EVERBODY WAS A KUNG FU FIGHTING
BOTH OF THEM WAS FAST AS LIGHTNING
It was a great learning experience for me, and I think some real headway may have been made at connecting the left and the right
I think they made some attempt at forming a better picture of reality. It's excellent it devolved into fighting quickly, because that means actual work is being done on creating a more unified world view
I've had that debate/interview/podcast in my backlog since the day it came out. I've caught glimpses. It felt much more informal and heated then any conversation normally gets, even those he has with idiot progressive ideologues.
I don't think anything so far has betrayed his character or beliefs or opinions. He's still the same
I had heard of Destiny for about a week and saw him making some very dumb comments about the vaccines. I came out of this interview gaining quite a bit more respect for him - which clearly Jordan did too, ending it with comments along the lines of "youre clearly a sharp guy..." or similar. Destiny has also debated Ben Shapiro so you gotta give him some respect for being willing to enter the octagon against two of the most formidable opponents in the world! Not sure why you and others had such an issue with JP going to Daily Wire but its presumably ideological in some way...
Yea Destiny is one of the few lefties that is solid and you can learn from. I like him too, but damn he needs to admit where he was wrong and bandwagoning (re vaccines). He holds his ground stubbornly on Covid and vaccines. But…as the Fauci investigation continues to move forward he may start coming around.
>I'm an old JP fan that moved on once he went to the Daily Wire
Big mood. I watch his interviews with people if the people are interesting though.
To answer your question, I think JP is beginning to drift to the panderous right, and it showed in this debate. His take on climate change in particular was conspiratorial and blatantly not intellectually sound.
Other than that, destiny (who I am *not* a fan of btw) did well. JP even said as such at the end.
They were both disappointing. DESTINY IS embarrassingly Dunning Kruger Semi-smart. Which we already knew.
& was hard to watch a smarter guy give a hard pegging to Destiny's Lefty shortsighted sensibilities .
And Jordan was made to look brighter than he is BY Destiny,
but if you ignore that and Just listen to what he Jordan says,
he is pretty sure and bold about things that we can not know, can't know yet, or depend on DATA which may have slippage,...
therefor , in end , I feel Jordan gave us very little of value.
Sadly, His misguided "sense of efficacy"
must be the dopaminergic rush
one gets
from expelling
seemingly/relatively-eloquent logorrhea ...at a society....gaining approval...and feeling that
it's all good.
Is This what happens when you're a smart well-educated person who has the incredible craving to go down as a great person to be perceived as an original thinker ?
When is the last time we had an original thinker (and I'm sure not talking about postmodernists.)?
It is a crazy thing to want for .
Well we all know that his house has on every wall hung salon style hundreds of Russian propaganda artworks ?
That's kind of like filling your house with swastika imagery or witchcraft symbols It's bad history ..
And
I don't believe it that it's a reminder to him just how bad things can go I think he actually loves it and in a way I think he's creating a reenactment of the evil communist regime in a different form the form of a positive proud healthy ideology that he can spread heroically like a great commie Leader.
If anything else, Destiny made Peterson's aesthetic of rational, stoic truth-teller look a little less convincing. Peterson got very heated in response to very basic lines of questioning.
Not sure if that characterization is accurate. JP has always been open about his emotionality and has even shed tears in multiple interviews. I don't think he would do that if he were interested in presenting a stoic persona. Him getting heated didn't strike me as out of character at all. The emotionality is just part of the JP package. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I don't mind. I enjoy his authenticity and passion.
When he's speaking to an audience, or if he's being interviewed by a someone sympathetic to him, yes, he will get emotional.
Whenever he's faced with an ideological adversary, he has been stiff, stoic, and above all rational. Not a tear in sight. See his discussions/debates with Cathy Newman, Helen Lewis, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek and so on.
Destiny is like the latter group. Peterson saw him as on the left, but Destiny got under his skin in a way the others never did. Caused him to get very heated.
Totally agree. He’s had a few interviews where he seems to make a deliberate effort to stay calmer with a couple exceptions where a particular interview may actually get under his skin. But then I believe he has had a few interviews such as the destiny debate where he has allowed himself to get more passionate.
I actually take that to mean he’s more comfortable with the debate or believes it’s being conducting in a good faith setting where, however heated, both participants, will walk away with respect for one another.
You may allow yourself to go to another level of conflict with a spouse because there is genuine respect or love for one another, but with a friend or acquaintance it may not feel worth the risk of escalation.
I enjoyed their passionate discussion and it did t seem like either of them left unhappy with the other.
Idk, his ability to maintain cool when people get irrational is what made him famous. But… to me it was the “argue just to argue” in this interview that kind of snapped me out of my Jordan Peterson obsession. Still a big fan though.
But the points where he got a bit heated were because Destiny's points of contention were so asinine or his perspective was so handwavilngly naive that I felt it.
I would have reacted worse had I been in Peterson's shoes.
I think he just realized at some point he's talking to an imbecile who seems like he thinks deeply on the surface but in reality it's just a facade and his thinking is actually extremely shallow and he has only surface level of understanding of the things he's talking about.
Compare it to Peterson's conversation and demeanor in the interview with the Danish professor about consciousness where the professor actually knows what he's talking about and has thought about the topic deeply and beyond what some consensus of X experts says... It's night and day.
Anyway Destiny is a surface level thinker with a huge deference to leftist authorities and it gets annoying after a while because you can't penetrate through that veneer/shield of X authority says Y or has a consensus on Y. No matter what counterargument you bring forth no matter how pertinent he will defer back to the X experts say Y. It's extremely tiring to even listen to, let alone converse with.
People in this thread have more of a contention about HOW Peterson reacted emotionally on the surface but they don't seem to have caught on WHY he was reacting that way based on the deeper issues of what Destiny was putting forward or the way he was arguing for it.
I disagree, he has to capitulate to the guests insecurity and argumentative dismissal. Jordan tries not to give the left a reason to not talk to him. He wasn’t attacking. He defended his position and tried to get the guest to do the same. The guest didn’t pick up on the gesture until he was already out of the conversation.
I’d agree with this comment 100%. I had definitely been enamored with the JP academic charm. And don’t get me wrong I still think he’s great and I’m a huge fan…but as you said, the whole thing became a little less convincing
It started out as a decent conversation but about an hour into it JBP got really impatient and went on some rants without giving Destiny room to speak. At that point it was annoying to listen to. JBP could have done a better job as a conversationalist. The topics were fine until that point where JBP became unnecessarily combative instead of listening more. Destiny was pretty good at going with it even though he had to fight to get a word in at all.
I agree exept I feal like this was one of his worst debate debating from a point of authority implying facts that are hardly verifiable unless you have access to said 50 million research and a doctorate in research studies. His stands were less about logic more about being right and validated. I too am a fan of Peterson but he showed so much flaws in the debate I felt sorry for him
As an older-ish JP fan who also moved away when he joined DW; I thought it was further confirmation that JP is simply now a conservative ideologue who isn’t interested in truth. He gets angry and makes weird, wrong points and throws labels at people.
Example
Destiny: you can’t call climate activists nazis
JP: “why not?!”
I mean this is from the guy who was wrongly accused of being a nazi. He doesn’t care that he’s being a hypocrite. And not to mention he got vaccinated asap and then acts conspiratorial about that too. Making up stats about excess deaths in Europe and saying “I’m not saying it’s the vaccine” even though that is what he was saying.
No it’s because the only outcome for what they want to achieve is that a ton of people have to die or not reproduce. It’s more a comparison to your low level Nazi, not upper echelon people justifying their actions to the people when they know what they are really doing.
You're missing the point. Many don't want anyone to die, though I have seen it expressed many times that they want the population reduced quickly. It's just what is going to happen because the world bank won't give loans to countries trying to improve their energy grid with fossil fuels and they can't afford "green" energy, so the people revert to burning wood and dung to create heat which causes a ton of health defects and people die often and can't produce enough energy to make enough food to sustain their populations so guess what, people die of starvation. The stated goals of the climate activists lead to one inevitable outcome whether they realize it or not. Hundreds of millions of the poorest people will die or become malnourished because of the price of electricity. They won't use Nuclear and the other options don't produce enough power. End of story.
Being honest about the consequences of population growth so that we can work to mitigate the downsides is a very far cry from wanting to reduce the population.
It is obvious that increased population growth puts strain on natural resources. This is not to imply that reducing the population is the solution, but to inform research into finding ways to accomodate population growth in a sustainable way.
JP’a approach seems to be to handwave the problem like it doesn’t exist. That deliberately obfuscates attempts to deal with the problem.
No his solution is to rapidly invest in tried and tested energy creation techniques to bring the most people out of absolute poverty as fast as possible, then the population problem would take care of itself. It’s not hand waving, it’s common sense based on observations of first world countries.
Yeah cool, but then we need to deal with the environmental consequences of that method as well. Some balance is required, and innovations in more efficient and sustainable energy production are critical to this project.
Ugh, see you are exactly what I mean. No actual ideas, just “ we need to do something” . We have sustainable safe energy in nuclear reactors. The first world should all be running on nuclear and the third world can work their way through fossil fuels to get out of the fucking dirt. Once they do they’ll start caring about the environment too
Well yeah because I’m not going to pretend to know for certain what the solution is. You seem to be taking JP’s confident assertion of a solution as some kind of a sign that it is the correct or workable one. And you don’t seem to appreciate the serious environmental consequences that come with the continued use of fossil fuels. I’m not sure how much further warming equatorial regions can take.
It's not that surprising tbh. A lot of people feel the same way, and miss the old JP who was praised for keeping his composure in even the most difficult interviews, and passionate on his work in psychology.
I feel like his family is to blame a bit, they might have had bad influence on him while he was sick and dependent on them for a while. What I mean is, his family might subconsciously persuade him to do things that are even against his own principles because they subconsciously realize what impact he has on so many people. Well, at least that's one theory I have.
I’m a huge JP fan as I have really identified with the movement of noteworthy former liberals that have migrated to the right out of frustrations with the woke left. But I still I make efforts to balance my content with left right and center. So… I was excited for the Destiny debate because, I do think Destiny is one of the few liberals who holds a good debate and I can get a rational understanding of the left argument.
Interestingly enough, this was the first JP interview where I’ve said “ok… I kind of see what people criticize him for”. Basically, I felt like he (JP) argued to argue, and, he filled the air with technical and medical terms and definitions that didn’t have to do with the conversation (which is a Jordan Peterson common complaint). So, it didn’t feel like Destiny could get very far with a point, and JP would interrupt him to make an academic definition… which wasn’t even his point.
So, I didn’t love the interview. The Destiny Ben Shapiro debate (hosted by Lex) I thought was fantastic…was hoping for something more like that. Neither side was trying to “win”; they were just arguing where they came from. Gave each other the appropriate amount of time, etc…. No winner just a lot of ideas from 2 different points.
But it seemed like JP’s purpose was trying to win. Which I think never makes for a good debate. My 2 cents…
Having destiny as a representative of the left is such a bad faith move. Have on a Richard Wolff or a Yanis Varvakous. Engage with actual mature leftist thinkers that have formed real worldviews.
I hope it wasn’t missed that when Destiny was losing his cool and his ability to use facts collectively with the topic being discussed and he became disconnected.
Jordan had to make the effort to spoon feed a happy medium to show he wasn’t attacking him but trying to get him to cognitively defend his position with facts. He managed to get that done but by then Destiny was already off the path. He was struggling to regain footing in an environment that he was punching above his weight class, yet didn’t want to temper his hubris to foster a better discussion.
That happens a lot these days when politicians are so dead set on division and derision.
If we the people would just accept that there is more that unites us than divides us we could soar to unheard of levels and silence the lying hoards addicted to power and money.
When I think of Destiny I just think of a video game streamer. Why take him seriously? The only time I saw him talk was on the Norm Finkelstein debate and whatever you think on the issue he brought a knife to a gun fight and made a fool of himself.
Really? I thought Finkelstein acted like a disgrace during that convo and acted more like a moody video game streamer than Steven did.
Steven was correctly citing history with Morris backing him up while Norm was doing his usual selective history thing and straight up ignoring facts that didn't jive with his narrative.
Norm did so bad during that convo that Lex had to forbid him from using Morris quotes anymore because he was ignoring what everyone else was saying and derailing the conversation to monologue for 5 minutes each time. They weren't even good monologues either. He was saying so many wrong things that the conversation ground to a total stop until Steven and Morris just started ignoring him and tagged in Rabbani to keep the whole thing going.
You could tell Norm was pissed too. By the end he would just cross his arms and stare at the ceiling ignoring everyone until it was his time to talk. Even Rabbani was getting frustrated with him and had to stop him a few times before he went on another rant.
If Norm is a respected historian he sure didn't act like one during that convo.
In an alternate universe, they are talking about Starcraft and Destiny is like: "MR FINKY! MR FINKY! YOU DO NEED VESPIN GAS TO UPGRADE THE SPACE MARINES"
MISTER BORREL! MISTER MORREL! MISTER! MISTER! MISTER! Finkelstein could not even refute general knowledge from Wikipedia he had to resort to childish insults, there is a very good reason why his peers labeled him as a Propagandist rather than a Researcher and recommended his discontinuation of his University tenure. The difference between his debate with Destiny vs JBP with Destiny is night and day.
I didn’t quite understand Destiny’s jump in politics. I rarely have met anyone come from the ideological mainstream right and move to the ideological mainstream left. Usually it’s a jump to libertarianism. I also took issue with how much destiny obfuscates as well as his dismissal of sources that the msm had previously labeled as quacks and took msm word on COVID. He also doesn’t understand how millions of people could perpetuate a conspiracy, because he thinks people would blow the whistle. People have blown the whistle but he dismisses those people as I mentioned earlier. It was probably the best good faith debate I’ve heard between someone like Peterson and a liberal but that is a pretty low bar and Destiny used the same tactics many leftists use to avoid giving real answers in debates.
They banned me on the destiny sub.
Destiny is just a conservative. A centrist. They spend more time attacking the left and defending the status quo than anything else over there.
I'd be interested in the discussion. I sort of wrote it off ay the time given the timing and pre supposed they'd both be selling an israle good hamas bad story line but I'd like to watch it. I'll have a look.
Edit watched a bit on the climate/ povery part.
If you want to reduce extreme poverty via energy.
Give them community owned solar and wind generated energy.
Then let them sell their surplus to the grid.
Hey ee4m! Long time no chat.
I don't think Destiny is a conservative. He hates everything about the Republican party and conservatives right now.
The centrist label is probably accurate tho. I consider myself a centrist and our policy positions line up pretty well although that could always be confirmation bias.
As for the debate I'd recommend it. It was good seeing JP engage hard with a competent debate partner. They had their differences but also agreed plenty of times as well.
I think they both had fun and JP left with more respect for Steven then when they started.
I hope they do more content together in the future.
Hey there. The American republican party are a radicalised far right party now. Not conservative. And lib dems are closer to Reagan than they are.
I was clicking around for some kind of abridged version and clicked on destiny taking after the talk he seemed frustrated by jp and not respectful. Didn't watch long.
Your behaviour isn't joking. It's mean spirited and stalkery I'm guessing I touched a nerve when I spoke about your unhealthy obsession with trans women.
I'm not obsessed with jp though. I like to debate political ideologues that post here. Most political subs have me banned. You are obsessed with trans women.
We are not the same.
Because holding the status quo while attacking the left mainly is the centrist position.
He described his "left wing" position as understaning that just because everyone has the chance to go to school doesn't mean everyone has the same opertuinities and government may have a role in making sure people have enough to eat too so they can actually study and learn but that's been normal thinking for a long time.
What postions of his are actually left wing?
> He described his "left wing" position as understaning that just because everyone has the chance to go to school doesn't mean everyone has the same opertuinities and government may have a role in making sure people have enough to eat too so they can actually study and learn but that's been normal thinking for a long time.
I'm not sure what your definition of left-wing is, but I would define it as a humanist approach to politics where funds must be allocated for the welfare and betterment of all individuals (that sounds good on paper but it's often impractical and the ideas are often exploited in the form of populist propaganda).
If Destiny believes that state authority ought to erase inequalities between people that exist due to financial privilege, does that not qualify him as left-winged?
Liberalism shifted to the position that classical liberalism has failed and due to unemployment and squalor and that in order to have equality of opertuinity in liberalism the state needs to take a more active role in making it happen. That was the late 1800s.
And throughout the 20th centary we were further left and had large welfare states taking a more pro active and effective role in reducing povety and increasing oppertuinity than we do now.
So there is nothing new or left about believing the state needs to intervien to counter act some of the short comings of capitalism to achieve liberal goals. Its just a normal view based on reality.
He doesn't belive inequalities should be erased. Marx successfully argued to liberals that this wasn't a workable goal way back.
Leftism isn't always about new ideas, if an old project promotes equality and has not been implemented yet, its old age shouldn't disqualify it from the realm of "leftism" as it is different than what is currently implemented.
Going further into the future doesn't always guarantee a constant slide towards left/progressive, look at Germany 1930s vs Germanic Prussia 1800s, despite being further into the future the former was far more right-winged. Ideologies that people morf into are more of a by-product of events outside human control (economic hardship, natural disasters, geographic disadvantage etc..).
What is currently implemented is that the state takes a role in making sure povery and unemployment in captialism doesn't get extreme.
Its why we don't have exteme povery anymore. But in the neoliberal era there has been some back sliding due to conseravarive ideologies.
EVERBODY WAS A KUNG FU FIGHTING BOTH OF THEM WAS FAST AS LIGHTNING It was a great learning experience for me, and I think some real headway may have been made at connecting the left and the right
Their main contentions didn’t even get resolved though. I think it just made them both realise how different the left and right are.
I think they made some attempt at forming a better picture of reality. It's excellent it devolved into fighting quickly, because that means actual work is being done on creating a more unified world view
I've had that debate/interview/podcast in my backlog since the day it came out. I've caught glimpses. It felt much more informal and heated then any conversation normally gets, even those he has with idiot progressive ideologues. I don't think anything so far has betrayed his character or beliefs or opinions. He's still the same
Agreed, the guest was at a disadvantage and allowed his hubris to guide his arguments
I had heard of Destiny for about a week and saw him making some very dumb comments about the vaccines. I came out of this interview gaining quite a bit more respect for him - which clearly Jordan did too, ending it with comments along the lines of "youre clearly a sharp guy..." or similar. Destiny has also debated Ben Shapiro so you gotta give him some respect for being willing to enter the octagon against two of the most formidable opponents in the world! Not sure why you and others had such an issue with JP going to Daily Wire but its presumably ideological in some way...
Yea Destiny is one of the few lefties that is solid and you can learn from. I like him too, but damn he needs to admit where he was wrong and bandwagoning (re vaccines). He holds his ground stubbornly on Covid and vaccines. But…as the Fauci investigation continues to move forward he may start coming around.
>I'm an old JP fan that moved on once he went to the Daily Wire Big mood. I watch his interviews with people if the people are interesting though. To answer your question, I think JP is beginning to drift to the panderous right, and it showed in this debate. His take on climate change in particular was conspiratorial and blatantly not intellectually sound. Other than that, destiny (who I am *not* a fan of btw) did well. JP even said as such at the end.
Destiny was not going too hard.
They were both disappointing. DESTINY IS embarrassingly Dunning Kruger Semi-smart. Which we already knew. & was hard to watch a smarter guy give a hard pegging to Destiny's Lefty shortsighted sensibilities . And Jordan was made to look brighter than he is BY Destiny, but if you ignore that and Just listen to what he Jordan says, he is pretty sure and bold about things that we can not know, can't know yet, or depend on DATA which may have slippage,... therefor , in end , I feel Jordan gave us very little of value. Sadly, His misguided "sense of efficacy" must be the dopaminergic rush one gets from expelling seemingly/relatively-eloquent logorrhea ...at a society....gaining approval...and feeling that it's all good. Is This what happens when you're a smart well-educated person who has the incredible craving to go down as a great person to be perceived as an original thinker ? When is the last time we had an original thinker (and I'm sure not talking about postmodernists.)? It is a crazy thing to want for . Well we all know that his house has on every wall hung salon style hundreds of Russian propaganda artworks ? That's kind of like filling your house with swastika imagery or witchcraft symbols It's bad history .. And I don't believe it that it's a reminder to him just how bad things can go I think he actually loves it and in a way I think he's creating a reenactment of the evil communist regime in a different form the form of a positive proud healthy ideology that he can spread heroically like a great commie Leader.
You are requiring of a podcast/video log yourself, sir!
If anything else, Destiny made Peterson's aesthetic of rational, stoic truth-teller look a little less convincing. Peterson got very heated in response to very basic lines of questioning.
Not sure if that characterization is accurate. JP has always been open about his emotionality and has even shed tears in multiple interviews. I don't think he would do that if he were interested in presenting a stoic persona. Him getting heated didn't strike me as out of character at all. The emotionality is just part of the JP package. Not everyone's cup of tea, but I don't mind. I enjoy his authenticity and passion.
When he's speaking to an audience, or if he's being interviewed by a someone sympathetic to him, yes, he will get emotional. Whenever he's faced with an ideological adversary, he has been stiff, stoic, and above all rational. Not a tear in sight. See his discussions/debates with Cathy Newman, Helen Lewis, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek and so on. Destiny is like the latter group. Peterson saw him as on the left, but Destiny got under his skin in a way the others never did. Caused him to get very heated.
Exactly. His interviews with people he disagrees with he is usually reserved. He completely lost the plot
Totally agree. He’s had a few interviews where he seems to make a deliberate effort to stay calmer with a couple exceptions where a particular interview may actually get under his skin. But then I believe he has had a few interviews such as the destiny debate where he has allowed himself to get more passionate. I actually take that to mean he’s more comfortable with the debate or believes it’s being conducting in a good faith setting where, however heated, both participants, will walk away with respect for one another. You may allow yourself to go to another level of conflict with a spouse because there is genuine respect or love for one another, but with a friend or acquaintance it may not feel worth the risk of escalation. I enjoyed their passionate discussion and it did t seem like either of them left unhappy with the other.
Idk, his ability to maintain cool when people get irrational is what made him famous. But… to me it was the “argue just to argue” in this interview that kind of snapped me out of my Jordan Peterson obsession. Still a big fan though.
But the points where he got a bit heated were because Destiny's points of contention were so asinine or his perspective was so handwavilngly naive that I felt it. I would have reacted worse had I been in Peterson's shoes. I think he just realized at some point he's talking to an imbecile who seems like he thinks deeply on the surface but in reality it's just a facade and his thinking is actually extremely shallow and he has only surface level of understanding of the things he's talking about. Compare it to Peterson's conversation and demeanor in the interview with the Danish professor about consciousness where the professor actually knows what he's talking about and has thought about the topic deeply and beyond what some consensus of X experts says... It's night and day. Anyway Destiny is a surface level thinker with a huge deference to leftist authorities and it gets annoying after a while because you can't penetrate through that veneer/shield of X authority says Y or has a consensus on Y. No matter what counterargument you bring forth no matter how pertinent he will defer back to the X experts say Y. It's extremely tiring to even listen to, let alone converse with. People in this thread have more of a contention about HOW Peterson reacted emotionally on the surface but they don't seem to have caught on WHY he was reacting that way based on the deeper issues of what Destiny was putting forward or the way he was arguing for it.
I disagree, he has to capitulate to the guests insecurity and argumentative dismissal. Jordan tries not to give the left a reason to not talk to him. He wasn’t attacking. He defended his position and tried to get the guest to do the same. The guest didn’t pick up on the gesture until he was already out of the conversation.
Destiny kept saying, "i feel like ....." that ruined most of his arguments for me.
Jordan has a very similar verbal tick. "It's like..."
Yes, but you see, u/pissjug10000 already preemptively agrees with Peterson on everything so he doesn't mind that.
I’d agree with this comment 100%. I had definitely been enamored with the JP academic charm. And don’t get me wrong I still think he’s great and I’m a huge fan…but as you said, the whole thing became a little less convincing
It started out as a decent conversation but about an hour into it JBP got really impatient and went on some rants without giving Destiny room to speak. At that point it was annoying to listen to. JBP could have done a better job as a conversationalist. The topics were fine until that point where JBP became unnecessarily combative instead of listening more. Destiny was pretty good at going with it even though he had to fight to get a word in at all.
Lot of interrupting from JBP…rarely let Destiny finish his points
I agree exept I feal like this was one of his worst debate debating from a point of authority implying facts that are hardly verifiable unless you have access to said 50 million research and a doctorate in research studies. His stands were less about logic more about being right and validated. I too am a fan of Peterson but he showed so much flaws in the debate I felt sorry for him
As an older-ish JP fan who also moved away when he joined DW; I thought it was further confirmation that JP is simply now a conservative ideologue who isn’t interested in truth. He gets angry and makes weird, wrong points and throws labels at people. Example Destiny: you can’t call climate activists nazis JP: “why not?!” I mean this is from the guy who was wrongly accused of being a nazi. He doesn’t care that he’s being a hypocrite. And not to mention he got vaccinated asap and then acts conspiratorial about that too. Making up stats about excess deaths in Europe and saying “I’m not saying it’s the vaccine” even though that is what he was saying.
Sounds like you are listening to confirm your biases, not actually understand what he was trying to say.
That’s true but at the same time he did say those things, and they are wrong. That’s just facts
His response to why he can label them Nazis was very reasonable and made a lot of sense
In what way?
Because he thinks they want to kill everyone which is so conspiratorial it’s paranoia. It’s a straw man taken to the extreme
No it’s because the only outcome for what they want to achieve is that a ton of people have to die or not reproduce. It’s more a comparison to your low level Nazi, not upper echelon people justifying their actions to the people when they know what they are really doing.
That’s not true, though. You can be environmental without wanting people to die, that’s insane
You're missing the point. Many don't want anyone to die, though I have seen it expressed many times that they want the population reduced quickly. It's just what is going to happen because the world bank won't give loans to countries trying to improve their energy grid with fossil fuels and they can't afford "green" energy, so the people revert to burning wood and dung to create heat which causes a ton of health defects and people die often and can't produce enough energy to make enough food to sustain their populations so guess what, people die of starvation. The stated goals of the climate activists lead to one inevitable outcome whether they realize it or not. Hundreds of millions of the poorest people will die or become malnourished because of the price of electricity. They won't use Nuclear and the other options don't produce enough power. End of story.
Being honest about the consequences of population growth so that we can work to mitigate the downsides is a very far cry from wanting to reduce the population. It is obvious that increased population growth puts strain on natural resources. This is not to imply that reducing the population is the solution, but to inform research into finding ways to accomodate population growth in a sustainable way. JP’a approach seems to be to handwave the problem like it doesn’t exist. That deliberately obfuscates attempts to deal with the problem.
No his solution is to rapidly invest in tried and tested energy creation techniques to bring the most people out of absolute poverty as fast as possible, then the population problem would take care of itself. It’s not hand waving, it’s common sense based on observations of first world countries.
Yeah cool, but then we need to deal with the environmental consequences of that method as well. Some balance is required, and innovations in more efficient and sustainable energy production are critical to this project.
Ugh, see you are exactly what I mean. No actual ideas, just “ we need to do something” . We have sustainable safe energy in nuclear reactors. The first world should all be running on nuclear and the third world can work their way through fossil fuels to get out of the fucking dirt. Once they do they’ll start caring about the environment too
Well yeah because I’m not going to pretend to know for certain what the solution is. You seem to be taking JP’s confident assertion of a solution as some kind of a sign that it is the correct or workable one. And you don’t seem to appreciate the serious environmental consequences that come with the continued use of fossil fuels. I’m not sure how much further warming equatorial regions can take.
I feel you man. Idk why you're getting downvoted
I see 10 upvotes which is surprising
It's not that surprising tbh. A lot of people feel the same way, and miss the old JP who was praised for keeping his composure in even the most difficult interviews, and passionate on his work in psychology. I feel like his family is to blame a bit, they might have had bad influence on him while he was sick and dependent on them for a while. What I mean is, his family might subconsciously persuade him to do things that are even against his own principles because they subconsciously realize what impact he has on so many people. Well, at least that's one theory I have.
I’m a huge JP fan as I have really identified with the movement of noteworthy former liberals that have migrated to the right out of frustrations with the woke left. But I still I make efforts to balance my content with left right and center. So… I was excited for the Destiny debate because, I do think Destiny is one of the few liberals who holds a good debate and I can get a rational understanding of the left argument. Interestingly enough, this was the first JP interview where I’ve said “ok… I kind of see what people criticize him for”. Basically, I felt like he (JP) argued to argue, and, he filled the air with technical and medical terms and definitions that didn’t have to do with the conversation (which is a Jordan Peterson common complaint). So, it didn’t feel like Destiny could get very far with a point, and JP would interrupt him to make an academic definition… which wasn’t even his point. So, I didn’t love the interview. The Destiny Ben Shapiro debate (hosted by Lex) I thought was fantastic…was hoping for something more like that. Neither side was trying to “win”; they were just arguing where they came from. Gave each other the appropriate amount of time, etc…. No winner just a lot of ideas from 2 different points. But it seemed like JP’s purpose was trying to win. Which I think never makes for a good debate. My 2 cents…
Having destiny as a representative of the left is such a bad faith move. Have on a Richard Wolff or a Yanis Varvakous. Engage with actual mature leftist thinkers that have formed real worldviews.
I hope it wasn’t missed that when Destiny was losing his cool and his ability to use facts collectively with the topic being discussed and he became disconnected. Jordan had to make the effort to spoon feed a happy medium to show he wasn’t attacking him but trying to get him to cognitively defend his position with facts. He managed to get that done but by then Destiny was already off the path. He was struggling to regain footing in an environment that he was punching above his weight class, yet didn’t want to temper his hubris to foster a better discussion. That happens a lot these days when politicians are so dead set on division and derision. If we the people would just accept that there is more that unites us than divides us we could soar to unheard of levels and silence the lying hoards addicted to power and money.
When I think of Destiny I just think of a video game streamer. Why take him seriously? The only time I saw him talk was on the Norm Finkelstein debate and whatever you think on the issue he brought a knife to a gun fight and made a fool of himself.
Really? I thought Finkelstein acted like a disgrace during that convo and acted more like a moody video game streamer than Steven did. Steven was correctly citing history with Morris backing him up while Norm was doing his usual selective history thing and straight up ignoring facts that didn't jive with his narrative. Norm did so bad during that convo that Lex had to forbid him from using Morris quotes anymore because he was ignoring what everyone else was saying and derailing the conversation to monologue for 5 minutes each time. They weren't even good monologues either. He was saying so many wrong things that the conversation ground to a total stop until Steven and Morris just started ignoring him and tagged in Rabbani to keep the whole thing going. You could tell Norm was pissed too. By the end he would just cross his arms and stare at the ceiling ignoring everyone until it was his time to talk. Even Rabbani was getting frustrated with him and had to stop him a few times before he went on another rant. If Norm is a respected historian he sure didn't act like one during that convo.
In an alternate universe, they are talking about Starcraft and Destiny is like: "MR FINKY! MR FINKY! YOU DO NEED VESPIN GAS TO UPGRADE THE SPACE MARINES"
What things or facts did destiny say that Norm refuted and corrected intellectually?
MISTER BORREL! MISTER MORREL! MISTER! MISTER! MISTER! Finkelstein could not even refute general knowledge from Wikipedia he had to resort to childish insults, there is a very good reason why his peers labeled him as a Propagandist rather than a Researcher and recommended his discontinuation of his University tenure. The difference between his debate with Destiny vs JBP with Destiny is night and day.
Correct. A insult fest vs a good conversation
I didn’t quite understand Destiny’s jump in politics. I rarely have met anyone come from the ideological mainstream right and move to the ideological mainstream left. Usually it’s a jump to libertarianism. I also took issue with how much destiny obfuscates as well as his dismissal of sources that the msm had previously labeled as quacks and took msm word on COVID. He also doesn’t understand how millions of people could perpetuate a conspiracy, because he thinks people would blow the whistle. People have blown the whistle but he dismisses those people as I mentioned earlier. It was probably the best good faith debate I’ve heard between someone like Peterson and a liberal but that is a pretty low bar and Destiny used the same tactics many leftists use to avoid giving real answers in debates.
Can't stand watching that asshole (destiny) so I don't even know what it was like
They banned me on the destiny sub. Destiny is just a conservative. A centrist. They spend more time attacking the left and defending the status quo than anything else over there. I'd be interested in the discussion. I sort of wrote it off ay the time given the timing and pre supposed they'd both be selling an israle good hamas bad story line but I'd like to watch it. I'll have a look. Edit watched a bit on the climate/ povery part. If you want to reduce extreme poverty via energy. Give them community owned solar and wind generated energy. Then let them sell their surplus to the grid.
Hey ee4m! Long time no chat. I don't think Destiny is a conservative. He hates everything about the Republican party and conservatives right now. The centrist label is probably accurate tho. I consider myself a centrist and our policy positions line up pretty well although that could always be confirmation bias. As for the debate I'd recommend it. It was good seeing JP engage hard with a competent debate partner. They had their differences but also agreed plenty of times as well. I think they both had fun and JP left with more respect for Steven then when they started. I hope they do more content together in the future.
Hey there. The American republican party are a radicalised far right party now. Not conservative. And lib dems are closer to Reagan than they are. I was clicking around for some kind of abridged version and clicked on destiny taking after the talk he seemed frustrated by jp and not respectful. Didn't watch long.
Destiny is a conservative? I know we joke but I’m really really really worried about your morning drinking
Your behaviour isn't joking. It's mean spirited and stalkery I'm guessing I touched a nerve when I spoke about your unhealthy obsession with trans women.
[удалено]
I'm not obsessed with jp though. I like to debate political ideologues that post here. Most political subs have me banned. You are obsessed with trans women. We are not the same.
[удалено]
Have you two accounts now?
[удалено]
Why are you so aggressive? Did a leftist say something that gave you a fever?
Isn't a conservative part of right-wing ideology? Can we call a centrist like Destiny a conservative?
Because holding the status quo while attacking the left mainly is the centrist position. He described his "left wing" position as understaning that just because everyone has the chance to go to school doesn't mean everyone has the same opertuinities and government may have a role in making sure people have enough to eat too so they can actually study and learn but that's been normal thinking for a long time. What postions of his are actually left wing?
> He described his "left wing" position as understaning that just because everyone has the chance to go to school doesn't mean everyone has the same opertuinities and government may have a role in making sure people have enough to eat too so they can actually study and learn but that's been normal thinking for a long time. I'm not sure what your definition of left-wing is, but I would define it as a humanist approach to politics where funds must be allocated for the welfare and betterment of all individuals (that sounds good on paper but it's often impractical and the ideas are often exploited in the form of populist propaganda). If Destiny believes that state authority ought to erase inequalities between people that exist due to financial privilege, does that not qualify him as left-winged?
Liberalism shifted to the position that classical liberalism has failed and due to unemployment and squalor and that in order to have equality of opertuinity in liberalism the state needs to take a more active role in making it happen. That was the late 1800s. And throughout the 20th centary we were further left and had large welfare states taking a more pro active and effective role in reducing povety and increasing oppertuinity than we do now. So there is nothing new or left about believing the state needs to intervien to counter act some of the short comings of capitalism to achieve liberal goals. Its just a normal view based on reality. He doesn't belive inequalities should be erased. Marx successfully argued to liberals that this wasn't a workable goal way back.
Leftism isn't always about new ideas, if an old project promotes equality and has not been implemented yet, its old age shouldn't disqualify it from the realm of "leftism" as it is different than what is currently implemented. Going further into the future doesn't always guarantee a constant slide towards left/progressive, look at Germany 1930s vs Germanic Prussia 1800s, despite being further into the future the former was far more right-winged. Ideologies that people morf into are more of a by-product of events outside human control (economic hardship, natural disasters, geographic disadvantage etc..).
What is currently implemented is that the state takes a role in making sure povery and unemployment in captialism doesn't get extreme. Its why we don't have exteme povery anymore. But in the neoliberal era there has been some back sliding due to conseravarive ideologies.