Comments by "" (@psychcowboy1) on "JRE Clips"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lewismiller870 You found a Peterson win? Cool, where?
JP at 20:30 Helen: 'A female dominated office leaves men feeling left out. JP: How do we get to something that isn't a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of mostly women and its a tyrannical patriarchy and if it is composed of mostly men it is a tyrannical patriarchy we are out of options....
[Holy crap Jordan you have some serious voices going on in your head. Helen said absolutely nothing about women dominated is a tyrannical patriarchy, she corrected your vocabulary problem, dominated by women is a matriarchy dude. Neither did she say we have a tyrannical patriarchy. She said the patriarchy was overthrown by the women's movement and women now have almost equal rights with men.]
=============
Peterson at 19:00: 'That's for sure it's purely not, when you define it as tyrannical patriarchy implies unidimensional...'
[Whoops Jordan, remember in the dave rubin john anderson interview when you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely that? Contradiction alert']
What if the patriarchy is composed of women is it still a patriarchy? [Helen corrects JP by stating that would be a matriarchy, score for Helen.]
'We take a patriarchal structure like the medical profession and we fill it with women, is it that it is mostly men that makes it a patriarchy, if it is a structure that is composed of women then it is also a tyrannical patriarchy, if it is composed of women and it is a tyrannical patriarchy...
[What a total idiot. She just corrected you that composed or dominated primarily of women is a matriarchy. So after denying that we have a patriarchy numerous times in this interview you are now admitting that the medical field is a patriarchy?]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MomoKehinde Peterson didn't use lobster hierarchy to make a claim about patriarchy. He used it to demonstrate that hierarchies are natural. Of course everyone in the world already knows that, but Peterson trying to explain something that everyone already knows is his trademark.
JP 16:30: 'The doctrine I am opposed to is that the best way to view history is as a tyrannical patriarchy, biologically ridiculous, ungrateful...' Helen: Who is ungrateful? JP: I mean Us are ungrateful. Helen: I am grateful. [Whoops Jordan, clearly you are labeling feminists if not everyone as ungrateful, you are sitting next to a feminist who says she is incredibly grateful. Remember at the start of this interview where you stated that no one in 50 years has had a discussion on the relation between meaning and responsibility, and now you are stating you know that everyone is ungrateful? Try this. Don't say stupid stuff, in this case pretending that you know what everyone else thinks.]
JP: 'That isn't commensurate with your claim that you are the benefit of a tyrannical patriarchy.' [Are you listening to voices in your head Jordan? Did she make that claim? Are these voices telling you that you know that no one discusses responsibility also? Look at how preachy JP is here.)
At 19:00 JP: 'That is for sure, it is purely not. When you describe it as a tyrannical patriarchy then you describe it as purely that. Merely to define it as a patriarchy implies uni-dimensionality.' [Uh Whoops Jordan. Remember in the John Anderson Dave Rubin interview (around 43:00) where you said the West is an oppressive patriarchy but not purely an oppressive patriarchy? There is a big difference between something being purely something and being partly something? Here is my suggestion. If you are not sure what you are talking about, or if you can't remember what you said on the same issue in a prior interview, don't look so smug about it. When you act like a preachy know it all while directly contradicting yourself...well you get my point.)
Let's punch in to Pretenderson at 34:30: 'You can't lump all occurrences of non equal treatment as identity politics.' [Ok sure JP, but she didn't say that. If you are trying to pull a monster straw man I give you a high score]. Politics based on identity is not the definition of identity politics. [Could JP be more stupid if he tried?] Helen 4 Jordan 0.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MomoKehinde I didn't say that because there was inequality the US was founded on identity politics. Peterson is wrong when he says identity politics is a very specific thing. Helen was right when she said it is politics based on identity.
“Identity politics” is a very vague phrase, but it generally refers to the discussion of and politicking around issues pertaining to one’s, well, identity. The focus typically falls on women, racial minorities, immigrants, LGBTQ people, and religious minorities, such as Muslim Americans. All the social issues you may have heard of in the past several years — same-sex marriage, police shootings of unarmed black men, trans people in bathrooms, the fluidity of gender, discussions about rape culture, campus battles about safe spaces and trigger warnings — are typically the kinds of issues people mean when they refer to identity politics
1
-
@MomoKehinde Peterson makes no connection between hierarchies and male dominance. You are getting it backwards. He denies male dominance, and admits that hierarchies are natural.
Were there any Peterson wins? Here are a couple of Helen wins, starting at like 41:00.
1. Helen: It works in two different ways, it makes lobsters more aggressive and it makes humans less aggressive.'
Peterson interrupting: No that's not right, it makes humans less aggressive...It makes a lobster more likely to fight again.'
[uh Whoops Jordan. She agreed with you that serotonin makes humans less aggressive, and she is wrong... for agreeing with you? Lobsters that want to fight are not displaying aggression? Fighting isn't aggression? The relevant paper is called Serotonin and Aggression Motivation in Crustaceans, concluding that serotonin makes lobsters adopt aggressive postures...SCORE: Helen 1, Jordan 0]
2."I chose lobsters, the reason I made that argument was to put paid to the absurd Marxist proposition that hierarchical structures are a secondary consequence of free market economies which is as preposterous a theory as you could have about anything.'
Helen: 'Lobsters say the thing that you ideologically want to talk about that your belief that there is a kind of Marxist ideology...'
Peterson interrupting: 'How do lobsters say that?'
[Uh what Jordan? You just explained how lobsters demonstrate that. Remember you chose lobsters to put rest to the absurd Marxist proposition, and now you are saying lobsters don't put to rest the absurd proposition? Remembering what you said 2 minutes ago can be super challenging I know.] SCORE: Helen 2, Jordan 0
3. Helen referring to equality of outcome: 'I don't think that is a widely held view.'
JP Interrupting as usual: 20% of social scientist identify as Marxist. Look it up in Haidt's work, I studied it quite carefully, it is a perfectly valid statistic.
[Heads up JP, in the survey you are referring to, 3% of college professors identify as Marxist, and you claim that universities are dominated by leftist ideology, thus 3% of a very Left leaning sample identify as Marxist... and you are disagreeing with Helen? Whoops. The study Prevalence of Marxism in Academia states that Marxism is 'A tiny minority faith', i.e. Peterson cited a study to prove Helen wrong, when it actually proved her right. SCORE: Helen 3, Jordan 0]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1