Comments by "Kristopher Driver" (@paxdriver) on "Jordan B Peterson"
channel.
-
169
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
5
-
3
-
3
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What an amazing opportunity, congrats JP on getting this interview. Can't wait to listen, this is so important.
Unfortunately this was an infomercial not an interview. No mention of violent methods, conditions in West Bank or Gaza, no utterance even if those people suffering. No mention of fraud or corruption investigations, not even a mention of subsidies while spend an hour taking credit for building. He boasts of knocking down socialism only after mowing down medium density apartments under cloak of night at gunpoint to give free farms and move in salaries to new settlers. No mention of segregation, checkpoints, his own nuclear threats (though he was clear about Iran's).
All of his arguments are worth hearing and valid to talk through but there was no discussion. Jordan just strokes him into every talking point bibi wanted to get across. This is the epitome of a sellout, and I'm really sorry Jordan stooped so low as to not even challenge the ideas or interpretations of history. What happened to thoughtful discourse? You used to be such a staunch advocate for reasonable objectivity, and jostling with tough problems. You used to steel man, and ask questions and disagree just to raise a debate for elaboration. You used to value the discourse itself to find compromise. This is straight up shilling.
2
-
@1:03:40 ahhhh, K last one, this is so tiresome.
If you're talking about economics, try to be coherent ffs! Economics and capitalism work because synergy is assumed. Division of labour is a know productive boost. Cooperation makes us all richer than the sum of the parts. Government when its big and purchasing basic needs for all people is more efficient the bigger it is, not less. So long as process and checks are in place, economies of scale dictate that taxation to afford public benefits like basic needs and utilities is the optimum strategy.
So if you're a conservative liberal who believes in capitalism then you must, ipso facto admit that the same reasons capitalism is a good model are the same reasons a big government is an ideal model too, what you're supposed to be arguing is the implementation of regulation and guards against corruption, not the actual size of government. You should be pro regulation pro big government if you believe anything you say about capitalism.
If not, then you're redefining economics so it's no wonder the models are wrong to you, you've changed the meaning of words and found yourself surprised that things don't make sense anymore. Just look it up. Use a dictionary. Read a book. Listen to the merits of the arguments presented to you. It's complicated but not incomprehensible.
I'm seriously baffled by JBP's capacity for critical thought over the years, it's such an incredible shame what's become of him.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
These assessments of sexual attractiveness are antiquated. What about a partner who enjoys cuddling, or is funny, musical, dance or painting, or has a sense of adventure, or how a man/woman cares for children and the elderly? Sexy is so much more than status and endowments to any modern self aware intellectual - whether academic or not. People enjoy what they enjoy. You're looking for some tiny subset of factors to simplify a complex system of active hormones, genetics, and physicality.
Also the idea of a "culture" of sexual assault is asinine. Most men don't enjoy sex with a victim, only a small minority of sadists are aroused by fear and pain. Serial offenders can harm many different people but it doesn't mean there's a culture of serial offenders, it means we need to prosecute them. Nobody wants rapists running around freely abusing others, I don't know where so-called feminists get these crazy ideas lol I've been a feminist for my whole adult life and I've never heard or seen data suggest even a quarter of men condone sexual assault.
This is my issue with academia - you're taught to concoct arguments eloquently without any pause for rationale. You're all patting yourselves on the back for your talents and accolades but most people see more clearly than this intuitively without the benefit of practising formal philosophy or sociology. It's waluigi incarnate imho
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You know what I don't get about Adam and Eve? They both knew they wouldn't be harmed or starved, they knew even if they did, you're pretty tight with the big man upstairs. It's strange that they could even have conceived of a motivation beyond curiosity which is synonymous with creativity... So we exalt the holy by bathing it in prose, garb, ritual, hymns, traditions, etc. We use soooo much art to exalt the heavens when that art is created by curiosity, which was our fall from grace, but also our greatest material strength and power in the universe; creativity requires consciousness, and consciousness requires creative thought to not be computers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1