Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "Jordan B Peterson" channel.

  1. 169
  2. 9
  3. 8
  4. 8
  5. 5
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. For a scientist Dr Peterson is not much of a data guy.. There are plenty of well considered economic and environmental studies on climate change, you just need to read them. It's the data that spell doom, climate moves slowly just like culture, but it doesn't mean acting now isn't imperative it means the effects of our hubris takes years to become apparent. And 20 years after Green Peace begging us to listen we have annual storms of the century, rising sea levels and massive droughts. It's not fear or irrational dommsday saying, there are quantifiable data. There are oil companies who have engaged in suppressing climate studies which turned out unfavourable, then they paid out for disinformation campaigns instead. As a market analyst I can tell you it's not a secret the affordability of climate change initiatives is achievable without any pain if all we did was shift corporate tax rates back to what they used to be when the economy was not only viable but incomes were more evenly distributed and we maintained / built national infrastructure with it. You're the ones spazzing out about how expensive or necessary things these issues are without knowing the costs. You're the ones too lazy to do the dirty work of learning how to read stats by deltas and out sized returns of subsidized energy companies or real productivity of the highest income earners who are protected from paying proportional taxes. You guys are catastrophizing about solutions to a fixable problem you haven't looked at. You read the analysis of someone else and assume you've understood. Just look for yourself by doing the math. How many billionaires worked at McDonald's as kids to pay their way and earn their spot? How much of their genius relies on selling data people never knew they were selling, or buying startups with their daddy money and rebranding without innovating, or extra ting from national resources without paying a tax rate the people who share that land pay on the incomes they make selling hours of their lives rather than fund raising. The money supply from mortgage accessibility helped one generation of low means become middle class by retirement at the expense of every subsequent generation. The focus on growth as a measure of economic strength ignoring demographics or need. You can see in all these data how your ideas are myopic if you just out in the effort to learn calculus, stats, economics by learning dynamics not just principles of a certain school of thought. Just watch markets and make predictions and follow through to see how and why your forecasts in the markets are right or wrong. Do that for a few years and you'll actually know what you're talking about.
    3
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 2
  20. This is extraordinarily dumb... 14:00 "gi-GAN-tism" isn't the issue of the educated, the enabling of disproportionate power is what people object to. It's not fitting into your narrow archetype model because educated people don't have the need of reduction to simplistic categoricals. It's not the size, it's the lobby. It's not the left/right, those are moral views, it's about who is more trustworthy: uncle Sam or father Ted. It's not political at all to not fit a categorical that's never been proven to be accurate in the first place. Plenty of lefties like guns, plenty of right wingers don't. Both have the same reasons for liking or disliking guns. The difference is the lobby. Left and right is a lesser evil strategy of voting, and that's not acting purely democratic its game theory. In a true democracy there would be no lobbying, no parties, and campaigns would be real debates instead of signs and commercials so people could only vote on policy. That would be democratic. No gerrymandering, no lobbying, no fundraising, no ads, no calls, no polls, no signs, no media preference, no tribes; just policy and voters. That's working democracy. If moneys not well used by government check your tax laws. Check subsidies, check abuse of power, partisanship, and lies about economics peddled plby people who live off of the public without ever having had a job but claim to represent workers by giving tax cuts which advantage the least in need by orders of magnitude thereby amplifying the problem they were elected to fix. They not only didn't fix it like they promised, they made it worse, and that's where the data are conclusive. Peterson hasn't read real data in like 10 years, when I first watched all of his videos and talks before the major drama and his nervous breakdown. He used to be critical thinking but now he just pushes agenda under the guise of rational thought. He doesn't understand economics, which he admits, yet forms opinions on false economic pretenses. He doesn't understand political leaning isn't a rule of nature it's a simplification. He doesn't understand fascism, Canada is nowhere near that but he confuses it often for socialism, and socialism isn't communism which he always confuses. He doesn't grasp stats, he failed to rebutt his critics yet continues to cite the same debunked studies of rats and the extrapolation even the author he lauds rejected later in life. He doesn't consider new information, he plugs ads despite not being for want of cash yet claims to educate for principle and Christian values, the opposite of how Jesus undertook that enterprise. Very deep thinker at one time, Jordan Peterson was held in high esteem for many years. I can't help but force these corrections at least just to point out his followers to fact check as he used to advocate regularly. Just think about what you're hearing and question the assumptions he glosses over in particular. For example, if left to right is a spectrum with no bounds how is it a binary reference with respect to Republican policy or democrat policy? Guns happen to be right wing, they are not inherently in favour of government over people as right wing and fascism at the extreme would require. Technically freedom to bear arms in theory would be left leaning by the model, which is obviously inaccurate. He doesn't even notice because he doesn't know what it means outside of social media. Notice his old videos never mentioned politics because he didn't know much of anything about it? Since he's been attacked by the woke and revered by the modern right for lashing out at the left, suddenly he knows politics well enough to interpolate and extrapolate? Based on provably false pretenses as I've noted above, he's just profiteering at this point. While I don't doubt the intent and outrage are sincere, but the value of his contribution to discourse without the thought process requisite for it being productive is on par with any marketing material or propaganda campaign because its deliberately distorted with an agenda and intentionally ignores any rational refutation when articulated point blank. It's tragic and shameful of JBP imho.
    2
  21. 2
  22. 2
  23. 2
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. Poilievre brags that people like his blunt direct style of explaining economics he doesn't understand "not because it's overly simplistic but because it's true". I'd never heard this guy speak before so I was curious, but now I'm ready to actively speak out against him. Incompetence is the very last thing we need right now in Canada, especially the kind that doesn't recognize his own ego. It doesn't take a genius to recognize supply and demand is year 1 econ, it is not all of economics it's just the first 3 chapters of the first textbook of the first year's first term of economics class. The gap is widening because the largest earners are the least productive and are paid in percentages and awarded all of the tax incentives. That's why. It's because capital gains incomes are múltiples higher than labourers yet still asset holders raise prices faster than payrolls. On aggregate, that's the thing he's getting completely wrong but explaining accurately relative to currency. Currency printing is necessary because it is a response to employers and developers of luxury homes. His anecdotal 32 yr old with the same job as the mother who can't afford a home the mother could is about affordability, and access to credit caused by low interest and lax regulation prints more money than the central bank ever has this century. Look at the treasury auctions and look at household debt. There are numbers. If Poilievre understands his economics so well he wants to run the country he should at least understand how debt and credit circulate. Bonds don't hardly circulate at all except as leverage for debt. He should know this if he's going to come on camera bragging about how people love how smart he explains complicated economics to them, never mind casting aspersions in every direction without reading a single first year economics text before assuming he knows it all already. This guy, this type of politics and this superficial self aggrandizing pontificating is what's ruining our country. This is why we do worse and worse it's because we trust stupid people who tell us they're geniuses. If you don't know something say "I think" or confer with someone who does. Don't ask the public (who can't manage a credit card or mortgage without going bankrupt over a 2% change in a 25 year mortgage) what they think of national trade flows while the data and formulae are kept hidden from all of us. They're not financially literate man, that's the problem. To say illiterate people all think you are an amazingly astute reader is practically speaking "en retard M. Le ministre... "
    1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. The irony of this conversation is that this is what critical race theory is lol. Being able to critically and objectively analyze racially motivated or inspired actions in the system and its effects. CRT isn't the problem, it's treating CRT as if it has concluded and provides trainable answers, that's the problem. It would be like treating the scientific method as if experimentation were no longer necessary because we've learned all the science there is. "We've reached the pinnacle of moral fortitude, now we can teach moral high ground with no need for further deliberation." Hiw do we know there isn't more unconscious bias to be found if we're not able to question the baseline, it is taught and monitored from above - like a hierarchy, that tyrannical sort that these same activists claim to vehemently oppose by fundamental principle of righthood. It's a circular and provably false premise to teach the bias out of teachers without imprinting any biases in its place. We should start teaching Aristotle or Kant before deciding we're fit to teach anti-racism. Just teach biology, expression of gender will be obvious when we teach biochemistry and genetic variability. Teach science and skin colour will be knowble nonsense, not doctrines but common sense. We teach physics and religion will be read as a metaphor and if we teach literacy it won't matter what zealots try to hijack religion because nobody literate who can think critically could be radicalized. We can solve all these insane problems with real education, we don't need special training or compensation to equity training, just teach the fundamentals. No doctrine required. Learn to spell, and write, and count, and play music, and physical health, and history etc. Verifiable material realities, kids need those to develop proper ideas, they don't need to be spoofed anti-racism because that's only going to radicalized their parents or force them toward a horrible option when those kids feel rebellious. It's absolutely counter productive to create the ideas we're trying to dispell. This is obsessively insecure and kids' quality of life is being permanently scarred by replacing stem with 62 genders when kids are still learning what it means to go on a date with their fancy of the week lol. What nuance could they possibly learn from that conversation?
    1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. It's kind of tragic how terrified these men are of thought. "you can't... without someone else showing you first", "we can't speak about anything if we don't agree on masculin and feminin..." Why? Where do you come up with these ultimatums? Both of you need to read Kant critique on pure reason to learn how to formulate and process rational logic. This fear of independent thought is either cynical toward human capacity or nihilistic toward the future of the species. Either way I'd rather blow up trying to make something work than curl up trying to preserve something that clearly doesn't work. One is guaranteed to fail, the other is not. It's a no brainer progress comes from stepping into the unknown. Conservatism is literally the opposite of that, it's being too fearful to realize there's water behind you opting instead to only look in front of you and wait for it to rain. It's really sad, but I think a bigger part of this ideology is their need to feel important. Two aging out of touch white guys scared of being dethroned. I love Peterson, watched all of his work and a hundred hours of lectures. It's not his character I'm attacking or his compétence, it's the unreasonable and illogical premise of his point of view and the narrow focus of his parroting guests that I find a bit pathetic. I keep suggesting he learn stats and economics before deciding to know enough to try to steer the country on its foundations. It really doesn't seem like he's ever tried to watch and trade stock markets or learn dynamics models like curl derivatives to apply toward human behaviours. Stats would help him read the studies and journal articles properly, help him critique fallacies, and more adequately assess cost benefits of his ideas. Very important discussion though, gratefully appreciate the upload. I hope one of these days one of my comments gets read with an open mind instead of defensive vitriol.
    1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. What I don't understand about how we assess factors of racial discrimination in the justice system is how little we punish white collar criminal offences especially with regard to incarceration, and taking that into consideration when also reflecting on the motivations of poorer people suffering by their poverty both for want of family or feeling trapped by health costs or prospects for upward mobility with the cost of upgrading employable skills. So on the one hand you've got people whose incomes are for sure suppressed, their job prospects suppressed by that economic constraint, and then on top of that harsher sentencing further diminishing employability and political involvement. If we're not punishing people who commit fraud in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and not once but serially for years like Trump or Trudeau, but then we coerce plea bargains and police raids and press charges for minor offences on an 18 year old which follows them the rest of their lives - those factor aren't additive or even multiplicative they're exponentially weighted against each other over time and spanning generations. Add to that a history and culture of oppression not even 1 generation removed from today's working prime adults, the severity of massive financial crimes is grossly underrated when we consider what people are doing in response to poverty. By stealing money unduly in excesses and when already living comfortably, that should be worse than a low level coke dealer trying to pay rent and tuition or medical bills for their children. The racial divide in incarceration rates and lifetime wealth accumulation has a lot to do with what we consider severe and what we deem punishable by fines and settlements. I wonder what the racial ratios are for white/black people settling out of court compared to plea bargains. I suspect black men accept more disadvantageous plea bargains, are victims of raids and civil forfeiture, and I would bet white men tend to settle and pay fines to escape justice and keep part of their ill gotten gains contrasting the theft of the poorer minorities charged more harshly for lesser offences which were motivated by necessity as opposed to greed. The factors compound I think that's crucial. Leniency on financial crimes should be weighted to account for all the crimes prosecuted by individuals motivated by or triggered by lacking resources and access basic needs. Stealing vaste sums is lending itself to more poverty, that makes the white collar crime more harmful than we give it credit for so long as there are people suffering from poverty they can't reasonably escape from by effort or brute force grit. The better solution is prosecute financial crimes adequately. Prosecute shareholders like Sacklers or Trumps. If we don't we're enabling rich white people to make desperate those who we "can't afford" 5i feed to educate into even economic competition on level grounds. The reality is we don't like competition or meritocracy. We like easy money and when we've won the lottery we like to think we were just smarter than everyone else for having guessed the winning numbers.
    1
  75. 1
  76. 1