And you do something similar with your closing remarks on Nietzsche, implying that my (dated/naive)interpretations of his thought have somehow been superseded by real and up to date scholars who (surprise surprise) have come to the same conclusions about him as you.

And worst of all you claim as "realistic" (in contradistiction to my naivete) your conclusion that all we offer to the world is something akin to an approval-seeking set of false selves with nothing genuine at the bottom. I ask you in all seriousness: Is that a philosophy or is it a confession?

@@JordanBPeterson Thank you very much for your intriguing comment, Dr. Peterson. I'll take some time to reflect on it, and will then perhaps try to come up with a proper reply/answer to your queries.

@@hans-georgmoeller7027 Thank you for the polite and straightforward reply....

@@JordanBPeterson Please don't entertain this sophist. Argueing with him is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Peterson actually believe this

That is a very very good point. Peterson isn't nearly as smart and interesting as his fanboys make him out to be. His rude response to H-GM says a lot about his character. He (Peterson) is more celebrity grifter than serious philosopher, IMO.

@@basstrip73 I don't think its fair to call him a grifter. He did his thing for years before rather suddenly blowing up. I doubt he set out to create a cult, even if it sometimes seems like he enjoys aspects of the support it provides. Would agree he's not primarily a philosopher though. Depends what you mean by serious I guess. He would probably truthfully say he certainly takes it seriously, but I doubt he would ever argue it to be his primary academic discipline or even that he is particularly good at it compared to more 'serious' philospphers. Doesn't mean he can't say anything 'serious' though, or at least try, so it doesn't do to be too snobbish about 'serious' philosophy imo.

There's been very sharp critiques of his understanding of both post-modernism and Marxism by a number of qualified individuals. Funnily enough, he responds not to them, but to this. He may see something here he can actually mount a defense against, but not against someone with expertise in post-modernism or Marxism. He once had a discussion lined up with Zero Squared, a socialist podcast, but backed out only to shortly after claim no Marxist wants to debate him. Odd, considering he just had an interview lined up with one. He ducks and dodges people who actually would show where his glaring knowledge gaps are while debating those who are ill equipped to debate him, or maybe did misunderstand something about him.

I have observed many people in debate with JBP, and have come to the conclusion that he is much more of a propagandist than a disputant. He will play definitional games and change topics until his interlocutors give up from either exhaustion or frustration, rather than be pinned down to any actual belief. This makes his arguments into the most vapid of post-modern whingeing - which is also the very thing he decries. HGM's critique of this through profilicity is spot-on, I just wish that JBP would be as honest as say, Ben Shapiro?

@@basstrip73 It’s a pet peeve of mine when people judge prolific academics as having overrated intelligence (they always have a different worldview). Seriously what’s your standard?

Cherry picking an example. There are dozens of interviews where he does answer clearly and concisely, and then he gets twisted. Go and revisit the birthplace of the "so what you're saying is" meme, case in point.

@@StephanDallaPria examples are always cherry-picked, that's the whole point of examples

@@StephanDallaPria And a counter-example doesn't prove anything here. If Peterson wants to be seen as opposed to "post-modernism" or "moral posturing", he should always be coherent and consistent in how he opposes, finding an example of him doing the thing he says he hates shouldn't be that easy.

@@2377olegus Exactly, so it's pretty rich to get a grand narrative (lol so modern) from one example when I can give you ten examples (all from one video, and there are hundreds) to completely disprove your point. It's disingenuous.

@@2377olegus That's an unrealistic standard that even most scholars can't reach consistently. But yes, he did do moral posturing in his crusading days. He has refrained from that recently. Out of interest, would you call Peterson an activist?

@French Bryan such a fantastic channel. Two others I've enjoyed that focus on the epistemological are "Ryan Chapman" and "Ideas Sleep Furiously" both underrated for their quality and depth.

@French Bryan Thanks for the recommendation! I'll check it out.

Me too. The only way I can take Peterson is when he is taken to task on his bullshit talking points!

That's a monty python joke! Well yes, where is the problem in that? Ofc people will be same in a lot of things. Why not be the same in the most important thing? Trying to see yourself and trying to live as an individual. Its as much a contradiction like "not living by any rules" being the one rule you would live by. Low tier gotcha'

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h8uimLVhqLzNfY0.html

Since we cannot copy other individuals with high accuracy and we try to copy different aspects from different people this is correct.

A good joke becaue he hits a very true point of like petersons rhetoric. Not only him by far. Peterson is for sure not inspire the joke. Live as individual, i mean balancing being authentic mostly while also licving in a society and seeing what youcan do to be in company that accepts you are yourself while not being a terrible person that dehumanizes other, cause live and let live. I mean its true that we kinda copy others but what we are and are our best is usually unique to a person, at least te mix of what fits you the best. An nothing is absolute, but the least individual person is one that isnt aware of how much a balance that can be. Or regarding writing(which isnt as complex as humans but still) there is no originality, we all take inspiration from existing things, just do what you want and give it your flavour. Whixh isnt "original" but generally different from one person to most persons. And dont use just tropes as shortcut but flesh them out that its not just tropes.A work merely copying others words withourt understanding not add their flavour and flesh them out, is not a good work because its boring . Dunno what that point is, but to show originality is very hard, autenticity and thinking for yourself isnt, and fleshing yourself out as person that might be similar toothers but own your flavour. I guess. And that peterson fans should try to come on their own , which actually a lot do, and get out of petersons shadow as person. An every great writer ever has flaws, and should be able to be critizized, nozt saying peterson is, just , no on is beyond criticism. It may not be the best example but i watched so much trope talks and about writing that, seem a good comparison about originality. And to grow from an inspiration.And b able to recognize their flaws.

To be fair, Peterson didn't invent this inherent contradiction. You remember all those ads that pushed you to "Be Different!" or the like, along with some stereotypical picture of a generic adrenaline junkie, in order to push their brand? That's the same thing, except with even less basis since it doesn't even come with any kind of argument, just expects you to go along with its message - and buy their products. Marketing has been doing this schtick literally for decades before influencers like Peterson came along.

Moron: “Peterson is a Nazi.” Moron’s fans: “Yes, he’s a Nazi.” Moron: “Peterson is a fascist.” Moron’s fans: “Yes, he’s a fascist.” Moron: “Peterson hates transgenders.” Moron’s fans: “Yes Peterson hates transgenders.” ...An essential theme of BreadTube...

I'm not!

@@suburbanyobbo9412 These are all true, Peterson admitts all of them and he's strung up on benzos!

@@hmmmhmmm6917 You think Jordan Peterson is a fascist?

@@suburbanyobbo9412 you might have missed the reference ...

Whilst I don't disagree, am pretty sure that 'to grow' (and adjusting either the content, the form or adopting a 'hustle' worldview as you imply) is not the principal concern of this channel.

@@lolamby1 This channel has made a number of videos that are clearly meant to 'set the record straight', when it comes to claims made by extremely popular voices with a huge online reach ( Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Philosophytube), it seems clear to me that growth of the channel and 'being heard' by as many people as possible is implied in its mission. I did not talk about money and I don't see why you say that I imply a 'hustle' World view. If you mean the expression 'to pay off', I never meant that in a monetary way. The online public is an attention economy and once you manage to get some attention you can use that in any number of ways, not just as a 'hustle'.

First time I see a TPAI comment in the wild. Now I definitely have to watch this video!

I completely agree, and even if it doesn't get as many views ever, this stuff is the real gold of KZfaq and the internet, having access to this sort of dialogue is absolutely wonderful.

@@jasa_m7990 I have been seen here and there (in the comments) they say, as an old man, hooded and cloaked...

Nice seeing you here

the fact that we watch same guy tells me something

Eyyy I just came here from watching your last video, Hard Choices, Easy Life. Love your content my dude

Proud to follow both channels constantly

My man

Thank you.

I'm such a fan of this distinction, even if it is almost verbatim the 'average x fan vs average y enjoyer' meme format

H-GM introduces Dr. Peterson for the first 7 minutes as a cult of personality, and you chastise the "fans" for not focusing on the ideas nor setting aside the personalities. That's the "defense" you observe in the "fans" comments... but are blocked in processing. We, who admire Dr. Peterson because he helps us put meaning into our lives, ask "can you have a critique of ideas, not personality? Please, tell us concretely why his ideas are misguided?" Stop projecting, take your own advice, and introduce yourself to your shadow. Then come back to the discussion. We are dying for well-adjusted people to help us explore this world we live in.

Peterson isn't a philosopher, he just claims to be.

Amen

@@hgzmatt I like your username :)

@@rentaltoast2201 Thanks :)

I’m assuming Peterson is the one that doesn’t know.

@@yayhayes he knows it but wants to believe otherwise...maybe we all do to an extent

Yeah, this whole Joe Rogan bunch just looks like some Kool Aid type people.

Progressives are dedicated to the destruction of barriers to individualism. Progressivism should be opposed.

Please don't insult his commentary as progressive, unless you are using a custom definition

@@rokaspleckaitis8924 Firstly, I very much doubt the professor would find the term progressive insulting. Neither was it meant that way. Secondly, I am clearly distinguishing my use of the term when I describe it as "truly". My meaning was to distance it from the dogmatic use seen in the US political sphere, where the term is not a meaningful word, but rather a signal word like woke or liberal. I would contend that it is not my use that is customized, but theirs. Simply, I say his content is progressive because it is willing to address new technologies by developing upon established ideas rather than demonizing it as a reactionary would nor trying to fit it into existing frameworks as a conservative (which I consider most US "liberals") would.

@@IrokuKoneru I mostly agree, though developing technology has its own downsides. But I don't think I can predict with any accuracy whether or not swift technological advancement will lead societies in a better direction.

Dividing/polarising and ruling most people works well for some people.

I'm with you 💯% Jordan Peterson's work is just trite self-help with a confused conception of individuality.

Can you give an example of where Peterson contradicts himself? It's always useful if you give arguments when you state your opinion, if you want to change minds and not just start a circlejerk.

Imagine watching that BBC interview and thinking that Peterson comes off as the grifter. Amazing.

The meaning of the message is that if you don't sort out the aspects of your life that you have the ability to (i.e your own psychological state) then you will likely extend those problems and maladaptations out into the external world as you act in it. Humans are mostly driven by unconscious intuitions rather than rational analysis which is why its important to understand whats going on within you before you jump up thinking that you have all the answers.

​@@andersondalmeus1406 The metaphor doesn't just apply to psychology (I should have said that). In the broadest sense he means you should try and fix everything that you have access to before you start ascribing grand plans for how the world should be organised. Usually when people spend a lot of time trying to fix problems in there communities or areas they have access to, it tends to give them a better perspective on how larger scale systems work which will inevitably effect the way they see things like politics. *"that's still a shallow worldview because someone is going to be operating at the levers of power and it's not like every part of their metaphorical room is gonna be clean and theyre not always going to have any qualms about how unorganized their room is while making decisions for everyone."* I don't see the different between this sentence and saying something like "well there all exploiting people, so why cant I?". Just because some other people don't do something isn't an excuse for you not to surely? everyone who sets out to "clean there room" is a net positive to society. *"I've never once seen anyone say you have to clean your room before you change the world to anyone actually already in legitimate places of power"* Well... apart from Jordan Peterson and I've heared from anecdotal sources that he is quite popular with surgeons, lawyers and people in managerial roles so maybe his message is getting to the right people. Who knows.

@Devil's Logic I would need you to substantiate that before I can reply.

@Devil's Logic Absolutely. No one is completely transparent to themselves but would you agree that some people have cleaner rooms than others?

@Devil's LogicIts not really meant as a threshold you have to pass. Its generally meant as a mindset to approach the world with. Jordan Peterson for example worked as a clinical psychologist and professor before he started talking about these things with a larger audience. If you want to, read the first part of my reply to Anderson Dalmeus (above) As this explains my point further.

Don't say that in the interview. Tell them about what value you can add to their company and less about how it's society's fault you suck.

How terribly inane

no dude tell them what you are useful for dont make a theater performance

I think that's a really empty headed and ill-informed comment. Thanks for wasting people's time and mental load.

@@John_Malka-tits it is, they are all angry because their interpretation of civil religion is no more popular than wokeism. I think prof. Moeller could analyze this “intellectual” movement that is so worried with postmodernism and dont even understand what it is.

@@jorgeyarza6057 yeah that's one of the least informed statements I've ever had the displeasure of reading. Hey I got a question for you; How warm are those hot takes from 2017?

@@John_Malka-tits you are just triggered because he insulted the people you worship

And projection, and double standards

Saying nothing and making the listener confused and dazed

@@jonan2199 This is precisely what Jordan Peterson does, except that he makes his audience feel that they have been enlightened in some way without any deeper understanding of the issues, just a bit more highbrow version of Oprah.

@@pequodexpress I understand him fine. Disagree on some things but he's trying to bridge the gap between Plato's forms/Jung's archetypes and material reality. It inevitably leads to political and social implications so he talks about them, but he's really not focused on it.

Like 80% of what this Nigga says was almost completely irrelevant to actual practical use of what Jordan Peterson talks about. And in fact some of it I found to be outright not really getting the point of what Peterson talks about. And some of points he tried to erect in place of what I think he’s critiquing are actually quite easily weak.

@@DnalorNibul Might want to watch his other video critiquing wokeism... kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fdSFpNV3ntOlcWw.html PS: if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, try not referring to someone as "this n-word," or maybe try providing some actual critique of his arguments...

your channel is brilliant too, my friend!

Your channel is amazing. Always looking forward to the next thing you post

I just wanted to say: You're description of Peterson's _critique against wokeness_ has to be the most clear, concise summary of the "liberals-against-wokeness" position, that I've ever read. (And, trust me, I've lost many hours trying to fit piles of words together, as if they were a 10,000-piece jigsaw puzzle, and haven't been able to explain my thinking on the subject half as well as you just did.) Just wanted to single you out, for praise. All the best, my friend.

I know you made this comment a long time ago, but I think an easy defense of wokeness in response to the critique is that these identities are ones that have been used as boundaries for discrimination in the past and in the present, resulting in a playing field that is currently uneven and will continue to be uneven in the future if (1) current discrimination isn't stopped and (2) the effects of past discrimination are not resolved. So, as opposed to elevating identities not contributing to the well-being of society, remedying the pushing down of identities that were used for discrimination.

I heavily second this

having watched JBP peddle his brand of definitional argument snake-oil against many objectors, both skillful and cretinous, , I actually think I know what it would look like before it even happens. JBP is a master of saying nothing while pandering to a demographic that wants to hear support for fundamentally laissez-faire conservative economic, social, and religious views. It's nice to see him being so thoroughly skewered, even with the open admission of the fact that this is all being played for views against a background of social media. It is an elephant in the middle of the discussion, that needs to be acknowledged even before the discussion can begin.

@@k.lambda4948 yeah, I wouldn't waste time talking to JP. He loves the attention. He doesn't care whether he makes sense or not. That seems to be his brand. Sound intelligent and you'll get a flock of dumbasses following you. Throw in a God and he's got his cult following. He's making a fortune like all the hypotcritical pseudo intellectual bullshitters out there. Master manipulators. No different from the money greedy preachers of religion.

Peterson would clown this guy. Dude can't make a coherent point succinctly to save his life. 30 minutes of absolute rambling.

Holy shit yeah. Having gone into STEM myself, I feel like I lack so many mental tools to describe people and society... I guess I traded those for the tools to describe abstract ideas and material reality.

>STEM major

For people who come from a Science background I suggest reading Analytic Philosophy before continental philosophy

@@Michelle_Wellbeck what do you think the best place to start would be as far as books or resources?

@@Michelle_Wellbeck I don't agree, as an engineer I found continental philosophy much more rewarding. Also, being STEM helps inoculate one against the subjective idealism pitfall that many in Pomo fall into.

I think I remember Zizek calling him a "post modernist clown" at one point

@@KumoCC "What do you mean by 'believe' and 'Christian God'?"

​@C-2-RESH-18 KEK Individualism is about focusing on and preferring the individual over the collective or group. Wikipedia: Individualism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology and social outlook that emphasizes the moral worth of the individual. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism The individuals need not be unique or original to be considered separate. Each person, despite sharing some or many traits, can be analyzed and given separate individual consideration. I believe the author of the video has made a very large error in assuming that individualism has anything to do with uniqueness, originality, or conformity.

​@C-2-RESH-18 KEK I can provide a definitions of ad hominem and nuance if you desire. I would also be afraid to contend with the positions being made and want to hide from potentially challenging conversation if I were in your position. Good luck in everything you seek to do.

How can an individual be conformist?

And conversely, collectivism (in the sense of working in a team) isn't incompatible with originality. But the very concepts 'individualism' and 'collectivism' are very unclear. I don't think Peterson is in the business of advocating originality or some kind of unique authenticity, he just advocates acting individually, even if it means doing the exact same thing as everybody else (or as everybody who follows Peterson's advice). If anything, I'd say he is more of a 'sincerity' type, insisting on traditional roles (which are supposedly natural, of course!), etc. But I find the whole application of HGM's favourite sincerity-authenticity-profilicity model in the video rather forced.

@C-2-RESH-18 KEK Don't want to talk because it is YOU that doesn't understand.

Here's the difference between KZfaq and books: Books are better.

@@Tom-rg2ex May i ask why, and in what way you think so?

Brilliant nuanced description of individuality. Incredible.

@@117Industries thank you, one does their best 🤘

Agreed. I'd add to this that I don't even think this is a real paradox that requires resolution in the first place. Authenticity just describes a free union of will and behavior. If a person genuinly desires to be exactly like someone else, then their mimicry is authentic. The antonym of authenticity is not conformity nor lack of originality. These things aren't connected at all. A person who is inauthentic, is a person pretending to be what they they are not, by design or accident not withstanding I.E it is a description of individuals who conform or copy others, not because they have a genuine desire to do so, but due to external pressures or insecurities that, if prodded, said individuals would probably be happier not having to deal with. - The celebrity who pretends to care about a third world charity just for the sake of boosting their public image - politicians who lie just to get elected - your classmate who pretends not to read fantasy novels in order to retain their social standing Authenticity as a concept should be fairly easy to grant to anyone with a modicum of worldly experience dealing with phoney people, of which there are many.

It's an interesting takedown on it but just a few things: 1) How can fashions be conformist but styles not? Isn't the whole point of a style that it is somewhat like a doctrine; that one has to follow a particular way of doing things in order to fit that style? Otherwise, why would they be called *style* guides? Unless you're talking about a notion of style as it being akin to *taste*, which yes, can be developed. 2) The notion that there are "right-brained" and "left-brained" individuals is a myth. One cannot think solely "as the left brain desires". 3) You seem to criticise Postmodernism a lot, but when you bring up this point of "the dream of science is that all may one day be explained algebraically". Yet it seems very unlikely to me that science can indeed exist, as it purpots itself, as a "disinterested search for objective knowledge" purely and exclusively. It's been shown time and time again that science, in society as it is today, has been and continues to be wielded in rhetorical and political happenings as a device. Cue Jordan Peterson's vague claim about "continuity" when it comes to biological hierarchies (the whole lobster episode); is there a more cogent example that scientism, the belief that empirical science guided by the scientific method provides a superior account of the world and human affairs to the exclusion of other perspectives, has been used to conflate facts and value judgements? Indeed science may or may not achieve a "theory of everything" as you so elloquently put it. But that this equation may be developed, or that it may or may not exist, putting aside the whole argument of whether or not that equation is onthologically equal to objective truth strictu sensu, does not urge of us, as humans, any action whatsoever. That the scientific method is one capable of self-curation is an uncontestable fact, however, that the progress of science is shaped not by the pursuit of truth in itself but by vested interests is equally undeniable. This is all tangential to your point, of course, but if you consider postmodernism as blind in that sense, it might very well be the case that *positivism*, which you seem to regard in very high esteem, might be much worse. 4) You must not have understood the video's original point very well. This paradox of originality is not only well-studied and an accepted fact in modern society, but it is not in itself regarded as a problem. Postmodernism, in fact, is very well-equipped to deal with it. As the video itself pointed out, we have a notion of value and symbols as simulacra as Baudrillard has exposed, upon which by the organization and selection of these simulacra we, as 21st century individuals, already have been slowly substituting the notion of personal identity to that of profilicity; the curation of personal profiles. The fundamental point that the video is trying to make is that Jordan Peterson *not only* partakes in this same manner of profilicity *in true postmodern fashion* but also tries to argue that it must be reversed. If he indeed embraces this notion of authenticity as profilicity as you have suggested: that we measure what we see in first-order observation by comparing it to how it has been observed in second order observation (that what's on the outside is what is real, and that the inside must be truly invested in it, otherwise it is considered a deceptive fraud) he is the *same thing* as the people he criticizes: an "identity warrior".

@@hian This doesn't make sense. Why on Earth would you 'genuinely desire to be exactly like someone else', or anything else for that matter, if not b/c of either negative or positive stimuli? You seem to think that the negative stimuli (pressures, insecurities) make it fake, but not the positive ones (prestige etc.), but there's no reason for this, and the two can hardly not coexist in any case - appetite and hunger are two sides of the same coin. If you donate to a charity or make a political statement out of a 'genuine desire to be like someone else who does that', then clearly you aren't doing it out of *your own* authentic care for the third world or *your own* authentic political conviction. This should be easy to grasp for people with a modicum of worldly experience dealing with conformity, but I keep encountering these weird defences of it. Or is it that you think conformity means simply *happening* to be similar to others? It doesn't, it means striving to be like others as an end in itself. And in any case, people don't just *happen* to have the exact same desires as other people. No two people have the exact same feelings, attitudes and thoughts, we do have the potential to be unique, and this is what authenticity is about.

Yes that and his debate debacle with harris were hard to watch. I think his earlier successes went to his head.

Outside of his field of expertise he gets lost pretty quick. He was outgunned by Zizek on every level. His takes on politics are hacky, and his subtle ultra conservative Christian belief is off putting and frankly something I can’t respect about someone. Maybe I’m being harsh, but it’s a view I’ve held long before I was aware of Peterson.

Doesnt take much to dismantle Marxism when realizing his entire theoretical notion is painted with historical materialism, homogenized populations, and the lack of representing the endogenous evolution of technology and of the institutions and the political equilibrium that influence not only technology but also how markets function and how the gains from various different economic arrangements are distributed. He also paints man as perfectly rational without any notion of psychology in his writing. The only positive thing that came out of Marxism today that still stands is: Principal Agent Theory, nothing else. The only reason people find him provoking is because of ignorance on behalf of the reader and Marx's ambition erudition, and creativity in writing a story. Intuition breeds the lens into truth regardless if it is actually true. Marx was incredibly skilled at this. There is also scientific work proving that intuitive narratives 'lever narratives' sell people more than evidence, given it be causal or purely through the channel of descriptive statistics. My main issue with the standard leftist critique of Jordan Peterson or anyone for that matter is that you are silenced from public opinion if you are not omniscient (practically not possible). I have seen incredible academics get canceled for everything over one bad take in something. For someone to destroy all your social value, or at least attempt to, because you are right a majority of the time and wrong in the minority of situations is dangerous. If someone tried to cancel me (an academic studying informational processing and non-bayesian updating behavior) for everything that I have reputablely earned over a take on, lets say, unemployment and domestic violence such as higher relative male unemployment in married household units reduces domestic violence (robust evidence and game theoretic models on this), I would be pissed. That is why generally I think it is almost always foolish to try to go public with anything because any present success you have is purely a contingent reward system. Really smart people never reveal themselves. Not saying I am one of them given I at least gave my first name and last initial as my internet alias. I am rambling at this point. Oh well.

@@nicholasl9148 Much as I disagree with your sentiments on Marx. You have quite literally. In a single KZfaq comment. Displayed a better understanding of Marxism than Peterson has, in his entire speaking/debating career.

@@OzymandiasFGC I dont necessarily disagree with Marx as much as I just think using historical prescriptions of him in 2021 is lazy. The academic world is beyond historic ideals of great political philosophers, at least scientifically and from a policy lens. It is time to get with the times. So maybe what I said has more to do with the misusage or the inconsistent temporal parallelisms used today with Marx are just wrong. If people started replacing Marx with lets say Piketty (very mainstream example) then I would be a little more reasonable, but of course even Piketty comes with flaws, everyone does.

Dyson spheres for days, BLAME! was a crazy good read.

Blame! Is amazing, the scale of everything in the world is mind blowing.

Because of this comment I checked it out on Netflix.

@@George-zj9rr read the manga, it's way better, imho

yeh its kind of the lesson of Babylon (why it was destroyed I think) >> New TEchno-Babylon

I think you just described a scene from Life of Brian lmao

He attracted a lot of far right morons initially. The words "anti political correctness" acted like a bug light for a lot of angry spiteful people. But the more he spoke and clarified his views, the more fair minded the base became. His reasonable nature puged the extremists from the fan base. I enjoy petersons work, i also enjoy the work of left wing progressives. I dont agree with any of them fully though, i just combine their philosophy and perspectives and eventually i form my own. People make the mistake of worshiping these people. They become so identified with their work that when someone attacks it, they feel as if they are being attacked, so they respond as if they are. This happens across the political spectrum. Identifying with thought is actually one of the most common and destructive human tendencies.

His understanding about everything comes from Jung

According to Buber and Huskinson, Jung is misreading Nietzsche, and therefore so is Peterson

@@user-jd2vo6vv6h how about Carl Rogers? Or Jean piaget?

@@engeneFTW I’d expect that from a psychology student and not a behavioral psychologist, as Jordy has proclaimed to be.

@@hazardousjazzgasm129 I know who buber is, but your comment doesnt really say anything. If I commented that Husserl said buber has misread Nietzsche. Theres nothing to discuss really

We have had a real shortage. The people who are qualified to criticise JP have said nothing - for half a decade!

@@VladVexler I think its because the Peterson fans blindly rage against anyone who critics him

@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 an increasingly chronic problem for anybody with a big audience. It’s a little more intense with JP because people associate not just their views but personal transformation with him.

@@VladVexler literally the definition of bias, “JP helped me so that most mean he is the smartest man in the west” serious “master” worship here I think they want to be smart/assertive by associating themselves to Peterson, so any critique to Peterson is an attack on them. Ironic

@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 it’s a very interesting relationship JP has with his followers - a proper account of it hasn’t yet been given. But its needed.

It's not a metaphor, go clean your room

It is a literal translation of the German "oder so", which means "or something like that."

@@gulli72 I suspected something like this, thank you!

_Zizek has joined the chat_ "and so on and so on.."

Well English is a westgermanic language. It has a huge Saxon influence

@dezessete it's more like the whales at SeaWorld, he's just trying to splash the front row with his lisp

Yes this is important. Peterson politics are central’s to his ideology. It’s already highly visible in his incel (it’s excessive maybe but it’s early incel) video existing prior to his fame. He is an American dream kind of guy who is fundamentally scared of the collective and what’s linked to it

>libertarianism >religious conservative

I don’t think he’s a neo liberal or a libertarian. I’d say he was Burkean conservative or old school liberal.

@@jeremybiggs8413 Does Peterson put his trust into tried and tested arrangements. No. Not when it comes to his personnel life. He seeks new age spirituality. He has abandoned enlightenment.

More like a staunch Conservative with a hard-on for Traditionalism.

Agree 100%

its more like: you know nothing of the real world or history, you went to a college and you absorved a bit or a lot of propaganda without really understanding much of it and now you want to go change the world. You are a tool for other people.

@@elodin857 How much does Peterson know of the world considering he's spent his whole life in some college or another?

@@bennymountain1 well he's lived a lot and he's smart, he has started a bunch of businesses, worked as a government counselor or something of the sort on climate and hes read a lot about history and phylosophy. Which cant be said for college freshmen.

Noble - Your point has validity if you take the view that he himself chose to be a public political fiqure - But i dont believe that to be the case.. He is essentially and primarily a one on one psychiatrist. He speaks to the individual(s) and it is largely them who have then promoted and projected him into his current role. I myself see him as someone helping individuals to resist the mass cult of wokeism (for example) and so willingly takes on the 'duty' of speaking to the masses He himself seems to have done a LOT of work on himself and what he says, does make sense to the individual - clean your own room first - and that it is bad for your own personal health (as well as society) to be formulating social plans for everyone elses collective problems

Yeah me too. I always think of right wing peoples obsession of screaming 'free speech' whenever anyone disagrees with them, then laughing when left-wing people get hit with 'facts and logic' Which rarely are facts and logic.

@aadhi gei Yeah, politics is inherently complicated and KZfaq isn't the best when dealing with complicated subjects. Of course books can be just as poor but they can be good too.

@aadhi gei Thinking politically means thinking wrongly

I’d advise you search nowhere within the political realm for any kind of knowledge or truth.

Right-wingers love to project to left-wingers

obfuscation is key

peterson is the epitome of woke: don't criticize me or i'll cry

While I’ve noticed similar things about Peterson’s attitude, thank god he’s at least against the cancer of progressivism.

@@nokeksgiven Of course. I shall utterly abandon any and all non-mathematical pursuits posthaste. It is clear that... wait, what was your point, again?

What you and the guy in this video miss is that Peterson isn’t again activism in general… he’s against the young people who in his words ‘know nothing’ but have been trained by their university professors to criticise and attempt to reorganise social structures that they don’t understand. Moments before his statement quoted in the video about the ‘pseudo moralistic stances of activists’, he makes this clear: ‘I’m not suggesting in the least and have never suggested that there’s no proper domain for social action. I’m suggesting that people who don’t have their houses in order should be very careful before they go about reorganising the world.’ There’s no performative contradiction here since Peterson isn’t a 20 year old gender studies student, he’s a knowledgable, accomplished adult.

@@leoarnstein9444 You presume that the only people who care about the kinds of social issues that JP dismisses are 20-year-old gender studies students, and that such people are inherently misinformed about the world. It's easy to dismiss activists you disagree with if you start from the assumption that they're either naive or duplicitous. And this is my point - I haven't missed the fact that he's not against activism in general. My point is that he doesn't engage with the ideas of activists nearly as often as he just attacks their moral character, suggesting that they're covering, performing, being dishonest, or are unqualified because they haven't got their own lives totally in order. This kind of posturing is not only philosophically and argumentatively empty, it's also unfalsifiable and blatantly hypocritical.

@@leoarnstein9444 there is a point in that people love performative activism, but also Peterson doesn’t believe in climate change, or believes that its reasonable to think climate change isn’t real. Also Peterson definitely created a fake ideology to scapegoat and fear-monger his worldview, who the fuck is a post-modern neomarxist?

@@leoarnstein9444 and thats a dumb proposition, MLK cheated on his wife, his “house” wasn’t in order yet he went out to lead the Civil Rights Movement. He just wants college students to shut up and let him peddle his self-help ideas, thats also why he created a bloated, bogeeyman of an ideology that isn’t even real called “postmodern neo-marxism”

I’m glad you’re starting to see. Jordan Peterson uses his psychology background in disgusting ways to justify his political views. One such example is that he says that women shouldn’t wear makeup in the workplace because the reddening of the cheeks and lips is something that is sexual provocative to men, implying that women are somehow responsible for their sexual assault in an office space. The reason why he says this? Because the reddening of the cheeks and lips to provoke sexual arousal is something seen in *nature*. So he’s using his psychology background to compare people to animals in the most disgusting way possible. Just because something is seen in nature doesn’t mean that it’s applicable to human civility. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z6qcbJuLkrjddok.html He also thinks that the birth control pill is bad because it makes women act more like men. On top of being casually sexist he’s implying that women having more bodily autonomy and sexual liberation is bad. He then tops it off by saying that it’s somehow part of the “neo-Marxist agenda” to destroy western civilization or something. He always says some nonsense like that. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mpmWqdZkx7i0nps.html Also something about how he’s opposed to gay marriage if it pushes forward a neo-Marxist agenda that will destroy western civilization, but if it doesn’t, then he’s for gay marriage (this is fancy speak for being generally anti-gay marriage). His traditionalist side comes out as he says he worries about the implications of legalizing gay marriage and what it means for “traditional marriage”. Like, dude just say you don’t like gay people already. Stop beating around the bush so much. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/atCVmZV0mbqVj3U.html

I’m an ex-fan myself. If you have mixed feelings, you can read some of the books on his booklist. The authors he recommends are way more thought-provoking and insightful than he is.

@@firebrand9578 why would anyone listen to JP when you could read some Carl Jung, Clean your room? GTFO Hierarchy of Needs by Maslow

@@keithy5932 an people say he isnt a reactionary

@@serdirtbagoftheleft4045 his rules are so dumb. -stand up straight with your shoulders back- just fucking work out, you’ll feel better and your posture will improve without you even thinking about it.

@@John_Malka-tits I've scrolled down barely 20 comments and every time there was a thread, you joined in to write a short reply calling the original comment an idiot for one reason or another. Please get yourself a better hobby.

@@legrandliseurtri7495 yeah because none of them have seen or read anything by Jordan Peterson and are eating a bunch of slop his haters wrote about them. Sorry someone gave you and the other "20" top commenters a frontal lobotomy

@@John_Malka-tits Have you read a lot of Marxist and post-modernist books?

@@Enzaio yeah its not that hard.

Tbf with Peterson, most of the stuffs he said is what most people does not have a problem of saying until confronted by new academic ideas that may or may not valid. The problem is if those sayings are valid all the time, nobody would be bother to say or argue against it.

The intellectual we deserve

I think public intellectual is a pretty fair description of Peterson. Although at this point in time 'public intellectual' is borderline pejorative. He's certainly not an academic intellectual.

Why? He ticks every box for a (public) intellectual. Just because you don't like him or agree with him doesn't mean that label suddenly doesn't apply.

@@mouwersor It isn't because I don't like him, or that I disagree with him. It's that he does anti-intellectual things. See, as one example, his insistence on using a phrase like "post-modern neo-Marxist." That phrase is incoherent. It's absurd on its face, yet he uses it to label all sorts of people and ideas he disapproves of. And he doesn't seem to understand or be interested in understanding any of the terms that actually constitute that phrase. I would not expect that lack of curiosity, not to mention such a complete disregard for precision or factual accuracy, from someone I would consider an "intellectual."

@@cjwarrington177 So your problem with him is that he uses some combination of words which don't match with self-identification of any group to describe a group or movement perceived by him? Well, if this is your standard you should also call everyone who uses for example the word "neoliberal" anti-intellectual too.

Very best comment here! So I like his overview on the human challenges: not created by god, earth not in center of universe, not in control for his thinking

Haha 😂

I agree, because the postmodernism described in this video seems so uncontroversial that it seems like JBP is mostly opposed to the woke people who justify their beliefs using postmodernism

​@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) seems about right cos I've heard that there's a lot of disagreement within postmodernism, and you condemn things that you actually agree with when you condemn all of it. But while I'm not that familiar with Peterson, I can't help but feel like he makes more specific arguments against some particular ideas in postmodernism that this video doesn't address, and that he says he condemns postmodernism to simplify the presentation of his views on postmodernism.

Well he does say he is against "Post-Modern Neo-Marxism" not just PostModernism.

misunderstanding* fixed it

@Phil Dodd (HistoriaAntiqua.ORG) Antonio Gramsi was basically the missing link, who decided to start putting Marxist analysis to Culture to both excuse why the glorious revolutions weren't happening and begin the blue print for leftists subverting culture. AKA he started Cultural Marxism. And you can search the term in google scholar for the years before Peterson popularized the subject and see it was a subject being discussed by academics and not meaningless as leftists currently trying to cover their asses claim it is. So this is the Neo-Marxist and Cultural Marxist element. While the Post-Modernist part comes from1980s and later Leftists using the arguments of the French post-modernists, initially made to be used against modernism to then be used against Western Civilization more generally. the paper that introduced Intersectionality clearly states that it was an attempt to fuse posmodernism with leftist politics. "Mapping the Margins by Kimberle Crosshow" And Judith Butler quotes Foucault in her earliest works. These corpus of works is what Post-Modern Neo-Marxism is.

@@tmsphere I make it a point to never assume that of others. But maybe that's because I personally am always very open to criticism, and I wouldn't want people assuming wrongly about me. So I give others the benefit of the doubt especially people that are intellectually honest.

i think self improvement in postmodern world is much complicated concept. How such improvement would look?

So a false sense of self leads to self improvement? So 'self improvement' or (individual responsibility) doesn't lead to an authentic self expression? I am partially asking this to highlight a possible semantics problem and also to ask; what metric is employed to locate 'individual responsibility'?

​@@simonjerrems3738 The point is that "authentic self expression" is not presented as the highest value. Of course, ultimately the individual is the judge of what he considers to be responsible. Still, there is a difference between asking "is this a responsible thing to do" and "do I really want it".

@@simonjerrems3738 the point is focussing in self expression is kinda useless and borders on narcissist. On the other hand, focusing on self responsibility gives you things to do and a path of virtue laid out.

​@@elodin857​but what precisely is virtue or responsibility? Both words' definition indicating goodness "in relations to others", therefore they can't independently exist when other people are not taken into account. if a person think he has a responsibility to cleanse the society of filth, so he launches masscre. From the point of view of the victims and bystanders, he turns into a narcissistic psycho. Yet in his own mind, he is virtuous.

Why is every Peterson critique a misinterpretation? Every possible video critiquing Peterson has tons people in the comment section saying he's been misinterpreted. The question is whether his fans are dismissing any critique on him because it's an easy way out or all the people critiquing him genuinely misinterpret him, it could be because they(Peterson's critics) don't want to agree with his ideas or it could be karma biting him in the ass, as Peterson himself likes putting alot of the ideas he disagrees with in a box and then misinterpreting them.

@@shyguy1845 I would say that most Peterson critiques miss important distinctions between misinterpretation and misrepresentation. I find Peterson to be in Good Faith even when he gets Marxist or PostModern views wrong because of the lens he looks at those subjects through. I would agree that he, at times, looks silly in regards to those theoretical views because of his own misinterpretations, NOT because of his active misrepresentations. Much of James Lindsay falls too much into hyperbole for my taste, but I think he understands such ideas as CRT, Woke Ideology, Postmodernism, Marxism much better than Peterson and does (mostly) a better job at critiquing them from the standpoint of the merits of the ideas not matching the practice of the ideas when disseminated to the masses. I think there is valid criticism of Peterson's ideas on these subjects, but I'm NOT OK with that side not aware of the same hyperbole from Leftists that attack the man over the ideas esp discounting the integrity of the man's purposes. Take the Monk debate that included Dyson and Peterson. There is a huge difference when discussing ideas. Is going to bed at night and waking in the morning a Conservative viewpoint? Do we see a pattern that 8 hrs sleep is most generally a good measure (*normal) of most people for sleep also an oppressive white construction on culture?? Should we advertise 4 hours sleep as equal to those who have 8 hrs because it's horrendously oppressive to normalize 8 hr sleep patterns? May sound silly, but this is exactly the type of thing we are doing with gay and Trans activism as well as racial considerations. Peterson's Conservatism is way too often a misrepresentation of the reason he holds his opinions and views.

@@shyguy1845 well, I now need to 'eat crow' as they used to say. I fully admit my own ignorance on much of the subject matter Peterson speaks on and found this video (that I still need to qualify the video's assertions of actual Marxist quotes and references). kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jJiYm9WGrbmoZqM.html I do, however, think Peterson has already said he is very lacking in understanding Marxist philosophy and assertions within it, so I have to admit and recant my own assertion that he acts in good faith on the topic. I need to admit he does obfuscate and act as a misrepresentation of Marxist philosophy (by not giving it the credit of study) and also say that it confuses me, esp because it seems that so much of what was brought up in the video seems as if is morally in tune with Peterson's own messaging. I do try to not vilify either side of viewpoints and it's partly the reason I disregard Christianity as a moral institution. Too much deification and demonizing for my sensibilities. I also find Churches to be way more in line with Socialist or Communist activities regarding how they socially operate separate from what are regarded as Capitalist ideals, but I'm no expert so I really shouldn't get myself into the same trouble as Peterson.

I just looked it up on Spotify, thanks !

Is it good for a layman?

@@j.martinez8767 Absolutely -- very well expressed.

He's pretty good - he hasn't really out much on yt recently though has he? Is he currently active on other platforms?

I love the simple editing too

The windows movie maker, nearly-non-ideological simple edits 😋😋😋

Peterson is crafty one alright. By arguing that every individual needs to solve one's own problems, before trying to solve the flaws in society, this negates the possibility that flaws in society are the reason an individual has problems in the first place.

@@spiritualanarchist8162 but if you take charge of those social issues, without first tending to yourself, do you not pose a danger to the movement you represent. Peterson himself is a fine example of his own theory in effect. He attempted to hold to social issues while his house fell apart (wife deathly ill). He attempted to cope with Benzo’s until his addiction became critical. It was only by refocusing on his own house, and through his family adhering to their individual responsibility to the collective that he was able to heal, and ultimately return to social matters.

@@MrCurbinator what if you have no way of fizing your personal life in the current system? Systematic problems are not divorced from our problems in private life. For exqmple living a happy life as a trans person is directly impacted by discriminatory laws and medical systems.

@@Halflinging Don’t know what kind of laws and medical restrictions we’re discussing, but my first recommendation would be clean your room and move somewhere more accommodating to get the services you want.

@@MrCurbinator "just move"???? You do realize that could mean having to leave a country. You are kidding, right? You have to be! We are not talking about minor inconviniences. We are talking about discrimination. Systemic problems that prohibit living a happy, healthy and productive life. There are problems that can't be solved by just "working on yourself".

🤣🤣🤣

Nice, I wrote the books >:))

Peterson is NOT a philosopher.

@@jonathanbailey1597 Exactly

As a literature student myself I am a bit taken aback at how an art student is not aware of the problem of originality and postmodernist ideas on art description.

There are scientific methods that can prove whether a piece of art is authentic or not... But for the sake of discussion, F is for Fake is a good movie to watch about this whole topic!

Yeah it's scary when your agency to course the direction of your education is replaced by mysterious algorithms which have no ethical qualms about which direction it leads you in. It's horrifying even

You will arrive at thoughts on thinking soon

Did you just place plastic pills before zero books and philosophy tube? Maybe you haven’t ascended that far after all.

@@Liliquan haha yeah, i misordered it i noticed after writing the comment : )D

@@grilla4464 super scary i agree

You mean authenticity ? Doesn’t matter much if Peterson thinks that authenticity is key if we all now live in second order observation/profilicity because you basically can’t use authenticity as a technology anymore if you want to live in 2021

I think you are reading a conservatism into Peterson that really doesn't exist. He has a lecture series on the mythological importance of the biblical stories, but he is no Patrick Deneen. Peterson's ideal society does not contain a strong conservative drive towards theological conformity, but rather a society in which communicating individuals manifest order into the world as a reflection of their own tragic struggle against the chaos within and without them.

​@@RyanOManchester conservatism does not have to be limited to religious conservatism. Actually, his brand of conservatism only falls back to theology through an insistence on tradition, namely of the west.

He believes that proper being of the individual is best encapsulated in the western ethos, one he believes is based on a judeo-christian ethic, an unfounded claim. That ethic, he claims, is best described through proper being through the insistence of truthful speech, an instance of insistence on authenticity.

@@ataj585 you really believe this to be an unfounded claim? How can you possibly expect me to take seriously a divorcing of the western ethos and the biblical Christianity which informed nearly all of it's modern thinkers? I can understand the perspective that the western ethos doesn't perfectly encapsulate the concept of the individual. There's room for disagreement about this, but objecting to the characterization of the western ethos as heavily derivative of Christianity is like disagreeing that Algebra is heavily derived from Islam and Persian thinkers. There just isn't much of a leg to stand on with regards to the historical claim against the rooting of Western Enlightenment and modern individualism within (in particular) Protestant Christianity. Almost every major thinker from these particular schools was so enmeshed in Christianity that to to take it away from them is to take a fish from the ocean.

Very nice comment. Thanks 4 sharing your thoughts.

That's a lot of speculation. I'm not sure that this was even a path that Peterson chose, just the way it turned out. It would be mighty presumptuous to think that anybody else would have done anything different in that situation.

@@rhwing5095 doesn't make the solution any different.

😳 Holy.....wow. I'm reading Ayn Rand right now and........ Goodness, your almost reciting, some of her characters, almost verbatim.🤯 Your words are one if the manipulation tactics used by nihilist in order to destroy the 'human spirit'; to destroy the ability of rational thought; to reduce a human to a mindless automaton and to convince an individual that only those who believe that individual thinking is 'irrational'.....should rule. Mrs. Rand, most definitely, knew her sh>t. You sir/madam, are a coward.😘

@@3576alan I don’t think Ayn Rand would much appreciate your melo-dramatics mate. How can I think individual thinking was irrational when my own thoughts are a product of individual thinking. Try diversifying your reading list so that you can view things reflexively from different angles. Viewing things only through the lens of “mrs Rand” (oh dear) is not a sign of a free, rational thinker, but of a mind that is not prepared to look beyond itself. I suggest James C Scott if you’re looking for a new book.

If I may say, this is the question we have to ask ourselves. I agree with you, I think we see a lot of suffering in an age of "profilicity"-- especially we see this in the rate of depression in young people with increased suicide in young girls in the U.S. ... not to mention the strange situation academia has come to in the 2010s in the U.S. And now of course, American politics, nationalism, race, gender... But we might view activism as it's happened outside of the U.S. as well, BEFORE all this, we saw the Arab Spring, in Tsunesia and Egypt, sparked by viral online activists... there is a lot to consider in how people are engaging this platform, where profiles are our means of expression. I should hope this is a question we can all honest ask for ourselves, and for our progeny too.

@@Refr4me It is true that the new technology makes it possible to organise a lot of people very quickly. However if your identity is based on the instant approvment by anonymous like-givers, you lack the ability to commit to a long fight. Would Karl Liebknecht have voted against the war credits for imperialist germany, if his identity was linked to every trend in the Zeitgeist? He would have gotten more likes, if he just joined in the war enthusiasm. There are many many examples of this. The type of activism that profilicity breeds seems more similer to a flashmob of workers destroying the machines that unemploy them (like Q Anon people rushing the capitol). But you are right there is a lot to consider. Those are just some problemes I see

@@genuinely_gamin It seems to me that somewhere in identifying ourselves in profilicity, there is more the machine itself which dictates. I'm reminded of Heidegger's notion of bestand (standing reserve; I hope my German's correct)... there seems a certain degree to all of this technology as itself stockpile, whose numbers and accounts must all be numbered and managed, something we may not be conscious of but is nevertheless in the air... (and of course, if bestand, this means not in use; there seems something invariably then that is "dead" or "decaying"-- perhaps that raging against the machine --eg. storming the captial-- is the inevitable angst produced by the smell of that decay.)

@@Refr4me yeah your german is correct. just a small correction - so "Bestand". I'm not familier with Heideggers concept of Angst an technology sorry !

This is one of the gayest comments on one of the gayest videos on the internet. Congrats.

That's very well said and it's what people tend to like about him, myself included. I find he's an excellent thinker when it comes to discussing the human mind and condition, as well as one's place in society, which I suppose are more "individualistic" subjects, though also ones he has more practical experience with, being a psychologist. The things he says in those regards are hardly anything controversial or illogical, for example clean your room first, meaning make sure you have a stable foundation in your personal life, before you attempt to change the world, try to do so in incremental steps, etc. He also speaks about hierarchical social structures being present in nature and actually something this video touched on - the human subconscious and some innate drivers for certain behaviours within us. From my perspective, I believe he mostly contradicts himself or is simply incorrect when he widens the scope of his discussions to more broad scale topics and tries to frame everything around his individualistic thinking, which doesn't always work out. Also, he uses some terminology (especially political) incorrectly. He describes things as good or bad and draws conclusions based on his descriptions, despite them not fully reflecting reality. He also doesn't (at least from what I've seen) present any specific, functional way where his ideas of hyper-individualism be the basis of a society. For example he attacks Marxism, however does not fully promote a libertarian lifestyle and really tends to express broad enough statements, that he can get away with that (which I believe is unintentional). Overall though, if you're a critically thinking *individual*, then you can just take what works for you and critique or ignore the rest. The man is definitely a gifted thinker.

If that was all it was, it would be a lot less problematic. Unfortunately, Peterson specifically caters to the "downtrodden" unemployed white male incel group, and tells them pretty blatantly that their problems are being caused by some shadowy cabal of "postmodern neo-marxists". And even if he was just telling them to put on a smiley face, that would have its own problems. Don't strive to end unjust hierarchies. Social justice is a complete waste of time. Just be a good smiling Christian capitalist and your life will fall into place! He forgets that this has been tried repeatedly in the past, and has inevitably lead to isolated, atomized slaves being vampirically drained of life and resources by their industrial overlords. Not the way to happiness. He needs to be called on his bullshit.

@@alistairmaleficent8776 With respect Alistair I feel you deeply miss understand his thought. While his critic of leftist culture is veracious, it’s not baked into his self-help discourse, instead it seems to be his prior contact with studying 20thCen tyranny (Stalin/Mao/Hitler) and the way they mobilised their followers, that he feels is being echoed today. Rightly or wrongly. From my own understanding, his thought seems to be telling people that they should deal with their problems head on (something he deeply feels is echoed in Myth, living the hero - like J.Campbell) and not blame them on a system or person outside of themselves. Very similar to the allegory ‘be the change you want to see in the world’ - something I doubt that people who don’t want enact positive change would want to embrace as a philosophy.

@@thelouisjohnson Difficult, then, to take a guy seriously when he's made his living by drumming up opposition to some of the most marginalized and oppressed groups in society, and when, instead of meeting his own problems head on, he gets addicted to benzodiazepines and chooses to go into a medically induced coma in Russia in order to escape from his problems.

@@alistairmaleficent8776 Difficult, indeed, if that is what you believe.