jordan
Peterson talk about the Western tradition, but they don’t seem to like reading any
of it themselves. If you did read it you’d find a surprising
diversity of thought, that doesn’t reduce to “Judeo-Christian” values. Much of Plato’s political dialogues are
concerned with arguing against cultural relativism, suggesting that, far from being an invention
of postmodernity, it was actually a pretty popular worldview among ancient Athenian pederasts. Our favorite Enlightenment philosopher David
Hume famously said that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions.” Literally feels over reals. And meanwhile his contemporary the Marquis
de Sade was advocating the abolition of morality, filling the churches with scat porn, and ushering
in a reign of untethered sexual perversion so decadent and depraved I’m not even allowed
to talk about it on YouTube. This is the Enlightenment, not postmodernism,
and it’s is just as much a part of “the West” as Peterson’s soggy Bible-patting
conservatism. But again, and I really can’t stress this
enough, I don’t care either way. I make YouTube videos because I enjoy mood
lighting and set design. So… what do you people want from me? The lobster queen is dead, long live the queen. [♪ Zoë Blade ♪] ♪ God save our lobster queen
♪ Long live the lobster queen ♪ God save the queen ♪ Send our queen crustaceous ♪ From the late Cretaceous ♪ Long to reign over us ♪ God save the queen! [Ominous music] …and I think you would agree there’s a
foundational erosion that, I think people of all sides, and I think there’s totally
intellectually smart people on the far left that can help uh that are— Where are these people? There’s a YouTuber that I’m actually quite
interested in that I watch her—and I don’t mean to misgender her because I think she
identifies as a her—ContraPoints, I don’t know if you’ve heard of this YouTuber who’s
on the far left— I’ve seen the name come up every now and
again on Twitter. Totally disagree with everything this person
says but I look at it and I’m like this seems very reasonable, educated, academic,
and I’m seeing reasons to hope that— Hello Dave.

100 thoughts on “Jordan Peterson | ContraPoints

  1. I wanted to look up your video during a History class in order to see your definition of Postmodernism, because I remembered it as great, and then I had to explain who this beautiful siren was and why I was looking at her to my neighbor hahaha

  2. God that Dude with the Drag queen voice is sooo fucking ugly! only deviant perv will ever fucked that thing!

  3. "How protecting tans people under Canadian human rights laws will surely lead to stalinism", ah yes, the tired, tired old strawman. If you'd actually listened to his point (hard for people like you, I know. Opposing views are scary after all) you would know that his problem was the principle of the government mandating specific speech. He doesn't want a federal body to be able to tell people what they have to say. Additionally the law was written with guidelines so unbelievably vague that it was guaranteed to be abused.

  4. Votre avant-garde philosophe est splendide Mademoiselle
    Je applaudir votre esprit et talent
    Merveilleux!

  5. Alright, ill pop a comment on your streams. Listen, center, is, where, answers, are. And for you aswell. Am, i, right, or, not? Code talk 😉

  6. This is the best counter to JP I have come across yet. And happen to like JP, even if I don't agree with him 100% of the time.
    Contrapoints is a strong debater. An example of this is how she starts out with what she considers JP's good points. This shows that she is trying to be reasonable and is not a slave to ideology. It also helps to "soften" the attitudes of her opposition.
    She also came across as she is if she genuinely considering JPs arguments, instead of putting up a series of ridiculous straw men or ignoring them altogether.
    She also makes it completely clear what her thesis is and what definitions using in both the presentation of her thesis and her rebuttal of JP. And she remains consistent throughout, and doesn't fall into the trap of equivocation (changing her definitions mid-argument).
    And she is funny.

  7. Why hello there possible alt-right lurker watching this and now reading this. You're looking great today btw. Take care.

  8. I agree that people preferring certain pronouns over others is individualist, but forcing others to comply with your preferences isn’t, and that’s where the problem is. You don’t get to shame someone (accuse them of being hateful, etc.) because they don’t agree with your perception of reality.

  9. Giving up on this after 8 min's, just not enough real points n criticisms, just bs, generalizations n misinterpretations. I'm all for everybody gets judged by the same standards based on their actions n character rather than rage, gender, orientation etc but the only folks who now seem to be attacked for their race n gender are white men. We pretty much punish n persecute anyone attacking others (or being accused of it in any way) based on their race or gender unless it's white men. National Socialism n communism have a lot in common, (far more than liberals n conservatives have with either groups), both authoritarian regimes where the State controls all and punishes any dissent, where the wrong joke or speaking the truth can be criminal and where good things become bad n bad things become good as specified by the State using new n changing interpretations. Treat folks as individuals not as just members of some arbitrary group. If group id is how u judge individuals, you are like the regimes of both Stalin and Hitler.

  10. Loony Leftists thinks that sounding eloquent and being a passably good actor means you have moral authority.
    Nope. Facts and simple common sense is what matters, things that the Left hates.

  11. JBP speaks to an intrinsic need that is unsatisfied by modern society and actively suppressed by the extremist left.
    The fact is that JBP manages to teach and motivate people without having to resort to drag acts and wide brush generalisations.
    I would love to see a debate between you and JBP. LOL

  12. Although I disagree with many of your points, I do respect this video and the way you countered your arguments with thought instead of bashfulness, it was also very humorous. I look forward to watching more of your videos in the future

  13. The falsetto voice makes it difficult to watch. It's the same voice I used for my Danny O'Day ventriloquist dummy when I was 10 years old. Some of the things Danny O'Day said were funny or insightfully clever insults. If there's anything funny insightful or clever about the ideas expressed here it's lost on me. I can't get past the fake falsetto voice. A pretty face though. I wish ContraPoints well while we sort this all out together. My heart goes out to those enduring dysphoria. Sincerely hope it works out for us all.

  14. nice video – the hard line for me is job quotas based on identity – it should be just competence…. anyone who's kid is having brain surgery or is a passenger on an airplane will agree with that if they think about it for two seconds..

  15. Mr. (insert name here), you couldn't debate Jordan Peterson with one testicle tied behind your back. Your channel is everything wrong with this country. The only reason you're allowed to have this channel is that the left runs youtube. Times are changing. People are tired of the left's constant whining about every single thing that blows in their direction. You just played a clip where Jordan made that woman look like a complete idiot. You do have a mental illness. Look in the mirror ~ you're a guy dressed up like a woman complaining about the world for a living. Only in America.

  16. That sigh at the beginning encapsulated months of trying to engage my Peterson loving ex boyfriend in any rational conversation on the subject. I feel catharsis has occurred, many thanks. Even more thanks for introducing me to the bisexual manicure.

  17. Hating capitalism is more about hating the rich than having compassion for the poor. Change my mind. Also, being skeptical about the advantages of modernity (modern technology, modern science) obviously won't sound good to most people, and morality is inferior to what works in reality.

    The West partly develops so fast because it relies on Asian workers who are barely less of a slaves than the blacks were, but if that's that the price to pay to reach transhumanism (and I'm 99% sure that it can't be reached without a slave class), then so be it. Life is unfair, and will alwas be VERY unfair until tranhumanism, from where on it will possibly be only slightly unfair, since then people could potentially could get rid of parts of their biology which makes them stick to parts of equality that are advantageous to them (btw, this is what I think we will always have to deal with this until transhumanism begin, so that's why currently we should exploit those Asian workers as much as possible so that we can reach transhumanism as much as possible, so that we can get rid of that part of ours that likes inequality that benefits us, and then they can be freed through transhumanism as well). Transhumanism would solve close to all of the issues that both the right and the left talk about, it's kinda mindblowing.

  18. OMG thank you SO much for the Deleuze and Guattari lobster reference. No one else I have ever talked to (including a goodly number of Deleuzians) has ever caught it. It's my favourite part of 1000 Plateaus and, as you indicate here, this is basically the only moment in world history when it's going to be politically relevant.

  19. Are you a guy, a girl, one of those mixed genders, or just creepy? I can't tell. No offense, serious question. Also, I thought you said "the left doesn't tell people what to do"… Are we talking about the same "left"?? LMAO arrogance doesn't equal intellect.

  20. To put marquis de sade in with the enlighment lot is a bit of a stretch . He was imprisoned for most of his life, and was mostly forgotten about until the surrealists in the early 1900 started to dig it. Either way his entire contribution to world philosophy is the word sadist.

  21. Actually, he was not protesting the protection of transgenders, he was protesting the state, literally putting words in your mouth. telling you what you have to say. If you aren't concerned about that…..well, then who is the fascist?

  22. the monotone voice gets tiring after a while…maybe theatre (body/voice awareness) classes could help?

  23. As far as i know JP has several times said post modernism and neo Marxist are extremely different from each other but they seem to be in solidarity with each other ( his proof for this is something i would like to see obviously i am not in his shoes and not have time to listen to youtube celebrity all day).
    And about saying that a 18th century republican could be told that becuase lobster have hiearchy , this hiearchy ( monarchy ) is justified , i hate to do this but that is a strawmen Peterson didn't say all hiearchy are good ( watch the GQ interview of him ) , he just simply stated that the Marxist ( only Marxist ) claim that hiearchy is a result of Capitalism is wrong , he didn't say all hiearchy are good just that hiearchy are rooted in human and no matter which system you have you will have it ( and obviously some hiearchy are bad ( watch GQ interview he explicitly says that ).
    Lastly about the West and your claim that post modernism and Marxism is in fact the western philosophy which is right they do are western philosophy but in western philosophy there are competing ideas Capitalism on one side Marxism on another individualism and collectivism and many others , i have not watched all of Peterson to claim what he means when he says west but from what i have seen of him not once he said that they are enemies of west , he explicitly said they are against western values and not to bust your bubble some western philosophy are against other western philosophy Peterson Never said postmodernism and neo Marxist are not western philosophy ,he just said just that these philosophy are against some others western philosophies( like Capitalism and Marxism , and other ( look above)).
    And Peterson has made it clear the only problem with personal pronouns is the government interference in speech , isn't free speech a western philosophy , there is problem when government or big MNC is given power to censor speech( as far as i know one of your videos got removed, so you must be against anyone controlling speech) .
    And Lastly as a atheist i disagree when Peterson bring religion to support his views and also being a Capitalist myself sometimes his caricature of Marxism sometimes seems overblown , so i also disagree with him quite a lot , i mean on a lighter note i am a vegetarian and he only eats meat( to be fair its a genetic problem with someone in his family ) , but you get my point.
    But i have to say , minus some drama in this video that i am not a fan of , this is still a good criticism of JP at least the best i have found.
    But it seems obvious why you decided to leave studying philosophy , video makes it clear. Peace

  24. "Post Modern Neo Marxism: A bunch of bumbling buffoons who can't stop squabbling with each other over every little issue." Accurate enough.
    If you want a debate about Judeo Christian values vs Atheism, check out the JP and Sam Harris set of debates. I'm crearly on Sam Harris side on that. I don't like the so-called "Jesus smuggling"
    And I was totally getting you until you brought the straw man arguments at the end but well…

  25. The left doesn't tell people what to do…
    I'm assuming based on the tone & context that this is sarcasm. First time watching this channel.

    Thanks to further watching & Anthony… It might have been sarcasm.

  26. Did I just watch half an hour of a transgender person arguing and discussing in a moderate and intelligent manner about a controversial topic? Wow… maybe humanity will be able to avoid its inevitable doom after all? While my personal views and interpretations about Mr. Peterson vary strongly from the ones presented in the video, I'm glad to have stumbled upon this. It's always refreshing to come across intelligent counter arguments, especially if presented in a (very very) weird yet funny way. So… thank you for your work!

  27. You really are a provocative daddy needing pervert. Not due to your gender but due to your sexual implications. The rest of your thoughts are superficial.

  28. Well here's the difference … Peterson is brilliant , you're a pedantic , superfluous douche nozzle . With hemorrhoids down to your knees !

  29. A thoughtful critique of this video is to be found here:
    "ContraPoints is wrong about Jordan Peterson
    "
    https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/b49682/contrapoints_is_wrong_about_jordan_peterson/

  30. 25:00 The problem here are laws that literally force you to call someone by their gender. Individual freedom to request someone to call you an apache helicopter is okay, but to force them is not.

  31. Legislation of compelled speech as indicated by the policies using Bill C-16, has nothing to do with transgenders or "Stalinism." Petersons' "simplified" statements in 12 rules are not top-down statements that seem to align with his opinions but rather, this is a bottom-up and very long set of axioms that have led to very simple principles or rules that don't just feel deep, they are deep. Mix any of Petersons work with any of the best thinkers in history and you'll find correlation to his approach, I'm not saying Peterson is up there but I am saying he's been able to bring these ideas down into more digestible speech and stories.

    Peterson breaks down his best reasons for explaining "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" in this video here in less than 30min, closer to 15min: https://youtu.be/f5rUPatnXSE

    To summarize your video, it was your summarization of Peterson based on his influence in the political atmosphere and online reactions, but you do not address his work from the philosophical and psychological positions, which implies you've done what most people do when they criticize people, bring it to a place they can argue in but reject any other perspectives. You cater to an audience who doesn't care for the philosophical and psychological perspectives, that's why I can dismiss most of this video.

  32. I really have to disagree with the sentiment (around 22:30) that Jordan Peterson’s example of natural hierarchies can be applied to justify any unjust hierarchy when he is expressly referring to the attacks on competence-based hierarchies.

  33. Picture the following situation (I'm sure most of you have experienced this before): You go online, you watch the news, whatever, and you are bombarded with a seemingly endless stream of opinions and 'facts'. Every single one of these sources is claiming they are right. Now let's say also that you aren't well-versed enough in politics/history/logic/whatever to know they are wrong. Who do you believe? Well, according to Rational Men everywhere, what you're supposed to do is carefully sift through each of these sources and apply 'objective' critical judgement to each of them, weighing up the facts and comparing them point for point. This takes a lot of time, and can take even longer because a good number of the examples you'll encounter are specifically designed to derail you and send you on a wild goose-chase of misinformation (political campaigners sometimes use this tactic, as do narcs).

    Now while you are painstakingly compiling equal amounts of Left and Right journalism just to make sure you've got the 'best' chance of finding the truth (a false dichotomy, by the way), countless more opinions and facts are being generated, requiring you to sift through them also if you have any chance of reaching an objective, unbiased truth. Can you see where this is going? If everybody needs to do the above just to be able to contribute to Sober, Rational Discourse, then we should be getting paid for it!! That's how much time it takes to develop a truly unbiased critical opinion—except OH WAIT you can't because that's impossible (but somehow you're supposed to try anyway).

    Fortunately, we humans have a little tool at our disposal that helps us filter through streams of information, misinformation, irrelevant information and pure bullshit. It's called INTUITION. You've probably used it several times today without even realising. It's taken all the experiences you've had in your life so far, all the information you've collected over your lifetime, put it in a melting pot, slow-cooked it and come up with a synthesis that is both extremely complex yet so simple that it can be communicated by a feeling in your gut.

    Of course, intuition isn't foolproof, but that's not the point. The point is that most of us, even if we say that we disavow our gut, have used it to great effect. It has probably led you to Contrapoints' channel (which is amazing btw). It's only when we get into debates with Rational Men that suddenly we need footnotes and Harvard author-date on every claim we make. And of course I can understand the need for that. But you have to realise that there is a cost to engaging with every single opinion you are confronted with on a daily basis. A lot of it is just tripe and you can make the effort to try and analyse why it is tripe, but there are cunning people out there who KNOW this and will use that to draw you in, and before you know it you are being fed even more bullshit.

  34. Cathy Newman's interview was for channel 4 news which is left leaning not the BBC.

  35. I'm a fan of his because genuinely after listening to his audiobook and lectures, I am no longer a stagnant manchild. Well… No longer stuck being one !

  36. I like this one because I dont have to sift through a totally ironic script to get to the point.

  37. The man is a genius. And you are the sad product of fucked up radical leftists. The state of you

  38. Girl – I was first introduced to you in the debate you did with Blaire White a million years ago. I didn't think about you again – until Blaire talked about you this past week. And I was like – I remember Contrapoints! I'm gonna go dive deep into that for a few days. And. Oh my God. Kay…listen…I really like JP. Dr Peterson. Professor. I get a lot of out of his self-help shit and I adore his Biblical lectures. But I was never into this weird neo-Marxist post-modern business. He is extremely worthy of criticism, and you fuckin nailed it. You nailed it Ms Points. I watched all your other videos too in the last couple days – and you always seem to nail it. I listen to Ben Shapiro too, I like some of his deal and I don't like some of his deal – and when you trot him out to take the piss out of him, I laugh so hard. Tiffany Tumbles…"The Freedom Report"…as a fan of both Dave Rubin and Blaire White – I must say that you are so hilarious. Jesus, you are so funny. And so smart. You are my brand new favorite, and I have shared this page far and wide. Please never stop. <3

  39. I am happy for once to see a trans person make a channel that doesn't try to glorify there identity as the main point of almost all there videos. Also it is pretty nice that its not all make up which does not appeal to me in the slightest. You are talking and acting like you would if you were just hanging out. Its not all celebration of the same idea as you can be desensitized to even good ideas. If you only watched youtube videos you would think all trans people are Divas who only care about make up and straight men. Its almost as if the only thing a trans person is is effeminate or as if the only thing that makes them up is the pursuit of womanhood. Its is nice to enjoy a trans persons ideas and thoughts that arent being said to prove a gender. When you talk about what you think i am certain of your gender there is no confusion or conflict. I think that if alt right people could be introduced to real trans people who arent caving to pressure to be a certain way or make a certain channel we would be in a lot better of a place. Because i consider my self from the left and am woefully ignorant to correct phrases and words to use i also know nothing about the culture. I guess i just wanted to say nice vids they do more than what you probably think. You also helped put into words how i feel about Jordan Peterson. Most of the time when people ask about him or i comment on something he is saying i just say he is saying a whole lot of nothing with a lot of words.

  40. This guy is repulsive but tells the truth, postmodernism is not "cultural Marxism" because "cultural Marxism" is a myth. but postmodernism is a fraud because the law of gravity and other things are things that are absolute truths. Postmodernism is shit!

  41. Your explanation of Peterson's cowardly rhetorical strategy was particularly well articulated. Great video!

  42. When and where did Jordan Peterson say that protecting transgender rights will or can lead to Stalinism?

  43. I still hate 7 Habits of Highly Effective people because it was shoved down our throats in elementary school

  44. 1:09 did you really just say reason and truth are things you don’t care about?! Lol there’s literally no point in watching you any further. Full stop, your entire point of view is meaningless.

  45. why can't we have ppl like you debate JP instead? I'm one of those guys supporting JP and I'd like to see proper criticism against him in a debate thats better than what I've seen so far…

  46. I actually like contrapoints but I can't shake the feeling that his one comment where he seems to imply transgender activists might cause another Stalinist gulag have set her off a bit. The lobster critique I've heard before all goes saying is lets admit that hierarchy exists everywhere in nature and that some suitably woke policy changes are not going to make it go away in the human realm of gender and economics. That in no way translates to just accepting/justifying whatever social order happens to be in place. He has frequently acknowledged that there are valid criticisms of social hierarchies coming from the left.

    As for the critique of 'post modern neo Marxism'. This is way off the mark…I have plenty of criticism for Peterson not being initially clear on this and causing a bunch of dingbats on youtube to go off proclaiming the evils of postmodernism. But if she is actually researching Peterson like she says then sge should know he means aspects like enforced equality of outcome and NOT just any HR department that supports inclusive policies.

  47. I don't agree with your description of post-modernism. Modernism was always depicted as a conflict with tradition, or at least traditional understanding of the world. So you were modern, when anything new was automatically in conflict with tradition. Post-modernism was born when people started to forgot what tradition was actually meaning, and tradition themselves became just folklore. If you don't know about traditions, you can't see anything new in conflict with tradition, since you don't remember what the traditional world is…

  48. I recommend Karen Staughan's video 'Contrainpoints' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ket6bmPBmJk&t=540s

  49. I respect the human situation, one's human feelings and humanity, but there are a couple of things that needs to be discussed.I fully understand that fact that this IS a sensitive issue to you and to trans people, I am part of the hungarian minority from Romania.
    I am convinced that trans people need every bit of protection and help they can get, but Peterson does not misrepresented the amendment to Bill c-16. Not a bit.

    He accurately predicted the possibilities of abuses. That law was a mistake.

    What should have been done is to institute certain policies, administrative regulations. But a law is a very different thing.

    Firstly EVERY law is an obligation, an enforcement of some kind. Not following a law, could have all sort of dire and possibly life changing consequences. Rightfully so. Because there are consequences, both on the individual and on society not following them.

    So, it takes the choice out of the "personal" realm and put it in a different, a mandatory realm. Like stopping at the red light.

    Secondly, using pronounces, IS a personal choice. it is also a testament of one's cultural, educational,, comprehensional and judgemental level and social skills.Also denotes one's willingness to give or not respect. I call for example Trump actually Trump(sollini). Isn't that highly disrespectful from my part? Certainly is. Also reflects my level of understanding, my cultural, educational, comprehensional and judgemental level AND my willingness to give a statement about who I think he is.

    Should a law be instituted so the likes of me call him "Mr President"? So I will be obliged to give him the "proper" respect?

    But let's simplify it a little bit.

    Law : enforcement of some kind. By the very definition is legally binding, again MANDATORY

    Inclusion of the usage of pronounces into a law : enforcement of the mandatory nature on the usage of pronounces.

    Mandatory usage of pronounces: compelled speech.There is really nothing to explain here

    Compelled speech : sure as hell isn't FREE speech. "I'm" not free to express myself in a way that I see fit. So "my" speech isn't free.

    Also take into account that it doesn't really matter what the punishment actually is, because

    a) the nature of the punishment could be changed in time.

    b) you are already a convict, you have broken the law.

    c) its also sets a precedent.

    And we don't get to discuss what a principle( legal or otherwise) is, what's the difference between the "spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law", how a law can be interpreted and other "stuff" like that. And this is just the factual "stuff", we don't even get to talk about the really "esoteric" stuff about laws, ( like the perception of a law and of its effect on a society ) not to mention the political, social and cultural contexts.

    To further elaborate and to give a human dimension to all of that, my country isa former marxist country and I participated in our anticommunist revolution, which wasn't a velvet one, but bloody. Before that we HAD to address any party worker or activist by calling him "comrade" or otherwise we risked to be subjected to all kind of "unwanted attention", and that in a "best case" scenario.
    The amendment to Bill C-16 institutes the same thing. EXACTLY the same thing.

  50. A very weak response to JP. His clips were weakly cut. Intellectually, you two aren’t even in the same universe.

  51. So after listening to hours and hours of Dr. Peterson, you managed to find something that is vaguely scandalous and made an entire video about it. The Kathy Newman interview, I think he handled that beautifully, she was clearly out to destroy him with a vengeance and made herself look like a fool in the process. If anyone deserves criticism for that, it's not JP. Great job to you of misrepresenting someone, I bet if we carefully comb your videos we would find something you said that is clearly a good candidate for critique. You spend allot of time trying to link JP with fascism, making him look like a villain to anyone who is not familiar with his work. Criticising Marxism does not make a person a fascist, and JP has the same amount of critique towards the totalitarian fascist and Nazi regimes too. In fact anyone in their right mind should be against Marxism, because of the harm it did to humanity in the last century. The way it looks to me, you are actually trying to combat JP's criticism of Marxism, which only leads me to believe that he is very likely to be correct.

  52. Great job on the summary. You're hilarious. And here is the but. There's a little bit of misrepresentation and its not deliberate. One would easily arrive at similar conclusions about JP if they didn't have the time to go through hours on end on his content. So about the link between postmodern and marxism. He won't deny that they should be at odds on the face of it, he says it himself. The reason he links the two, is the underlying assumption that drives their reasoning and conclusion. The idea of oppression and I use that word to represent any narrative that may non-malevolently regard certain values as inferior or unacceptable and dispenses with it.eg. Foucault's episteme does not entertain certain discussions or even conceptualisations of certain ideas because the power structures are enforcing and self validating. That is just a subtle form of the marxist narrative that views workers as being dealt the wrong hand in history by system. And peterson agrees there's tyrannical structures in hierarchies and that he says is the reason why we need the left. Because hierachies dispossess and tend toward tyranny and we need a guardian to correct that. Please note, no ill will me. I'm just correcting some assumptions that could not be known if you're not a Petersonist. You see YouTube is the one causing this whole polarisation. My feed is flooded with JP and I come watch three of your videos and now my feed is flooded with yours. If a person doesn't make a conscious decision to hear the other side theyre just going to fall into a confirmation bias loop.

  53. You’re just jealous because someone is more famous than you. I’m sorry your lowest dream of becoming a YouTube star has lead to you being cucked by Jordan Peterson.

  54. Personally listening to some of Petersons ideas for combating negative thoughts about yourself and you're life have really helped me. But theres much I don't agree with, I'm an atheist for starters. I think you're take on post-modernism vs marxism was really interesting and something I actually hade not even considered. New fan of yours, you're brilliant!

  55. I think that we would all really love it if you would debate with Jordan Peterson. I think it would be very important to the progressive political framework.

  56. One problem I see with all the stuff said in this video. I would argue that Patriarchy is at least as much of a conspiracy as the Postmodern Neo-Marxism.

  57. Whether you agree with Peterson or not, one thing that he is COMPLETELY RIGHT ABOUT, is that identity politics are EXTREMELY dangerous. Thought/speech policing is and has always been a major and initial stepping stone to authoritarian tyrannical government. And that Marxism/communism DOESN'T work. These radical progressives on the left who think that they know what Nazi's and fascists are when they obviously have NO CLUE and who think that socialism/communism is the way to go are not only MUCH CLOSER to the ideology of REAL Nazis, but they're obviously just ignoring all of the massive failures and atrocities of communism in the 20th century. Look up the Soviet Union and Mao's China and research the millions of people who died under their rule and during those governmental regimes. These radical "progressives", truly just simply have NO FUCKING CLUE, what they're talking about. None at all

  58. Ok, I love Jordan Peterson and I about lost it when you took him into the bath tub 😂😂😂

Leave a Reply

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