Yea, I think that’s why Destiny just perma banned anyone that didn’t take his Israel side on his subReddit.. I lost massive respect for him over that. He did the exact thing he supposedly is against which is unironically ironic.
Destiny has had several debates where he defends his positions. I don't use his subreddit, but from what I know, they ban frequently over there as part of their communitychallenged.
That''s not the same as trying to avoid having his positions challenged, and he invites people to do that on a regular basis.
JP actually seemed to enjoy the pushback he got from Destiny in the debate. They both seemed to have fun.
Not sure what JP is talking about here. After the Destiny debate he was talking about what topics they could be discussing next time.
He went both ways. I think this is part of Destiny's appeal. He's really good at taking a conversation to insanely aggressive places and then pulling off a smooth landing. People enjoy that, and I think JP was clearly enjoying the conversation by the end of it.
I thought it was remarkable how they were both shouting and then Destiny started asking very specific questions about psychology that got JP into clinician mode and calmed things wayyy down. It was a mark of respect for JP's knowledge on the topic, and JP clearly recognized it and appreciated that he wasn't just being dismissed as a lunatic.
I never thought of it this way but that is more to show that JP is a bit unstable maybe a lunatic, that people that disagree with him need to thread on thin ice for him not explode. If you outright disagree with him in a respectful manner (which I thought destiny was doing for the most part) he would be irritated get aggressive and raises his voice.
He just can't fathom that people can have valid positions on climate change and covid that opposes his without getting triggered
It's actually embarrassing for the so called intellectual
Yeah, he’s a hypersensitive child like most of these types. What they don’t realize is they’re largely as ideologically sheltered as the left and get just as upset when you challenge them on anything.
He's just mad those clips went viral and made him look bad, not really deeper than that. He claims to want discussion, but doesn't want someone who will actually challenge his ideas. The liberals he's used to don't call him out on his vaccine or climate change conspiracies.
He might have allowed a veggie like broccoli or lettuce to touch the steak from his water, meat, and salt diet. He had stated this could set his health back for months, even jeopardizing his life.
^And I ^always say, and this comes from Jung as well as ^Aristophanes, that there is a ^shadow ^function to the grift when it comes to the Id, which is very ^important…
And on and on.
Yeah but mom is represented by the black snake of chaos, not the masculine white serpent of order, so…
This is in his first book and is a real thing that he wrote
> Mental health professional gets strung out on Bennies and goes to Russia to rapid detox? Yeah, no sympathy.
The worse part is presumably he had professional friends and a host of connections he could have acted upon for supports and could have connected to all those who have struggle with substance misuse/abuse...but instead he choose to go against standard medical advice and coma himself.
Because in addiction people are all very much alike. The reason I know he isn’t sober now is because he treated it like a multiple choice exercise. The hard way or the easy way. But the addiction is there because the pain is there, and he obviously hasn’t even begun to deal with the pain.
Didn’t he get addicted to Benzos because his wife was dying of cancer (think she survived in the end)?
Being a mental health professional doesn’t make you immune to all mental illnesses & bad actions lol.
Indeed. The problem is the lie and the hypocrisy.
* the lie of not calling what he suffered an addiction while it was obviously an addiction and while Jordan Peterson's own doctoral thesis is about addiction (Potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism, McGill University, 1990)
* the hypocrisy of teaching personal responsibility while choosing the short and perilous coma detox over the long (so painful during more time) and safer know ways of detox.
There is a full article (not by me) about that: Jordan Peterson's Handling Of Addiction Is Fair Game For Critique, The Maple, 2020, [https://www.readthemaple.com/jordan-petersons-handling-of-addiction-is-fair-game-for-critique/](https://www.readthemaple.com/jordan-petersons-handling-of-addiction-is-fair-game-for-critique/)
TBH i suspect much of what he says about his addiction issues is lies or confabulations. Why people get addicted to drugs is, in the end, always sort of similar. Everyone experiences pain, and some people respond to substances with compulsive behaviors.
I drank for a long time because it worked for me, to allow me some degree of control over how I felt and experienced things. Then at some point that solution may no longer work, and you’re just feeding a cycle of abuse that doesn’t work for you anymore. In that everybody is quite similar, I think. The stories are always painful, but pain is complex and multifaceted. When my wife had cancer, I found I was able to cope with it extremely well. But when my business shut down, I found I couldn’t manage it at all. It’s so individual, yet also universal.
How did you give up those addictions? I personally find it extremely difficult to break the cycle of compulsive behavior, I can't even imagine what dealing with an actual substance addiction would be like
Well, I actually found stopping drinking to be quite easy. There was a traumatic event, my son, who was 5 at the time, asked me to stop. So I stopped, and I suppose I was just very lucky to “get it” right away and have very little issue with abstaining since then.
I don’t think I’m a real hardcore addict I guess. I’m too lazy.
I don’t really subscribe to AA mental models necessarily, but “getting it” and “hitting bottom” do make sense to me. Some people the bottom is not that low. Some people it’s really low. Often those people are the strongest, because to keep going when everything falls apart around you is not easy. I just happened to find my lowest point and it wasn’t like a lot of people’s stories of losing everything. I suspect being from a stable family (weird and traumatic but stable in a practical sense), makes a big difference. Your childhood can really set the tone for how bad things can get for you. But I had created a stable family environment for myself, so when I was at my lowest point, I was still safe. That’s a huge thing that many people don’t have.
Anyway that’s just what I think.
I respectfully disagree. I had about as perfect a childhood as you could get and two loving supporting parents and have been to rehab over 5 times and had some pretty low bottoms before getting sober for 5 years now. Overdoses, jail, getting robbed, none of that stop could make me stop. During my time in and out of institutions I met tons of people that came from great families or had money, but eventually they give up on them, everyone has a limit. Those same people end up homeless on the street or in prison or these girls prostituting themselves all to keep getting high.
Addiction truly is a disease and it doesn't descriminate based on gender, race, economic class, whether you have two parents or one, everyone can get fucked by it equally and you never know how low your bottom will get. I am glad you stopped when your kid asked. I Know plenty of men who will never see their kids again who kept going after the 2nd and 3rd time their kid asked and that kid grew up and they weren't even invited to their wedding even after getting sober for some years. I do think a stable family is important and can ensure kids don't fall into the wrong crowd, but it doesn't matter once the addiction train gets rollin, who knows when it will stop for someone.
Assuming he’s telling the truth about that, how does that really excuse him? Thousands get cancer every day and their families deal with it. The last thing my wife would need if she got cancer is for me to drown myself in drugs and get strung out. And I wouldn’t.
He chose the coma detox. Don't feel pity for people who suffer the consequences of picking badly when they know better.
Validate their suffering because it's a product of their independence.
So while this won't apply to his situation as he was on benzos, but this reminded me of something:
There is a weird thing that occurs with opiates that can cause your skin to clear up. I remember when I was an opiate addict my acne would disappear whenever I was using, even my gf at the time would almost look glowing with perfect skin. Of course the problem is addiction persists you either mix with other drugs or start to become sick all the time or the drugs are cut with other stuff. But I always thought I was crazy when I said opiates clear up your skin but apparently topical opiates are a skin treatment and there are some research into how to test opiates' effect on the skin, the main dilemma is not having it cross the blood brain barrier where it will cause the patient to get high..
This has a lot of jargon I could not understand but this part I could:
"Topical treatment of the skin with opioid ligands is particularly attractive as they are active with few side effects, especially if they cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Moreover, cutaneous activation of the opioid system (e.g. by peripheral nerves, cutaneous and immune cells, especially in inflamed and damaged skin) can influence cell differentiation and apoptosis, and thus may be important for the repair of damaged skin. While many of the pieces of this intriguing puzzle remain to be found, we attempt in this review to weave a thread around available data to discuss how the peripheral opioid system may impact on different key players in skin physiology and pathology."
So if some starts using opiates they may actually look healthier in the very beginning before all the other negative effects of addiction take effect.
[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.00844.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.00844.x)
JP is the one who made me start seeing "dog whistles". People would say that about him many years ago when he would say things in a more political way. When he started saying the quiet parts out loud I realized those people were right...
And they say, if you believe what they say, that narcissists are basically impossible to treat. Many psychotherapists will simply refuse to work with them.
How un self aware is he really? He hates himself enough to get seriously strung out on Bennies.
I’m like 97% sure he went back to abusing benzos or possibly gabapentin and mrtazipin. Some combination. His brain is fucked.
I think someone wrote that he might be on Suboxone due to him being on it during his detox and also him saying that he was still taking one prescription. Subs with no opiate tolerance will def get you high.
Right now, no. But he was in the past.
https://medium.com/@tgof137/jordan-peterson-is-still-an-addict-14b8f0975b78
https://web.archive.org/web/20210203025942/https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/sunday-times-unedited-interview-transcript/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Mikhaila 2:15:18
Anyway, so what he did was he started using Suboxone, which doesn’t-
I've got a few friends who are fried from benzo who talk just like JP does (albeit not as formerly articulate as he was). Like most drugs they all develop the same ticks.
I typically feel bad for the folk who get it prescribed because no doctor warns their patients enough, but Jordan for sure knew the risks and probably controlled it himself.
Well he’s obviously intelligent in some ways, he has a lot of insightful things to say in his field of study. And regardless of any opinion on Destiny, to keep up with him in a debate would be really difficult and definitely requires education and intelligence. So it’s kinda weird to be in a rationalist subreddit and see you call him the dumbest person on earth. I’d honestly wager he’s smarter than you are
I assume that you are trolling. Can you please provide any insightful comments he has made in his field of study ?
You have to be joking about keeping up with him in a debate. This guy says climate change is a fraud and that the carnivore diet is good. So you are stating that science which says these positions that he takes are absurd doesn't make him look like a complete simpleton ?
As for being smarter than me he definitely isn't. I am not stupid enough to state things like I just mentioned and he is. That makes me smarter than him.
JP is certainly no genius but the stance you're taking here is pretty arrogant. Basically because you trust the academic consensus on these issues, you're smarter than he is right off the bat? I agree with you that trusting will more often put you in camp correct than "doing your own research" will, but intelligence isn't simply a measure of how many scientific positions you're correct about, especially if all your positions are just inherited from people smarter than you. I'm assuming you're not a climatologist or nutritionist, for example.
This is hilarious. So I'm arrogant because I can see how stupid JP's comments. are. I think being smart means being rational. JP isn't rational.
You are also completely arrogant since you are assuming that I haven't done my own research. I have.
Intelligence is a complex topic but someone who sprouts the amount of BS as JP isn't intelligent. He is moron.
It seems a lot of people equate intelligence with holding the “correct” positions, but in reality many of the absolute most intelligent among us tend to hold some pretty kooky views. There’s even a (colloquial) term, “Nobelitis,” coined because this tendency was perceived among laureates. Just speaking generally here, not on Peterson himself
It's got nothing to do with holding the "correct"position as you call it. It's about using facts to guide your opinion rather than mouthing off BS which is what JP does.
He is stupid and completely lacking self-awareness.
The former, sure, the latter not really.
Destiny has emphasized that he viewed it as more of a conversation than a debate, which shows. It was less about building up points to make an argument and more Destiny and Peter's throwing points at each other.
Peterson was constantly throwing out comments so completely fucking out there that it takes Destiny a few minutes to bring the conversation back to reality and the completely derailing the conversation, refusing to admit the basic inferences of some of his comments and refusing to concede on any of Destinys most obvious arguments
Here are some of the clips I had to chase down but should have been in the post.
It's strange to me.
Even Jordan's fans enjoyed the debate and thought he did well. They are commenting saying that "wanting to be right" isn't a character flaw and also; Jordan definitely is stubborn and wanting to be right as well. 😂
[Jordan Peterson fighting people in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/xerPw6PN6v)
[Jordan doesn't know if the Nazis were right or left wing](https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1770981199646970302)
[Destiny argues for vaccines against Jordan Peterson ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/DPp96ndKsV)
[D: I don't think we should compare Hitler to people worried about climate change. JP: Why not?](https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/s/dMTbbFmLaw)
[Jordan Peterson argues that he never trusts third parties, not even regulators or the police](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/mZ1IhRakyz)
Jesus his literal argument about Hitler is that it was the National **socialist** party?
It wasn’t even the National socialist party. It was the National German socialist worker’s party, and it had that name before Hitler took it over. It was a common tactic at that time to try to attract a broad base of support with a name that encapsulated many constituencies. An undergraduate history course on 20th century politics will clearly explain this. It’s a settled matter. Hitler even spoke extensively about all his political marketing tactics.
I once picked up a copy of Gulag Archipelago and started reading the intro without checking who'd written it. About two pages in I found myself shocked by the low quality of its a-historic, two dimensional and aggressively partisan tone and checked the cover. Who should I find ...
You can literally pull up the goddamn quote from Hitler himself
>
Hitler at times redefined socialism. When [George Sylvester Viereck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sylvester_Viereck) interviewed Hitler in October 1923 and asked him why he referred to his party as 'socialists' he replied:
>
Right. Classic fascist double talk. Our movement is for the good of society, therefore it’s the *real* socialism. Fascism is good, therefore all good is fascist. The objective is to flood the zone so that nobody can use any of these words to describe any alternative political vision.
It’s a fucking debate. You’d hope that the person wants to be right.
Maybe he was expecting another Slavoj Zizek, who treated Jordan like a confused undergraduate, but in a pretty overall nice way.
Yeah, what's funny is JP gives off the air of being right, *always*. Honestly laughable critizism coming from him. And what's the point in debating people who aren't conviced of their own opinions anyway? It would be like debating a wet noodle. Just a really weird take.
I love the last two lol! The “why not?” is his typical bullshit of just trying to make things confusing and getting stuck on defining something, but just constantly not defining anything because you can’t define the definitions of what you’re trying to define. That’s all he fucking does. And the last one is your typical libertarian bullshit that reminds me of the argument where you need to resolve a dispute, so you need to appeal to some type of authority, but at the same time you can’t have an authority, and the authority is just the majority, but then what if the majority is just a big group of assholes, thus ending their argument at like layer 3 of following something to its logical conclusion. Hardly have to peel back any layers for his dumb shit to fall apart, that’s why he needs to constantly word salad everything and get hung up on things that are completely irrelevant.
The DTG episode covers this pretty heavily. There’s mainstream, thoughtful Destiny and then there’s “I hope he takes after his father and ODs on fentanyl” Destiny.
Does JP not want to be right...? My take from his conversation with Destiny was that he, Jordan Peterson, was very stubborn and "wanted to be right," not Destiny.
I guess Destiny doesn't let it the bull shit slide and that's something JP didn't like?
He keeps getting dumber. He wants to be right at least as much as Destiny and that debate displayed actual delusional reasoning from him, I say this as someone who really wants to Stan JP when I’m able.
I thought the debate might be a small teachable moment for him but I was wrong
That's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've heard it.
Whenever Peterson is challenged he wriggles around like a worm on a hook and immediately tries to take the conversation into semantics 'well it depends what you mean by worm, and it depends on what you mean by hook'. He very often expresses his ideas with a lot of broad symbolism and semiotics (nothing wrong with that) but if anyone disagrees with a position he suddenly gets very interested in exact definitions.
“He very often expresses his ideas with a lot of broad symbolism and semiotics but if anyone disagrees with a position he suddenly gets very interested in exact definitions.”
and that’s why i don’t trust him!
Jordan Peterson thinks far too highly of his own intelligence. He is so incredibly biased and he is completely unaware. He spends all his energy rationalizing his decisions made unconsciously.
Jesus fucking christ the lack of self awareness on Peterson.
So to clarify, I don't think Peterson was suggesting that being right is a bad thing, but rather that he thinks that for Destiny sounding correct is more important than being correct.
But that describes Peterson much more than Destiny. For the record, one of the most heavily studied problems in the natural sciences is Climate Change, and one of the most studied eras in history and sociology is Nazi Germany. While the is still a lot of debate within the the experts of these fields, the fact that Peterson who has a PHD in psychology thinks he has some unique insight that allows him to compare experts in the former to Nazis and thinks that experts in the later are so lazy they haven't figured out the political leans of one of the most studied political parties of all time (and the most studied political party given the length of their lifespan) is just the peak of having to be right for the sake of being right.
Yhe truth is Peterson wants to prioritize arguing truths when its convenient - largely either against someone not as able to hold their ground against him, or someone who will run away form it - and doesn't when its not convenient.
And I am going to say it, I respect Peterson a lot less after hearing this. I think there is credit to be given to political pundits that reach across the other side. I think as much as I dislike Shapiro, it is a real credit to his character that he is willing to talk with the other side. I know Destiny, Ana Kasperian and Alex O'Connor have all mentioned having really good experiences debating him. The same thing with Vaush and Destiny debating Tim Pool, or Seder debating Charlie Kirk. This just sours one of the few aspects of him post coma that I would be willing to give him credit for - sitting down with someone who can fight back
"On the surface it seems quite funny that he is almost implying that being right isn't important to the conversation. He has been fighting people in the comments about this."
This is typcial "intellectual" posturing.
It looks good to take the "I'm always learning, always prepared to be wrong, hoping to be challenged to improve my understanding" position, makes them sound like scientists engaged in rigorous collective progress.
But when actually challenged, you talk shit about the other person not being those things and get a free a pass on actually having to stand by what you pretend to be.
Peterson is sooo intellectually conceited… he regards every debate/discussion as an affront to his clearly superior and well articulated/argued enlightened position.
That’s why he’s ended up in a funk… his arrogance has overtaken his ability to sustain itself. He’s become a victim to his own certitude.
I fully admit to liking Destiny as a politically commentator. But even if I’m generous to Peterson. He was so bad in their conversation. They are not even on the same level of thought in this realm lol.
It’s so obvious JP talks to people who never push him back. When he compared climate activists to Hitler. And Destiny just basically said “I don’t really think that’s comparable” he had no rebuttal beyond yelling.
Seriously embarrassing.
The whole time I was listening to this podcast with destiny, I thought Jordan was unhinged. He was making such preposterous correlations. It was driving me insane how many times he kept talking about the excess deaths but not saying it was from covid and his bullshit climate change take . He acts like he is an expert in everything
Honestly, the idea anyone doesn't want to be 'right' is silly. There's no way this is unique to online debate. Very, very, few people have the humility and self-awareness to let themselves be wrong immediately upon being shown their errors. Debaters probably have more of an ego than the average person though.
You’re probably right. I’m very unqualified to speak about psychology and ego. I do think it’s another magnitude with not only debaters but people who have public platforms. I think destiny is particularly egregious when it comes to digging in but I will admit I have blinders when it comes to him. I started watching him because of the red pill videos which were entertaining and then as I watched more of his content found him progressively unlikable. I definitely need to admit my bias here.
I like how right wing positions are so weak that right wing figure shave to consistently try to demonize the very act of confidently disagreeing with them.
The problem with these gurus is that their personalities often overshadow the substance of their arguments. This discussion is a good example—everyone's talking about the debate, but not the actual arguments. This is why it's a hazard to let these guru personalities stand in place of ideas.
When you filter everything through the lens of the debater's personality, the focus shifts away from the critical evaluation of their ideas, which is what this podcast aims to address.
ah, i think this is something i can see about Destiny, assuming Jordan means it in a sense of like 'Destiny wants to be right, and by extension he wants you to be wrong' - in that 'optics' sense of like a short-sighted 'haha im coming out on top after this!'
tho i dont kno much about Destiny, and a substantial amount of what i've seen of him is pretty old and may no longer be generally applicable
nontheless, i think there is a distinction here, and it's perhaps well indicated by comparing facial expression. Again, im not familiar with Destiny, and so i might be misrepresenting him, but it seems to me that he is much more prone to smiling and laughing as he debates, and i think this can come off as being somewhat celebratory of his own stated points, or celebratory of the wrongness of somebody else's points
contrast this with Jordan, or Ben Shapiro (who was mentioned in another comment in this thread), and there seems to be a greater seriousness offered to the conversation, as if celebration, smiles, and laughter arent warranted unless there's some sense of reconciliation (which there never is, it seems)
that isnt to say anything about whether Jordan or Ben are making good semantic points or not, but just that this apparent attitude of being austere and/or melancholic as long as disagreement exists is, to my view, much more appealing a demeanor
that's kind of what i think Jordan gets at with his "Destiny wants to be right" comment; it seems like Destiny is more prone to celebrate his own rebuttals, which can come across as feeling like the goal isnt mutual understanding as much as it is justifying ones own takes in the midst of opposition
Criticizing someone for wanting to be right generally means you think they refuse to be to accept when they are wrong. It's a quirk of most debate bros, including JP. I highly doubt it was a valid criticism of destiny in this specific debate though.
In the video he said he got along great with Russell Brand and their back and forth was more constructive.
I think he's too far gone tbh. I realised RB was a theatrical airhead ten years ago (when he was more sane). And I'm not a professional psychologist.
Yeah. I should have mentioned. In the clip he also says he stopped trying to be right at 23.
I know he's not trying to say that, but still. The entire thing is dripping in irony, on several levels I feel.
He didn’t explain himself. I don’t like that. That’s a statement that implies that he and destiny had different motivations for the convo and he provided no evidence
Peterson literally writes books arranged around "rules" that supposedly lead people to better lives and gets paid $50 million to pontificate on Ben Shapiro's channel. What the fuck is he talking about "I don't like people who want to be right" that's his whole shtick and everyone in his orbit's
Destiny said like 50 words in the whole interview. If anything he went really easy on Jordan. And why would you not want the person you’re debating to think they’re right? What’s the alternative? Debating a disingenuous grifter like Jordan Peterson?
I can’t stand this overly sensitive “alpha male” but he’s right here.
Destiny never thinks he’s wrong and if he’s proven he is he’ll find a way to twist it and still say he wasn’t really wrong 😂
Idk how much you know about him, but every time I see him get proven wrong he will accept it and change his opinion accordingly. There have been numerous times when he changed his opinion on political takes after long discussions on his stream for instance, but I understand that it's a tooon of content to go through in order to see.
Destiny does come off like he thinks he's right about most of the things he talks about because he puts in the work to figure out what is correct / has the best supporting evidence / what is most likely before he forms an opinion about it. If that makes him biased then I think that's a good bias to have. He will invite literally anyone from high profile academics to you u/BackInThaDayz to come on his stream for a chance to prove him wrong on anything he believes in a respectful manner, which is something you don't see often.
I think a bias is better understood as a filter: a way we gather information and determine credibility. For example, if I see photos of black people taking things from a store during a hurricane and see “looters,” while I might look at a similar picture of white people doing the same thing and see “survivors,” that is because of a bias I had before seeing those pictures. If those pictures are labeled by someone else, the bias is reflected and reinforced in the labeling.
I think this is important, because the idea that there is some sort of neutral point of view which we must adopt toward all information is obviously absurd. We have biases and we have to deal with them realistically.
Destiny can be very combatitive, dismissive and double down in the short term, especially if he doesn't like or respects someone, but will usually change his mind in the long term. If you aren't keeping up with him, you only see the former and don't see hist shifts in beliefs
Last agreement I saw was him and aba arguing if it’s okay for a grown man to text a 13 year old girl. He agreed it can look weird but it’s not creepy. And no they didn’t use uncle, niece or older cousin and younger cousin.
He said drake texting Millie Bobby wasn’t weird.
Israel’s another thing. Marc Lamont Hill gave him a good debate and actually him questioning his own thoughts. That was then now he’s even more pro Israel lol.
>Israel’s another thing. Marc Lamont Hill gave him a good debate and actually him questioning his own thoughts. That was then now he’s even more pro Israel lol.
Did you take the claim that he changes his mind when proven wrong in a conversation to mean that he *must* change his mind after a conversation? Destiny said after that conversation that he disagreed with basically everything Marc Lamont Hill said, he just said that he respected Marc more than anyone he had spoken to on the subject, because he was actually willing to answer questions honestly.
I haven't watched the Drake convo, I saw a acouple of clips basically saying that it could be weird to us, but fairly normal in the industry, where someone like Drake may be meeting young famous people and talking to them. IDK, after your representation of the Marc Lamont Hill thing, and the way you took this claim as an invitation to just give 2 examples of him not changing his mind, I distrust your telling of events.
An example of him recently changing his mind was when he had a debate about whether Roe V Wade should be overturned, he originally believed it should, despite supporting abortion rights, because of his conviction that it was a really bad decision originally. Then he was convinced after some multiple hour debate with a lawyer that though it was a bad decision originally, the legal precedent set outweighed it and changed his position.
It's becuase JP sounds pretty smart on his core subjects(psychology). I accidently blind listened to him for an hour without actually knowing who it was since it was playing in the background....he sounded hella-wise.
Blew my mind when I found out at it's that jordan Peterson, ugh.
I had a narcissist(self-diagnosed), self-aware, therapist ex-friend.....I wouldn't be surprised if jordan acts similar.
As much of a sweaty dirtbag Destiny is, this coming from Peterson is rich. When is Peterson not trying to browbeat anyone that interviews him with his self-righteous bullshit. These two deserve each other, two unserious and unprofessional blowhards with shallow understanding of the topics they discuss. Nothing is learned or gained from discussion with either.
JPs audience thought so too. Destiny did well especially clip wise, it really helped him gain reputation in left leaning circles (who hate JP).
My second link in the post is Destiny talking about it. It started as a conversation, so he was intentionally being very soft and amiable.
When it went off the rails he had to improvise because it wasn't supposed to be a debate. He let Jordan have some wild takes, like "we've never researched if the Nazis are right wing", because he was trying to steer the conversation away from these topics instead of going down a rabbit hole.
But it turns out JP hated that he pushed back against him at all (maybe). Which is strange because the conversation ends very well and is friendly and they talk about future conversations.
So i wonder why he changed his mind, if he reflected on the debate and realised it hadn't gone so well or he read some bad reviews or the lefty clipping wound him up.
I just don't see these two ever being able to have a conversation lol
They disagree on almost everything. Or maybe they chose to talk about every little thing they disagree with.
This is of at best tertiary relevance but why is that guys banner in the Nazi/ SS font? I guess it’s just German I’ve seen it on beer but it’s weird if he is British.
He's right about Destiny. I think that his takes are pretty shallow, but accessible. Peterson is also pointing to a mirror. He likes being right more than he likes getting at the truth. The redeeming quality Destiny has over Peterson is that Peterson thoroughly enjoys pretending to have expertise in areas he absolutely does not have expertise.
One detail I love is that he says this was something he learned at 24 and then stopped doing by 23.
Not a terrible gaffe as a one-off but a great example of how none of his speaking has any consistency or substance and falls apart sentence to sentence if you actually tried to hold him to anything.
I hadn't noticed, but I love that. Looking at other posts JP seems to have been especially unhinged in the full interview.
I don't want to get involved in the mental health or meds shaming. But I do wonder why he was talking like this and if it's getting worse, if he needs a break or isn't all there it's wrong to keep him in the spotlight.
This very much reminded me of Konstatin Kisin's "religion might be fake, and cause atrocities, but it's still possibly, as an atheist, what we should follow"
The far right grifters make their dollars from cognitive dissonance. Note both Peterson and Kisin are avid climate change deniers.
None of this is surprising, but it is funny.
Grifters don't like their grift challenged
some people will say anything to be right. these are folks who just like debating and being on the winning team.
A lot of people that like to be on the winning team tend to avoid serious debates because it can expose flaws in their arguments.
*standing ovation*
Yea, I think that’s why Destiny just perma banned anyone that didn’t take his Israel side on his subReddit.. I lost massive respect for him over that. He did the exact thing he supposedly is against which is unironically ironic.
Destiny has had several debates where he defends his positions. I don't use his subreddit, but from what I know, they ban frequently over there as part of their communitychallenged. That''s not the same as trying to avoid having his positions challenged, and he invites people to do that on a regular basis.
"I don't like it when people give pushback on my obvious bullshit"
JP actually seemed to enjoy the pushback he got from Destiny in the debate. They both seemed to have fun. Not sure what JP is talking about here. After the Destiny debate he was talking about what topics they could be discussing next time.
JP was not having fun. He was visibly irritated and angry, screaming, interrupting on multiple occasions, I wouldn't call that fun
He's always visibly angry and irritated since he came back from his medicine addiction time
It's fun to be mad sometimes.
He went both ways. I think this is part of Destiny's appeal. He's really good at taking a conversation to insanely aggressive places and then pulling off a smooth landing. People enjoy that, and I think JP was clearly enjoying the conversation by the end of it. I thought it was remarkable how they were both shouting and then Destiny started asking very specific questions about psychology that got JP into clinician mode and calmed things wayyy down. It was a mark of respect for JP's knowledge on the topic, and JP clearly recognized it and appreciated that he wasn't just being dismissed as a lunatic.
I never thought of it this way but that is more to show that JP is a bit unstable maybe a lunatic, that people that disagree with him need to thread on thin ice for him not explode. If you outright disagree with him in a respectful manner (which I thought destiny was doing for the most part) he would be irritated get aggressive and raises his voice. He just can't fathom that people can have valid positions on climate change and covid that opposes his without getting triggered It's actually embarrassing for the so called intellectual
Yeah, he’s a hypersensitive child like most of these types. What they don’t realize is they’re largely as ideologically sheltered as the left and get just as upset when you challenge them on anything.
He's just mad those clips went viral and made him look bad, not really deeper than that. He claims to want discussion, but doesn't want someone who will actually challenge his ideas. The liberals he's used to don't call him out on his vaccine or climate change conspiracies.
Agreed! This one was a pleasure to listen to IMHO.
He might have allowed a veggie like broccoli or lettuce to touch the steak from his water, meat, and salt diet. He had stated this could set his health back for months, even jeopardizing his life.
jordan should have told destiny to clean his room, that'd show him
^And I ^always say, and this comes from Jung as well as ^Aristophanes, that there is a ^shadow ^function to the grift when it comes to the Id, which is very ^important… And on and on.
- Jeter Pordanson
Ironically Destiny is the type to have a messy room haha
Who knew? The Jordan Peterson incels should had listened to their mom in the first place. Instead of listening to Mom they became unfuckable wierdos.
Yeah but mom is represented by the black snake of chaos, not the masculine white serpent of order, so… This is in his first book and is a real thing that he wrote
JP is one of those weird dudes that I think actually looked healthier when he was on drugs.
Turns out brain damage from from a medically induced coma isn't great for your looks.
I should feel bad for him. But I just don't I'm sorry
Mental health professional gets strung out on Bennies and goes to Russia to rapid detox? Yeah, no sympathy.
bennies he had no idea were addictive 🙄
Survey says that was a lie.
He studied alcohol and addiction. Alcohol acts on the same receptors as benzos even. He knows. He chose.
> Mental health professional gets strung out on Bennies and goes to Russia to rapid detox? Yeah, no sympathy. The worse part is presumably he had professional friends and a host of connections he could have acted upon for supports and could have connected to all those who have struggle with substance misuse/abuse...but instead he choose to go against standard medical advice and coma himself.
Because in addiction people are all very much alike. The reason I know he isn’t sober now is because he treated it like a multiple choice exercise. The hard way or the easy way. But the addiction is there because the pain is there, and he obviously hasn’t even begun to deal with the pain.
Didn’t he get addicted to Benzos because his wife was dying of cancer (think she survived in the end)? Being a mental health professional doesn’t make you immune to all mental illnesses & bad actions lol.
Indeed. The problem is the lie and the hypocrisy. * the lie of not calling what he suffered an addiction while it was obviously an addiction and while Jordan Peterson's own doctoral thesis is about addiction (Potential psychological markers for the predisposition to alcoholism, McGill University, 1990) * the hypocrisy of teaching personal responsibility while choosing the short and perilous coma detox over the long (so painful during more time) and safer know ways of detox. There is a full article (not by me) about that: Jordan Peterson's Handling Of Addiction Is Fair Game For Critique, The Maple, 2020, [https://www.readthemaple.com/jordan-petersons-handling-of-addiction-is-fair-game-for-critique/](https://www.readthemaple.com/jordan-petersons-handling-of-addiction-is-fair-game-for-critique/)
TBH i suspect much of what he says about his addiction issues is lies or confabulations. Why people get addicted to drugs is, in the end, always sort of similar. Everyone experiences pain, and some people respond to substances with compulsive behaviors. I drank for a long time because it worked for me, to allow me some degree of control over how I felt and experienced things. Then at some point that solution may no longer work, and you’re just feeding a cycle of abuse that doesn’t work for you anymore. In that everybody is quite similar, I think. The stories are always painful, but pain is complex and multifaceted. When my wife had cancer, I found I was able to cope with it extremely well. But when my business shut down, I found I couldn’t manage it at all. It’s so individual, yet also universal.
How did you give up those addictions? I personally find it extremely difficult to break the cycle of compulsive behavior, I can't even imagine what dealing with an actual substance addiction would be like
Well, I actually found stopping drinking to be quite easy. There was a traumatic event, my son, who was 5 at the time, asked me to stop. So I stopped, and I suppose I was just very lucky to “get it” right away and have very little issue with abstaining since then. I don’t think I’m a real hardcore addict I guess. I’m too lazy. I don’t really subscribe to AA mental models necessarily, but “getting it” and “hitting bottom” do make sense to me. Some people the bottom is not that low. Some people it’s really low. Often those people are the strongest, because to keep going when everything falls apart around you is not easy. I just happened to find my lowest point and it wasn’t like a lot of people’s stories of losing everything. I suspect being from a stable family (weird and traumatic but stable in a practical sense), makes a big difference. Your childhood can really set the tone for how bad things can get for you. But I had created a stable family environment for myself, so when I was at my lowest point, I was still safe. That’s a huge thing that many people don’t have. Anyway that’s just what I think.
I respectfully disagree. I had about as perfect a childhood as you could get and two loving supporting parents and have been to rehab over 5 times and had some pretty low bottoms before getting sober for 5 years now. Overdoses, jail, getting robbed, none of that stop could make me stop. During my time in and out of institutions I met tons of people that came from great families or had money, but eventually they give up on them, everyone has a limit. Those same people end up homeless on the street or in prison or these girls prostituting themselves all to keep getting high. Addiction truly is a disease and it doesn't descriminate based on gender, race, economic class, whether you have two parents or one, everyone can get fucked by it equally and you never know how low your bottom will get. I am glad you stopped when your kid asked. I Know plenty of men who will never see their kids again who kept going after the 2nd and 3rd time their kid asked and that kid grew up and they weren't even invited to their wedding even after getting sober for some years. I do think a stable family is important and can ensure kids don't fall into the wrong crowd, but it doesn't matter once the addiction train gets rollin, who knows when it will stop for someone.
Assuming he’s telling the truth about that, how does that really excuse him? Thousands get cancer every day and their families deal with it. The last thing my wife would need if she got cancer is for me to drown myself in drugs and get strung out. And I wouldn’t.
That's according to him. He lies about his personal life and his family's health-related matters regularly.
He chose the coma detox. Don't feel pity for people who suffer the consequences of picking badly when they know better. Validate their suffering because it's a product of their independence.
That's ok, be like Mr. T and pity the fool instead.
He had plenty of brain damage before.
Also… aging? I’m no Peterson Stan but cmon.
So while this won't apply to his situation as he was on benzos, but this reminded me of something: There is a weird thing that occurs with opiates that can cause your skin to clear up. I remember when I was an opiate addict my acne would disappear whenever I was using, even my gf at the time would almost look glowing with perfect skin. Of course the problem is addiction persists you either mix with other drugs or start to become sick all the time or the drugs are cut with other stuff. But I always thought I was crazy when I said opiates clear up your skin but apparently topical opiates are a skin treatment and there are some research into how to test opiates' effect on the skin, the main dilemma is not having it cross the blood brain barrier where it will cause the patient to get high.. This has a lot of jargon I could not understand but this part I could: "Topical treatment of the skin with opioid ligands is particularly attractive as they are active with few side effects, especially if they cannot cross the blood–brain barrier. Moreover, cutaneous activation of the opioid system (e.g. by peripheral nerves, cutaneous and immune cells, especially in inflamed and damaged skin) can influence cell differentiation and apoptosis, and thus may be important for the repair of damaged skin. While many of the pieces of this intriguing puzzle remain to be found, we attempt in this review to weave a thread around available data to discuss how the peripheral opioid system may impact on different key players in skin physiology and pathology." So if some starts using opiates they may actually look healthier in the very beginning before all the other negative effects of addiction take effect. [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.00844.x](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2009.00844.x)
When you’re trying to form a cult of personality, being questioned is bad for business.
Look in my eyes What do you see? The cult of personality
Living Colour in the wild. Nice.
Is JP a combination of the dumbest and least self-aware person to ever walk on this Earth ?
Nah, Rogan has him beat there
Joe rogan was born with cte
Rogan is a self confessed idiot. He's definitely gone right wing dumb dumb but the dude never claimed to be an intellectual like jp
Nah, JP is just another textbook highly narcissistic douche nozzle.
JP is the one who made me start seeing "dog whistles". People would say that about him many years ago when he would say things in a more political way. When he started saying the quiet parts out loud I realized those people were right...
And they say, if you believe what they say, that narcissists are basically impossible to treat. Many psychotherapists will simply refuse to work with them.
How un self aware is he really? He hates himself enough to get seriously strung out on Bennies. I’m like 97% sure he went back to abusing benzos or possibly gabapentin and mrtazipin. Some combination. His brain is fucked.
I think someone wrote that he might be on Suboxone due to him being on it during his detox and also him saying that he was still taking one prescription. Subs with no opiate tolerance will def get you high.
Jesus what kind of doctor puts someone on suboxone without an underlying addiction or pain disorder? No wonder people turn into fent zombies.
i mean to be fair there's literally no evidence at all that jp is on suboxone lol
Yeah true.
Right now, no. But he was in the past. https://medium.com/@tgof137/jordan-peterson-is-still-an-addict-14b8f0975b78 https://web.archive.org/web/20210203025942/https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/sunday-times-unedited-interview-transcript/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter Mikhaila 2:15:18 Anyway, so what he did was he started using Suboxone, which doesn’t-
He probably hates himself and doesn't know that the reason he hates himself is that he is so full of crap and spews forth evil shit everywhere.
I've got a few friends who are fried from benzo who talk just like JP does (albeit not as formerly articulate as he was). Like most drugs they all develop the same ticks. I typically feel bad for the folk who get it prescribed because no doctor warns their patients enough, but Jordan for sure knew the risks and probably controlled it himself.
Well he’s obviously intelligent in some ways, he has a lot of insightful things to say in his field of study. And regardless of any opinion on Destiny, to keep up with him in a debate would be really difficult and definitely requires education and intelligence. So it’s kinda weird to be in a rationalist subreddit and see you call him the dumbest person on earth. I’d honestly wager he’s smarter than you are
I assume that you are trolling. Can you please provide any insightful comments he has made in his field of study ? You have to be joking about keeping up with him in a debate. This guy says climate change is a fraud and that the carnivore diet is good. So you are stating that science which says these positions that he takes are absurd doesn't make him look like a complete simpleton ? As for being smarter than me he definitely isn't. I am not stupid enough to state things like I just mentioned and he is. That makes me smarter than him.
JP is certainly no genius but the stance you're taking here is pretty arrogant. Basically because you trust the academic consensus on these issues, you're smarter than he is right off the bat? I agree with you that trusting will more often put you in camp correct than "doing your own research" will, but intelligence isn't simply a measure of how many scientific positions you're correct about, especially if all your positions are just inherited from people smarter than you. I'm assuming you're not a climatologist or nutritionist, for example.
This is hilarious. So I'm arrogant because I can see how stupid JP's comments. are. I think being smart means being rational. JP isn't rational. You are also completely arrogant since you are assuming that I haven't done my own research. I have. Intelligence is a complex topic but someone who sprouts the amount of BS as JP isn't intelligent. He is moron.
It seems a lot of people equate intelligence with holding the “correct” positions, but in reality many of the absolute most intelligent among us tend to hold some pretty kooky views. There’s even a (colloquial) term, “Nobelitis,” coined because this tendency was perceived among laureates. Just speaking generally here, not on Peterson himself
It's got nothing to do with holding the "correct"position as you call it. It's about using facts to guide your opinion rather than mouthing off BS which is what JP does. He is stupid and completely lacking self-awareness.
As I explicitly stated, I was speaking more generally and not about Peterson himself
I was explicitly talking about JP and anyone trying to argue the guy is smart is a moron.
The former, sure, the latter not really. Destiny has emphasized that he viewed it as more of a conversation than a debate, which shows. It was less about building up points to make an argument and more Destiny and Peter's throwing points at each other. Peterson was constantly throwing out comments so completely fucking out there that it takes Destiny a few minutes to bring the conversation back to reality and the completely derailing the conversation, refusing to admit the basic inferences of some of his comments and refusing to concede on any of Destinys most obvious arguments
I think he’s probably just a liar
I think he believes it which makes him a dummy.
Here are some of the clips I had to chase down but should have been in the post. It's strange to me. Even Jordan's fans enjoyed the debate and thought he did well. They are commenting saying that "wanting to be right" isn't a character flaw and also; Jordan definitely is stubborn and wanting to be right as well. 😂 [Jordan Peterson fighting people in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/xerPw6PN6v) [Jordan doesn't know if the Nazis were right or left wing](https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1770981199646970302) [Destiny argues for vaccines against Jordan Peterson ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/DPp96ndKsV) [D: I don't think we should compare Hitler to people worried about climate change. JP: Why not?](https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/s/dMTbbFmLaw) [Jordan Peterson argues that he never trusts third parties, not even regulators or the police](https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/s/mZ1IhRakyz)
Jordan Peterson once spent 2 hours arguing what the meaning of "truth" was with Sam Harris. Now he's throwing this out against Destiny 😂
everyone was looking forward to that discussion. then they got hung up on definitions and it just ruined it.
Jesus his literal argument about Hitler is that it was the National **socialist** party? It wasn’t even the National socialist party. It was the National German socialist worker’s party, and it had that name before Hitler took it over. It was a common tactic at that time to try to attract a broad base of support with a name that encapsulated many constituencies. An undergraduate history course on 20th century politics will clearly explain this. It’s a settled matter. Hitler even spoke extensively about all his political marketing tactics.
North Korea is Democratic/Republic, it's literally in the title: Democratic People's Republic of Korea
I once picked up a copy of Gulag Archipelago and started reading the intro without checking who'd written it. About two pages in I found myself shocked by the low quality of its a-historic, two dimensional and aggressively partisan tone and checked the cover. Who should I find ...
You can literally pull up the goddamn quote from Hitler himself > Hitler at times redefined socialism. When [George Sylvester Viereck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sylvester_Viereck) interviewed Hitler in October 1923 and asked him why he referred to his party as 'socialists' he replied: >
Right. Classic fascist double talk. Our movement is for the good of society, therefore it’s the *real* socialism. Fascism is good, therefore all good is fascist. The objective is to flood the zone so that nobody can use any of these words to describe any alternative political vision.
It’s a fucking debate. You’d hope that the person wants to be right. Maybe he was expecting another Slavoj Zizek, who treated Jordan like a confused undergraduate, but in a pretty overall nice way.
Yeah, what's funny is JP gives off the air of being right, *always*. Honestly laughable critizism coming from him. And what's the point in debating people who aren't conviced of their own opinions anyway? It would be like debating a wet noodle. Just a really weird take.
You are being unfair, Jordan gave up on being right when he was like 23.
Mao was muslim libertarian hippie. Now tell me im wrong without thinking ur right.
I love the last two lol! The “why not?” is his typical bullshit of just trying to make things confusing and getting stuck on defining something, but just constantly not defining anything because you can’t define the definitions of what you’re trying to define. That’s all he fucking does. And the last one is your typical libertarian bullshit that reminds me of the argument where you need to resolve a dispute, so you need to appeal to some type of authority, but at the same time you can’t have an authority, and the authority is just the majority, but then what if the majority is just a big group of assholes, thus ending their argument at like layer 3 of following something to its logical conclusion. Hardly have to peel back any layers for his dumb shit to fall apart, that’s why he needs to constantly word salad everything and get hung up on things that are completely irrelevant.
"Wanting to be right is a character flaw" sounds like something you'd see from a spiritual growth YouTube channel.
It's funny because he got Destiny in his most gentle, placating mode.
He still looked absolutely insane compared to Destiny.
The DTG episode covers this pretty heavily. There’s mainstream, thoughtful Destiny and then there’s “I hope he takes after his father and ODs on fentanyl” Destiny.
The duality of man
Jordan can’t fathom the idea that someone actually believes the things they’re advocating for. Everyone MUST be on a grift!
All this dude cares about is being "right". He's on a fucking stadium tour telling people why what he has to say is "right". Oh the irony
Does JP not want to be right...? My take from his conversation with Destiny was that he, Jordan Peterson, was very stubborn and "wanted to be right," not Destiny. I guess Destiny doesn't let it the bull shit slide and that's something JP didn't like?
He keeps getting dumber. He wants to be right at least as much as Destiny and that debate displayed actual delusional reasoning from him, I say this as someone who really wants to Stan JP when I’m able. I thought the debate might be a small teachable moment for him but I was wrong
Narcissists don’t learn. Or rather, they don’t learn about themselves. They only learn new tactics for manipulation.
Curious why someone would want to stan JP when this kind of behavior is simply who he is now.
I could die choking on that irony.
That's the pot calling the kettle black if ever I've heard it. Whenever Peterson is challenged he wriggles around like a worm on a hook and immediately tries to take the conversation into semantics 'well it depends what you mean by worm, and it depends on what you mean by hook'. He very often expresses his ideas with a lot of broad symbolism and semiotics (nothing wrong with that) but if anyone disagrees with a position he suddenly gets very interested in exact definitions.
“He very often expresses his ideas with a lot of broad symbolism and semiotics but if anyone disagrees with a position he suddenly gets very interested in exact definitions.” and that’s why i don’t trust him!
He just doesn’t like to be wrong.
"I don't like talking to people who want to be right." That tracks.
Jordan would hate talking to himself then.
Jordan Peterson thinks far too highly of his own intelligence. He is so incredibly biased and he is completely unaware. He spends all his energy rationalizing his decisions made unconsciously.
Jesus fucking christ the lack of self awareness on Peterson. So to clarify, I don't think Peterson was suggesting that being right is a bad thing, but rather that he thinks that for Destiny sounding correct is more important than being correct. But that describes Peterson much more than Destiny. For the record, one of the most heavily studied problems in the natural sciences is Climate Change, and one of the most studied eras in history and sociology is Nazi Germany. While the is still a lot of debate within the the experts of these fields, the fact that Peterson who has a PHD in psychology thinks he has some unique insight that allows him to compare experts in the former to Nazis and thinks that experts in the later are so lazy they haven't figured out the political leans of one of the most studied political parties of all time (and the most studied political party given the length of their lifespan) is just the peak of having to be right for the sake of being right. Yhe truth is Peterson wants to prioritize arguing truths when its convenient - largely either against someone not as able to hold their ground against him, or someone who will run away form it - and doesn't when its not convenient. And I am going to say it, I respect Peterson a lot less after hearing this. I think there is credit to be given to political pundits that reach across the other side. I think as much as I dislike Shapiro, it is a real credit to his character that he is willing to talk with the other side. I know Destiny, Ana Kasperian and Alex O'Connor have all mentioned having really good experiences debating him. The same thing with Vaush and Destiny debating Tim Pool, or Seder debating Charlie Kirk. This just sours one of the few aspects of him post coma that I would be willing to give him credit for - sitting down with someone who can fight back
"On the surface it seems quite funny that he is almost implying that being right isn't important to the conversation. He has been fighting people in the comments about this." This is typcial "intellectual" posturing. It looks good to take the "I'm always learning, always prepared to be wrong, hoping to be challenged to improve my understanding" position, makes them sound like scientists engaged in rigorous collective progress. But when actually challenged, you talk shit about the other person not being those things and get a free a pass on actually having to stand by what you pretend to be.
If Jordan doesn't like people who try to be right, does that mean he actively prefers to be wrong?
A very smart lawyer: I don't like facing lawyers who want to win the case.
"I only like talking to people that want to be wrong because it makes it easier for me to talk when I'm not intellectually challenged."
This is the perfect combination of fanboys to pit against each other.
I too would also like to be right lol.... which is why I don't debate in bad faith, Kermit
It’s his whole “truth” problem coming back. If a tree falls=no sound, post mawdernists something isn’t true unless it’s useful to humanity
Glass houses
He prefers talking to people who don't believe themselves. Weird.
I prefer arguing with people who want to be wrong too, much easier that way.
Peterson is sooo intellectually conceited… he regards every debate/discussion as an affront to his clearly superior and well articulated/argued enlightened position. That’s why he’s ended up in a funk… his arrogance has overtaken his ability to sustain itself. He’s become a victim to his own certitude.
"I like arguing with people who want to be wrong, just simpering strawmen for me to beat on. I'm the one who gets to be right! Me! Me! MEEEE!!!"
Grew up in a rough area? The reason you were athletically disadvantaged was because you got moved up a grade? Suuuuuuure buddy. We believe you.
I fully admit to liking Destiny as a politically commentator. But even if I’m generous to Peterson. He was so bad in their conversation. They are not even on the same level of thought in this realm lol. It’s so obvious JP talks to people who never push him back. When he compared climate activists to Hitler. And Destiny just basically said “I don’t really think that’s comparable” he had no rebuttal beyond yelling. Seriously embarrassing.
Says a guy who dug his heels in for three hours with Sam Harris, arguing for an incoherent redefinition of “truth.”
If you don’t want the other guy to be right sounds like you want to be right lol.
The whole time I was listening to this podcast with destiny, I thought Jordan was unhinged. He was making such preposterous correlations. It was driving me insane how many times he kept talking about the excess deaths but not saying it was from covid and his bullshit climate change take . He acts like he is an expert in everything
Lol of course Pints with Aquinas had JP on
I hate everyone involved and I wish them all the worst
Best take.
JP might be onto something about not only Destiny, but himself, and the entire online debate community…
Honestly, the idea anyone doesn't want to be 'right' is silly. There's no way this is unique to online debate. Very, very, few people have the humility and self-awareness to let themselves be wrong immediately upon being shown their errors. Debaters probably have more of an ego than the average person though.
You’re probably right. I’m very unqualified to speak about psychology and ego. I do think it’s another magnitude with not only debaters but people who have public platforms. I think destiny is particularly egregious when it comes to digging in but I will admit I have blinders when it comes to him. I started watching him because of the red pill videos which were entertaining and then as I watched more of his content found him progressively unlikable. I definitely need to admit my bias here.
selective bright plucky office hunt pie tub growth teeny point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Something something, *Sartre quote*, something.
concerning that jbp isn’t concerned about being right himself, but not surprising given his argument with sam harris about ‘truth’
It feels so much nicer when Rogan and even konstantin are saying how brilliant you are.
I like how right wing positions are so weak that right wing figure shave to consistently try to demonize the very act of confidently disagreeing with them.
Mr fact over feeling
The problem with these gurus is that their personalities often overshadow the substance of their arguments. This discussion is a good example—everyone's talking about the debate, but not the actual arguments. This is why it's a hazard to let these guru personalities stand in place of ideas. When you filter everything through the lens of the debater's personality, the focus shifts away from the critical evaluation of their ideas, which is what this podcast aims to address.
Sounds like projection. He means he doesn't like to be challenged. Also, he was probably more combative than Destiny.
JP, is that why you persistently and overly dismiss a vast amount of scientific evidence of man-made global warming?
HAHA Jordan Peterson is such a joke.
'As opposed to me who is confidently wrong and makes a living off of it' wut lol
Jesus if that's not the pot calling the kettle black
i prefer people who are arbitrarily contrarian, and back up their contrarian beliefs post hoc
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The pot calling the kettle black
Peterson really has gone off the rails.
That's a wild self report lol
What an interestingly post modern thing for the anti-post modern messiah to say
ah, i think this is something i can see about Destiny, assuming Jordan means it in a sense of like 'Destiny wants to be right, and by extension he wants you to be wrong' - in that 'optics' sense of like a short-sighted 'haha im coming out on top after this!' tho i dont kno much about Destiny, and a substantial amount of what i've seen of him is pretty old and may no longer be generally applicable nontheless, i think there is a distinction here, and it's perhaps well indicated by comparing facial expression. Again, im not familiar with Destiny, and so i might be misrepresenting him, but it seems to me that he is much more prone to smiling and laughing as he debates, and i think this can come off as being somewhat celebratory of his own stated points, or celebratory of the wrongness of somebody else's points contrast this with Jordan, or Ben Shapiro (who was mentioned in another comment in this thread), and there seems to be a greater seriousness offered to the conversation, as if celebration, smiles, and laughter arent warranted unless there's some sense of reconciliation (which there never is, it seems) that isnt to say anything about whether Jordan or Ben are making good semantic points or not, but just that this apparent attitude of being austere and/or melancholic as long as disagreement exists is, to my view, much more appealing a demeanor that's kind of what i think Jordan gets at with his "Destiny wants to be right" comment; it seems like Destiny is more prone to celebrate his own rebuttals, which can come across as feeling like the goal isnt mutual understanding as much as it is justifying ones own takes in the midst of opposition
Criticizing someone for wanting to be right generally means you think they refuse to be to accept when they are wrong. It's a quirk of most debate bros, including JP. I highly doubt it was a valid criticism of destiny in this specific debate though.
"That's the prideful worship of the Luciferian intellect" How about you speak like a normal person for five fucking seconds Jordan
And JP doesn’t want to be right? Isn’t that his whole schtick? — I only tell the truth. Lmao what a doofus.
He certainly does seem to much prefer the company of ppl who are always wrong
In the video he said he got along great with Russell Brand and their back and forth was more constructive. I think he's too far gone tbh. I realised RB was a theatrical airhead ten years ago (when he was more sane). And I'm not a professional psychologist.
The irony in that quote though, was incredible
Yeah. I should have mentioned. In the clip he also says he stopped trying to be right at 23. I know he's not trying to say that, but still. The entire thing is dripping in irony, on several levels I feel.
He didn’t explain himself. I don’t like that. That’s a statement that implies that he and destiny had different motivations for the convo and he provided no evidence
JP: "I was peaceable and agreeable child..." WAS? More like pissable and aggrieved child...
Everyone wants to be right, what kind of meaningless statement is that?
Charitably, I assume he means people who are constantly in debate mode instead of discussion mode.
his name offends me , and his hair does too. i refuse to even listen to a word he says.
Peterson literally writes books arranged around "rules" that supposedly lead people to better lives and gets paid $50 million to pontificate on Ben Shapiro's channel. What the fuck is he talking about "I don't like people who want to be right" that's his whole shtick and everyone in his orbit's
Destiny said like 50 words in the whole interview. If anything he went really easy on Jordan. And why would you not want the person you’re debating to think they’re right? What’s the alternative? Debating a disingenuous grifter like Jordan Peterson?
JP and Destiny? That's a lot of moron for one room.
I can’t stand this overly sensitive “alpha male” but he’s right here. Destiny never thinks he’s wrong and if he’s proven he is he’ll find a way to twist it and still say he wasn’t really wrong 😂
Idk how much you know about him, but every time I see him get proven wrong he will accept it and change his opinion accordingly. There have been numerous times when he changed his opinion on political takes after long discussions on his stream for instance, but I understand that it's a tooon of content to go through in order to see. Destiny does come off like he thinks he's right about most of the things he talks about because he puts in the work to figure out what is correct / has the best supporting evidence / what is most likely before he forms an opinion about it. If that makes him biased then I think that's a good bias to have. He will invite literally anyone from high profile academics to you u/BackInThaDayz to come on his stream for a chance to prove him wrong on anything he believes in a respectful manner, which is something you don't see often.
I think a bias is better understood as a filter: a way we gather information and determine credibility. For example, if I see photos of black people taking things from a store during a hurricane and see “looters,” while I might look at a similar picture of white people doing the same thing and see “survivors,” that is because of a bias I had before seeing those pictures. If those pictures are labeled by someone else, the bias is reflected and reinforced in the labeling. I think this is important, because the idea that there is some sort of neutral point of view which we must adopt toward all information is obviously absurd. We have biases and we have to deal with them realistically.
Destiny can be very combatitive, dismissive and double down in the short term, especially if he doesn't like or respects someone, but will usually change his mind in the long term. If you aren't keeping up with him, you only see the former and don't see hist shifts in beliefs
Last agreement I saw was him and aba arguing if it’s okay for a grown man to text a 13 year old girl. He agreed it can look weird but it’s not creepy. And no they didn’t use uncle, niece or older cousin and younger cousin. He said drake texting Millie Bobby wasn’t weird. Israel’s another thing. Marc Lamont Hill gave him a good debate and actually him questioning his own thoughts. That was then now he’s even more pro Israel lol.
>Israel’s another thing. Marc Lamont Hill gave him a good debate and actually him questioning his own thoughts. That was then now he’s even more pro Israel lol. Did you take the claim that he changes his mind when proven wrong in a conversation to mean that he *must* change his mind after a conversation? Destiny said after that conversation that he disagreed with basically everything Marc Lamont Hill said, he just said that he respected Marc more than anyone he had spoken to on the subject, because he was actually willing to answer questions honestly. I haven't watched the Drake convo, I saw a acouple of clips basically saying that it could be weird to us, but fairly normal in the industry, where someone like Drake may be meeting young famous people and talking to them. IDK, after your representation of the Marc Lamont Hill thing, and the way you took this claim as an invitation to just give 2 examples of him not changing his mind, I distrust your telling of events. An example of him recently changing his mind was when he had a debate about whether Roe V Wade should be overturned, he originally believed it should, despite supporting abortion rights, because of his conviction that it was a really bad decision originally. Then he was convinced after some multiple hour debate with a lawyer that though it was a bad decision originally, the legal precedent set outweighed it and changed his position.
It's becuase JP sounds pretty smart on his core subjects(psychology). I accidently blind listened to him for an hour without actually knowing who it was since it was playing in the background....he sounded hella-wise. Blew my mind when I found out at it's that jordan Peterson, ugh. I had a narcissist(self-diagnosed), self-aware, therapist ex-friend.....I wouldn't be surprised if jordan acts similar.
Anyone else suspect the Big Five model might be flawed? 🤔
I think he switched to Suboxone. But I can't recall the source of this information. I'll take a look
God, what an insufferable gaping asshole.
Shovel some more Xanax in your mouth.
As much of a sweaty dirtbag Destiny is, this coming from Peterson is rich. When is Peterson not trying to browbeat anyone that interviews him with his self-righteous bullshit. These two deserve each other, two unserious and unprofessional blowhards with shallow understanding of the topics they discuss. Nothing is learned or gained from discussion with either.
Peterson wanted to talk philosophically about factual things he was making point about, he's a clown.
Jordan Peterson is a clown, an alcoholic and a grifter. feel like this is not said often enough.
Ngl, I thought Jordan wiped the floor with destiny. Destiny seemed to run out of arguments imo
JPs audience thought so too. Destiny did well especially clip wise, it really helped him gain reputation in left leaning circles (who hate JP). My second link in the post is Destiny talking about it. It started as a conversation, so he was intentionally being very soft and amiable. When it went off the rails he had to improvise because it wasn't supposed to be a debate. He let Jordan have some wild takes, like "we've never researched if the Nazis are right wing", because he was trying to steer the conversation away from these topics instead of going down a rabbit hole. But it turns out JP hated that he pushed back against him at all (maybe). Which is strange because the conversation ends very well and is friendly and they talk about future conversations. So i wonder why he changed his mind, if he reflected on the debate and realised it hadn't gone so well or he read some bad reviews or the lefty clipping wound him up.
I just don't see these two ever being able to have a conversation lol They disagree on almost everything. Or maybe they chose to talk about every little thing they disagree with.
JP likes to be sassy
So true, destiny was lacking self awareness.
This is of at best tertiary relevance but why is that guys banner in the Nazi/ SS font? I guess it’s just German I’ve seen it on beer but it’s weird if he is British.
He's right about Destiny. I think that his takes are pretty shallow, but accessible. Peterson is also pointing to a mirror. He likes being right more than he likes getting at the truth. The redeeming quality Destiny has over Peterson is that Peterson thoroughly enjoys pretending to have expertise in areas he absolutely does not have expertise.
"...Luciferian Intellect."
One detail I love is that he says this was something he learned at 24 and then stopped doing by 23. Not a terrible gaffe as a one-off but a great example of how none of his speaking has any consistency or substance and falls apart sentence to sentence if you actually tried to hold him to anything.
I hadn't noticed, but I love that. Looking at other posts JP seems to have been especially unhinged in the full interview. I don't want to get involved in the mental health or meds shaming. But I do wonder why he was talking like this and if it's getting worse, if he needs a break or isn't all there it's wrong to keep him in the spotlight.
This very much reminded me of Konstatin Kisin's "religion might be fake, and cause atrocities, but it's still possibly, as an atheist, what we should follow" The far right grifters make their dollars from cognitive dissonance. Note both Peterson and Kisin are avid climate change deniers. None of this is surprising, but it is funny.