Society/Culture Jordan B Peterson

[Bloods86]

Vaush and destiny suck, they're just the progressive grifters

It's all just content for clicks and money to all of them these days and their fans can be pretty rabid too

Probably not the thread to go down that rabbit hole... but re: "grifter", you'd have to show that they don't actually believe what they say. And I don't think you can. Maybe you can try and make a case that they aren't very effective or helpful, but that's not grifting.

Like with JP, I think he genuinely believes some of the nonsense he says, but some things there's no excuse for him not knowing the facts and I think he deliberately obscures or is vague about his religious beliefs (or lack of) because $$$ and audience size. So grifting sometimes, not others.

 

[Coolangatta]

Vaush and destiny suck, they're just the progressive grifters

It's all just content for clicks and money to all of them these days and their fans can be pretty rabid too

Are they flawed? Absolutely. But do you know how valuable it is to shatter the optics that Peterson and Shapiro are NOT these master debaters that will own any leftie that dares to combat them. I think that matters a huge deal, especially with Ben, the conservatives loved to make it out like Ben is just this god tier debater that no one can combat.

And that's bullshit. The Andrew Neil interview helped shatter the illusion of Ben's halo but it didn't have big enough reach because he still has a large following. I'm not saying Ben and JP are gonna lose their big followings overnight but seeing some competent debaters on the left side is so important because the progressives then cannot easily be all dismissed as unhinged which is ironic given the belief system of modern conservatives.

 

[Gralin]

So much time wasted watching debate bros try and prove who is smarter

It's entertaining sure but its not good

It's like Dawkins and co running around on tv decades ago debating Christians on American TV

The most they achieved was a rabid following of wanna be atheists

They didn't break the church or the conservatives faith

This is the same you end up with Shapiro fans and destiny fans arguing who won and no actual work to fix or change anything happens

 

[Bloods86]

So much time wasted watching debate bros try and prove who is smarter

It's entertaining sure but its not good

It's like Dawkins and co running around on tv decades ago debating Christians on American TV

The most they achieved was a rabid following of wanna be atheists

They didn't break the church or the conservatives faith

This is the same you end up with Shapiro fans and destiny fans arguing who won and no actual work to fix or change anything happens

You're entitled to your opinion, and you can argue about how effective the debates are, that they never change minds, or how effective/credible the attempts by some of these figures to get their audiences involved at a community level or in political campaigns are.

But I also suspect if the preferred outcome is to just tear the whole system down somehow (as I think you believe from other threads), then nothing these guys do is going to be very satisfactory.

 

[Gralin]

You're entitled to your opinion, and you can argue about how effective the debates are, or how effective/credible the attempts by some of these figures to get their audiences involved at a community level or in political campaigns are.

But I also suspect if the preferred outcome is to just tear the whole system down somehow (as I think you believe from other threads), then nothing these guys do is going to be very satisfactory.

Someone pro Dems isn't looking for change
Someone pro Israel isn't looking for change

I don't think any of these people should be put on pedestals

The parasocial relationships people have with them are dangerous

Because at some point people start believing what they say just because they said it.

 

[Bloods86]

Someone pro Dems isn't looking for change
Someone pro Israel isn't looking for change

I don't think any of these people should be put on pedestals

The parasocial relationships people have with them are dangerous

Because at some point people start believing what they say just because they said it.

I think you're being a bit simplistic in your characterisation of these guys and what they are saying. Destiny maybe more so, but not entirely, and Vaush definitely not, are not "Pro Dem" in the way you make it sound. They both criticise the Dems, Vaush even more rabidly. I just don't think it's very serious engagement to assume that because someone is advocating for voting one way over the only other current alternative (in reality), and providing information on the good things that party/candidate has done or tried to do, that it means they want zero change to the system. It's about going the least worse option so that things don't become even harder to change in the future.

I don't think they should be put on pedestals either, they are fallible humans like the rest of us. However, I think they can be useful to good ends, even if not as effective as some/I would like.

The parasocial relationship and skipping the "forming views" step of having views, are not really related to there being figures that discuss and debate politics, that people watch and support. That there is a potential for bad outcomes from an over-reliance on something, does not mean the thing itself is inherently or entirely bad.

 

[ShanDog]

Someone pro Dems isn't looking for change
Someone pro Israel isn't looking for change

I don't think any of these people should be put on pedestals

The parasocial relationships people have with them are dangerous

Because at some point people start believing what they say just because they said it.

Is there anyone of opposing viewpoints to yourself that you respect and can listen to?

 

[Gralin]

I think you're being a bit simplistic in your characterisation of these guys and what they are saying. Destiny maybe more so, but not entirely, and Vaush definitely not, are not "Pro Dem" in the way you make it sound. They both criticise the Dems, Vaush even more rabidly. I just don't think it's very serious engagement to assume that because someone is advocating for voting one way over the only other current alternative (in reality), and providing information on the good things that party/candidate has done or tried to do, that it means they want zero change to the system. It's about going the least worse option so that things don't become even harder to change in the future.

I don't think they should be put on pedestals either, they are fallible humans like the rest of us. However, I think they can be useful to good ends, even if not as effective as some/I would like.

The parasocial relationship and skipping the "forming views" step of having views, are not really related to there being figures that discuss and debate politics, that people watch and support. That there is a potential for bad outcomes from an over-reliance on something, does not mean the thing itself is inherently or entirely bad.

I just don't see the real value in them
I certainly don't see the point in getting excited about them going on conservative shows to debate their opponents because the fans of those shows generally are not going to be oh my guy lost I should change my views

They're as likely to double down as anything

People not interested so far might tune in for the big debate and start their journey down the rabbit hole

I just see it as legitimising people like Shapiro and Jorpy further

And yeah an American progressive is largely not that progressive and focusing on US entertainment politics warps your views

I think they all do more damage than good

 

[Gralin]

I also can't think of anything worse to do with my time than spend hours watching YouTube videos so I'm not their target demographic though

 

[Bloods86]

I just don't see the real value in them
I certainly don't see the point in getting excited about them going on conservative shows to debate their opponents because the fans of those shows generally are not going to be oh my guy lost I should change my views

They're as likely to double down as anything

People not interested so far might tune in for the big debate and start their journey down the rabbit hole

I just see it as legitimising people like Shapiro and Jorpy further

And yeah an American progressive is largely not that progressive and focusing on US entertainment politics warps your views

I think they all do more damage than good

I think you raise points which are valid in some cases. But I also think there are other cases where people do actually have their views shifted in a legitimate way (not just following the opinion of whoever debates good).

Destiny for example, I think treats Shapiro with too much respect. He may be playing the game, so he can continue to reach Shapiro's audience, but on the flip side, Destiny makes it clear (outside of these cordial interactions) in no uncertain terms that he thinks the Republican/conservative side of politics in the US currently is majorly off the deep end vs reality on a variety of issues/topics.

I'm not sure how you could characterise the Destiny / JP discussion as legitimising JP that much, given Destiny's willingness to just say outright "that's not true", "no way that's true", "that's not what happened" (or in similar words) many times. I've probably only watched about 3/4 of it though. Unless of course, just engaging with them at all is seen as legitimising them. I have differing views on this, since I grew up very conservative and it was partially through patient friends who engaged with me, that my views changed or mellowed out on some topics (even before a bigger shift later on). Rather than just refusing to be my friend, or to talk about certain things, or to just continually call me an idiot (though there were times that happened).

Now, obviously there needs to be some responsibility when you're engaging publicly with someone who has "problematic" views (like JP), and this is where people like Joe Rogan fall over a lot (partially because he may agree with them), but I think in most cases, and maybe it's tactical sometimes, that Destiny, Vaush etc will push back against most things, rather than legitimise them. And having people that will do that publicly, is better imo than just leaving large sections of the population thinking there are no alternative views held by sensible sounding people.

 

[Coolangatta]

I also can't think of anything worse to do with my time than spend hours watching YouTube videos so I'm not their target demographic though

Now that's a fair point.

But a lot of young people these days spend time on/get their information from YouTube/Podcasts/Social Media and that's not going away, it's probably only going to get worse.

It might be a much nicer world if people ditched the smart phones, podcasts, and social media and went back to getting off their ass and going to a book store to learn more about the world, but that's not the trajectory we're on.

I don't dabble much into the YouTube world myself either but I can't say I've always felt like I just wasted my time. I've gotten something out of it but you're right that most people are probably not gonna change their minds.

That's not necessarily always the goal, though, but instead to reduce radicalisation and polarisation.

 

[Bloods86]

Now that's a fair point.

But a lot of young people these days spend time on/get their information from YouTube/Podcasts/Social Media and that's not going away, it's probably only going to get worse.

It might be a much nicer world if people ditched the smart phones, podcasts, and social media and went back to getting off their ass and going to a book store to learn more about the world, but that's not the trajectory we're on.

I don't dabble much into the YouTube world myself either but I can't say I've always felt like I just wasted my time. I've gotten something out of it but you're right that most people are probably not gonna change their minds.

That's not necessarily always the goal, though, but instead to reduce radicalisation and polarisation.

I'm now mid/late 30s and I've actually gone the other way. Used to be a voracious reader (of books) when younger and have progressed more to YouTube for general political/social and US political discussion. Some of it is time, energy levels i.e. reading a book requires more focus, whereas you can listen to/watch something while driving (listening obviously), cooking, doing other household stuff. I do read articles, so not entirely visual/verbal, but not much in the way of books any more. If some look down on that, eh.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Now that's a fair point.

But a lot of young people these days spend time on/get their information from YouTube/Podcasts/Social Media and that's not going away, it's probably only going to get worse.

It might be a much nicer world if people ditched the smart phones, podcasts, and social media and went back to getting off their ass and going to a book store to learn more about the world, but that's not the trajectory we're on.

I don't dabble much into the YouTube world myself either but I can't say I've always felt like I just wasted my time. I've gotten something out of it but you're right that most people are probably not gonna change their minds.

That's not necessarily always the goal, though, but instead to reduce radicalisation and polarisation.

Blaming youth/social media for everything, while boomers with all the power have long consumed Murdoch media, for example.

 

[Coolangatta]

Blaming youth/social media for everything, while boomers with all the power have long consumed Murdoch media, for example.

With you 100% on that, I called out my brother on that when he was going on about the stupidity of the younger generation and all that. I said the average young person is not the one making decisions in government etc that are screwing people over.

Unfortunately legacy media still has a tight grip on the minds of American people. I think Tucker *head Carlson's viewers have gone down since he left Fox? So he's trying to muscle in on Shapiro's dickhead audience, I believe.

 

[Coolangatta]

I'm now mid/late 30s and I've actually gone the other way. Used to be a voracious reader (of books) when younger and have progressed more to YouTube for general political/social and US political discussion. Some of it is time, energy levels i.e. reading a book requires more focus, whereas you can listen to/watch something while driving (listening obviously), cooking, doing other household stuff. I do read articles, so not entirely visual/verbal, but not much in the way of books any more. If some look down on that, eh.

That's true. Tolstoy's War and Peace has been a real grind for me, it's holding me back from moving on to other books so I'm gonna leave it on the back burner for a while. I just can't get into it enough to want to keep going, in fact I think it's just that I strongly prefer non-fiction. 100% right about the focus issue, though.

 

[Gralin]

Now that's a fair point.

But a lot of young people these days spend time on/get their information from YouTube/Podcasts/Social Media and that's not going away, it's probably only going to get worse.

its not just young people though, its everyone, which social media they are using for their news might be different

youtube vs facebook vs tik tok vs insta or twitch etc

but far more people are watching online content these days for their news and politics

It might be a much nicer world if people ditched the smart phones, podcasts, and social media and went back to getting off their ass and going to a book store to learn more about the world, but that's not the trajectory we're on.

there is plenty of good stuff you can get from online but I just think watching debate bros is largely not it

for starters if they're live debating how do you fact check anything anyone says

you can't

unless you then follow up the debate with analysis at a later date, which most people wont watch

its kind of the equivalent of the politicians announcement vs the details of the policy

I think you raise points which are valid in some cases. But I also think there are other cases where people do actually have their views shifted in a legitimate way (not just following the opinion of whoever debates good).

clearly yes because if this didn't influence anyone the christian right in america would not put billions into doing it

that is in part the problem though, one side of the argument is being funded very heavily

Destiny for example, I think treats Shapiro with too much respect. He may be playing the game, so he can continue to reach Shapiro's audience, but on the flip side, Destiny makes it clear (outside of these cordial interactions) in no uncertain terms that he thinks the Republican/conservative side of politics in the US currently is majorly off the deep end vs reality on a variety of issues/topics.

I'm not sure how you could characterise the Destiny / JP discussion as legitimising JP that much, given Destiny's willingness to just say outright "that's not true", "no way that's true", "that's not what happened" (or in similar words) many times. I've probably only watched about 3/4 of it though. Unless of course, just engaging with them at all is seen as legitimising them. I have differing views on this, since I grew up very conservative and it was partially through patient friends who engaged with me, that my views changed or mellowed out on some topics (even before a bigger shift later on). Rather than just refusing to be my friend, or to talk about certain things, or to just continually call me an idiot (though there were times that happened).

see above on the whole you can't fact check live though

does Destiny saying that isn't true cut through at all to JPs fans? I doubt it will, maybe some will go and look it up for themselves afterwards, we can hope

Now, obviously there needs to be some responsibility when you're engaging publicly with someone who has "problematic" views (like JP), and this is where people like Joe Rogan fall over a lot (partially because he may agree with them), but I think in most cases, and maybe it's tactical sometimes, that Destiny, Vaush etc will push back against most things, rather than legitimise them. And having people that will do that publicly, is better imo than just leaving large sections of the population thinking there are no alternative views held by sensible sounding people.

I don't disagree I just think that history shows that we don't want to be relying on one or two guys to do it, we don't want to lionise them

we also tend to end up with the same "sort" of guys as the champions of the left over and over and its very much the same type of voices which is a problem

 

[Coolangatta]

But obviously we should be skeptics of books, too, not just alternative media/podcasts. Last book I read before the grating War and Peace was something like the science of longevity and health by Dr. Peter Attia.

He's got his own podcast, he's been on Rogan (probably why his book was one of the best sellers), and he's got a bit of the "look at me, I'm a tough guy" thing about him. Have never listened to an episode of his pod.

Anyway, I thought it was a good book but doctor or not, his whole pro-intermittent fasting thing was... interesting, considering that it's now recently come out that it can increase your risk of a heart attack.

 

[Coolangatta]

I've definitely noticed an annoying trend of people, or relationship between skepticism and contrarianism, like as if taking the opposition view to mainstream consensus makes you look like a critical thinker, when all it does is make you look like a *******.

 

[Gralin]

But obviously we should be skeptics of books, too, not just alternative media/podcasts. Last book I read before the grating War and Peace was something like the science of longevity and health by Dr. Peter Attia.

He's got his own podcast, he's been on Rogan (probably why his book was one of the best sellers), and he's got a bit of the "look at me, I'm a tough guy" thing about him. Have never listened to an episode of his pod.

Anyway, I thought it was a good book but doctor or not, his whole pro-intermittent fasting thing was... interesting, considering that it's now recently come out that it can increase your risk of a heart attack.

yeah i saw that the 8 hour eating window and 91% increase risk of heart attack

 

[Coolangatta]

yeah i saw that the 8 hour eating window and 91% increase risk of heart attack

Scary thing is, I've done this myself before. Not taking the chance anymore, and I like to eat so any excuse to eat more is a-okay with me.

 

[Chief]

Maybe consider making it a casual weekend job at least. Otherwise what the hell is the point of posting on here besides a circle-jerk with the like-minded?

The assumption there is that lot are the only people with whom I have differences of opinion.

 

[ShanDog]

Needs to be said that there are also plenty of online platforms (much like this right here) where people discuss the debate bros and all the other pundits out there. We can say social media has caused a lot of negative things, but here we are discussing stuff and being exposed to counter viewpoints. It's not all bad, and even the somewhat dodgy online mouthpieces have their place.

 

[Bloods86]

does Destiny saying that isn't true cut through at all to JPs fans? I doubt it will, maybe some will go and look it up for themselves afterwards, we can hope

Well one would hope, as these guys often do, is provide more detail about why they say it's not true/reasonable, or where the data comes from, or at least provide the counter point as to what is true/reasonable, rather than just yelling "it's not true, it's not tuurrruuuueee!" over and over.

There is only so much one can do in a debate, yes, it has limitations as a format. But we know that certain viewpoints are going to occupy the space regardless, preaching to large audiences, having faux debates or conservative lovefests, so I don't see anything "wrong" with people turning up or hosting events to challenge them (granted, there are pros and cons with almost every action).

I don't disagree I just think that history shows that we don't want to be relying on one or two guys to do it, we don't want to lionise them

we also tend to end up with the same "sort" of guys as the champions of the left over and over and its very much the same type of voices which is a problem

Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the guys doing it. Well, not for this reason, even if you think it is invalid.

 

[Gralin]

Well one would hope, as these guys often do, is provide more detail about why they say it's not true/reasonable, or where the data comes from, or at least provide the counter point as to what is true/reasonable, rather than just yelling "it's not true, it's not tuurrruuuueee!" over and over.

There is only so much one can do in a debate, yes, it has limitations as a format. But we know that certain viewpoints are going to occupy the space regardless, preaching to large audiences, having faux debates or conservative lovefests, so I don't see anything "wrong" with people turning up or hosting events to challenge them (granted, there are pros and cons with almost every action).


Sure, but that doesn't invalidate the guys doing it. Well, not for this reason, even if you think it is invalid.

I just don't personally think Vaush or Destiny should be who we're hoping for

 

[Chief]

Jordan and Vaush could exchange racy goblin drawings. A true meeting of minds.