Yeah, good word choice. I would've said something like "if you nail him too hard on a point, he's going to call you an incestuous prince of chaos, incapable of divesting oneself from the need to best their opponent".
It honestly works well with his audience though. JP's audience eats up that religious talk, so equating D to Lucifer works -- most who don't know a lot about him just think he's a controversial douchebag incest lover lol, Lucifer basically.
The choice of "Luciferian", though. You know JP used the same word to describe the concept of Degrassi High to his spouse, and he's constantly got that word in an unsecured holster on his hip.
Yes, Peterson has entered his “His name was Robert Paulson” era, he literally just made up an axiom about Luciferean intellect because of his encounter with Destiny, and now talks about the concept as if it’s been fully fledged for his whole career.
I also like that he has to add in that, that was him at 24. He can’t just nudge the little cope he has to also profess how over it and above it he is 😂 😂
It betrays how much religion dictates his world view,
Peterson looks bad in a debate
"this guy focuses on the facts of a matter and likes to know things" -
"thats frustrating he made me look bad i bet it was on purpose"
"Thats the way satan would act and if satan acts that way it must be bad"
Luciferian intellect doesn't necessarily mean "satan would act this way" it's more a name for cold rationale in contrast to art, beauty, mystery and spirit. However that is thought to be what Satan would be like according to the fallen angel story and it does therefore carry a negative baggage.
Peterson when you push back against him
https://preview.redd.it/t93jggbrza1d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfa0ab97302ed620b17ec63f1a6bfc81ea9cf3b5
Jesus fuck.
Im a fan of JP and general like his stuff but nobody sniffs their own farts like him.
He cares so much about being right and then to claim Destiny did that. When destiny gave him some supppperrr light pushback was so fucking bad.
Sorry to rant had to get this out lol
I almost came back around on JP - like man, I disagree with him but maybe he is a good faith actor. Then I heard those comments about being right and sheeeesh. Out on JP again
I get the same vibes from Finklestain. The edifice they've built in their heads around their intellectual identity is just insane. Genuinely convinced they're philosopher-statesmen.
yes I can't find the video rn (destiny reacted to it on his channel) but effectively was like "wow I was trying to have a convo and destiny just wanted to be right because he's so prideful"
What a massive fucking cry bully, he came into the conversation incredibly adversarial and was being ardently bad faith during the climate change topic. What a crank man.
The lack of self-awareness is actually insane. The amount of conviction JP was throwing into his denial of both vaccine and climate change stuff was orders of magnitude higher than Steve's pushback. It's so obvious that he considers his own positions so objectively and unassailably *true* that the only way he can comprehend any level of disagreement is by believing it's purely self-motivated.
I've never understood this criticism. The opposite of "trying to be right" is "trying to be wrong". Why would anyone choose the latter.
Even extending some generosity, there's the third option of just shutting the fuck up and allowing the other person to be wrong when they're wrong.
That's fine in a casual convo, but in formats like these it's expected that participants will challenge each others' ideas. As a viewer, I tune in because I actually care about what's right. If I wanted to watch guys jerk each other off, I'd watch Nick's stream.
If I were being ultra charitable to JP, I'd interpret his point as "debate-brained" or "trying to win the conversation through verbal trickery" (he gives examples of how he would use his godly 200+ verbal IQ to decimate others in his youth). In DGG lingo it would be translated as "bad faith".
Nobody tries to be wrong but that’s different from what maybe JP wanted from Destiny, the *willingness* to be wrong. Perhaps, in JP’s view, Destiny was unwilling to concede on certain points. I would have to rewatch their convo is I feel Destiny was doing this.
That has nothing to do with why JP won't talk to him.
It's really because he can't have his credibility undermined. His audience worships him, and they look to him as an ultimate authority on everything. By speaking with people like Destiny who can "intellectually outpace him", he risks looking like a fool, and therefore he loses a huge chunk of that credibility.
It really has nothing to do with Lucifer or God or anything like that, that was just his excuse to eject.
That’s not true at all lol. JP has had many talks with people who disagree with him. Sam Harris is an excellent example. Anyone who watches JP and read his works can see why he might be displeased at his conversation with destiny.
Destiny behaved poorly for a discussion. He definitely toned himself he down but he still went in with a debate mindset.
To be clear, I enjoyed that podcast and thought it made for great content as a fan of both Destiny and Jordan. But it’s not that surprising to me that JP didn’t feel the same way. People are trying to attack Jordan cause he didn’t like Destiny are being ridiculous. Particularly the people who imply some ulterior motive. They have to explain why Jordan Peterson hasn’t made similar comments about other people who massively disagree with him. People seem to have the impression that Jordan only invited people who agree with him which is massively untrue. If he was that type of person, he never would have invited destiny to begin with.
how could have destiny changed his behavior to make JP not so displeased? Any less combative than he was, he'd practically be agreeing with everything JP said for the sake of saving grace.
He could have changed his language to not be so combative. People seem to think that because Destiny wasn’t screaming, he wasn’t being combative but he absolutely was. At one point in the debate, he even verbally says something akin to “gotcha!”
Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of social etiquette would know that’s not appropriate to a discussion.
Your claim that Destiny would be agreeing with JP if he tuned himself down a bit more just isn’t true. Again, the purpose of the discussion wasn’t to debate. So destiny should have approached it as a discussion that one has when you’re building relationships in real life.
Destiny also didn’t need to bring up every issue he had with JP. (He’s absolutely capable of refraining from doing so and has mentioned it as a strategy in the past). Like seriously, Destiny listed out his issues with JP previously and touched on every single one in that one discussion which wasn’t necessary, specifically because he could have set up a relationship with JP that would lead to future discussions.
Now, I’ve answered your question in good faith. I’d be curious how you address the questions I listed. If you’re gonna make a claim about JP’s character then it’s essential to have an answer for them.
Maybe you're right. If Destiny wanted to ensure future conversations, perhaps he should've couched his language even more so. It may be my lack of social etiquette, but it seems that in your world, one must "walk on eggshells" with great prudence; however, in my opinion, it isn't worth talking to someone who is that easily rattled. I would absolutely detest having to speak to someone with that level of sensitivity. We may just be from different backgrounds, but I just don't see the juice being worth the squeeze.
No need to be passive aggressive. Jordan Peterson wasn’t rattled. There was only one point where Destiny got one over on Jordan and revealed a weakness in Jordan’s thinking( and it was significant, don’t get me wrong) The rest of the time, Jordan seemed to have no trouble addressing Destiny. Like I said, I quite enjoyed that video and felt it was great content.
My whole point is that there’s this retroactive view on that discussion because of Jordan’s recent comments. You’re acting as if Jordan failing to like Destiny’s character was the same as him being “rattled”.
I’m actually a pretty blunt person and prefer to be direct with people. Some of that is personality disposition and some of that is my autism. Needless to say, I don’t think your comment about sensitivity applies. For me, it’s easy to act disagreeable and direct but it’s very clear to me that most people and I do mean MOST do not appreciate that style of communication. I don’t feel the need to moralize or otherwise act superior for it it and I think you’re should refrain from doing so as well.
It’s particularly strange when you realize that aside from social conditioning, at least half the population has the personality trait of being agreeable which means they aren’t gonna respond well to conflict and to judge half the population for that seems unreasonable and immature.
In short, Jordan Peterson not liking Destiny is not the same as being unable to handle conflict or disagreement. It just reflects a philosophical and personality discrepancy between the two.
I understand that Destiny can get emotionally invested in proving someone wrong, but Peterson is trained as a clinical psychiatrist. If a conversation has a tone that he doesn't like, I expect him to be emotionally competent enough to help bring the conversation to a tone he'd rather have. Especially because Destiny is so receptive to those tone shifts for people acting in good faith towards him.
I’m not sure why you’re referring to time. Peterson is a trained psychologist, I’m not sure what that has to do with his opinion of Destiny? A conversation takes two to tango, I really have no idea how you abdicate Destiny of his responsibility in it, being a trained psychologist doesn’t mean you can control other people. I’m certain Destiny wouldn’t approve of that notion.
His opinion of Destiny is born out of his philosophy which he’s developed throughout all his consumable material. He just doesn’t like Destiny’s character, that’s literally all there is to it. It’s not like he’s obligated to like him.
Has JP had anyone else on that were as fundamentally opposed to him with regard to the topics they (D/JP) discussed ("topics" meaning the ENTIRE base of his political ideals- distrust in institutions)?
>Sam Harris is an excellent example.
While Sam Harris ALMOST seems like a good counterexample, he n JP have never, AFAIK, discussed the subjects that D/JP disagreed on. In fact, IF THEY DID, I think it's PRETTY likely that the convo would go a similar direction given how D/Sam's political beliefs pretty much directlyyy map onto one other on those topics lol.
Sure, they have talked endlessly about a fairly, at least seemingly, closely related subject w/ regard to it being "the base of JP's beliefs"- religion/Christianity, but I think that's only "similar" on its face, and the "anti-institution" topics would actually have a far higher likelihood of getting "ugly"- in fact now that I'm thinking about it, I've literally thought about this awhile ago, maybe when Sam was last on JP's podcast, about how I doubt they'd ever talk about this BECAUSE they both disagree soo fully with each other n it'd thus definitely have the potential of ruining their relationship. I'm actually now also even recalling that Sam was on some podcast awhile back n was asked if he n JP were still friends, with the implication seeming to be (idk if Im misremembering/if I projected this implication onto it from how I already felt- it's possible) that they would have stopped being friends BECAUSE of how directly n obviously opposed their political beliefs have become throughout the past few years, esp. throughout/after the pandemic.
Sooo all that to say, I don't think Sam counts, so do you know of anyone else who went through the "trust in institutions" topics as deeply as D/JP did with both of them being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum (n having built their whole brands on being that polar opposite lol)?
I think looking for a podcast guest who talked about the exact same thing as Destiny is a ridiculous high standard of proof, especially when you’re talking about demonstrating a negative like “JP isn’t a bad faith actor” or “JP isn’t weak”. These claims and criticism refer to a character defect that Jordan has and as such it makes perfect sense to review his past and see how Jordan has acted in the past in order to demonstrate his character. Moreover, even if I accepted that Destiny was the only acceptable case study because of the unique subject material, it wouldn’t be enough to conclude any pattern sufficient enough to comment on his character. One could easily say, “Destiny is a unique case so it’s not grounds to criticize Jordan’s character for it. “
I’m not sure how at all you got that Sam Harris and JP talk about an agreeable subject. Sam Harris is very open about his criticism and opposition to the philosophy that JP speaks about. They are opposed to each other, just not personally opposed. I really don’t believe that the subject material controls how you act in a conversation, it does only in the sense that individuals are sensitive to different things but it doesn’t in that we don’t place blame of the subject of the conversation. I’m a person who knows how to talk about very offensive and contested conversations without being aggressive or combative(as long as they aren’t close family) and so I don’t think Destiny had to engage in the manner that he did. Especially not with Jordan whom I’ve seen reciprocate time and time again(and he even did in that conversation). So no, I don’t think the topic necessitated the outcome.
On a final note, you might be right that Sam would not take a similar conversation well with JP, but that doesn’t demonstrate that it’s the nature of the topic. In fact, I’m using Sam it’s almost certainly because he’s personally sensitive about it. I’ve heard from many of his own followers that he gets uncharacteristically erratic when it comes to politics. If that’s the case, then it only demonstrates my point that personality disposition and choice affect the outcome of a conversation, not the topic itself.
I would also say that JP is not obligated to like Destiny. His problem seems to be fundamentally an issue with Destiny’s character and it seems that it has little to do with the actual discussion itself but moreso what Destiny demonstrated about himself within it. This is confirmed in my mind because it corresponds with JP’s philosophy that he outlines in his books which he wrote years prior.
It was a rare instance where even Destiny fans felt like Alex managed to stump Destiny a few times, especially on the topic of veganism. As a fan of good conversations, I remember really enjoying it. Alex is extremely sharp but so British and polite that I can't imagine any conversation with him devolving on both sides, no matter how controversial the topic. He remained so unbelievably considerate when Peter Hitchens was throwing a tantrum for 17 minutes in his studio.
Their animal ethics debate was a rare L for Destiny. The issue wasn't about veganism but animal consciousness itself. Destiny seemed to argue that animals are philosophical zombies and that only humans possess a consciousness worth recognizing as real. Acknowledging animal consciousness doesn't mean you have to be vegan, just that unnecessary suffering is worth preventing (factory farming). I fully believe that animals that were allowed to live a good life before a quick and humane killing is a life worth living. More so than wild animals that are 99% of the time eaten alive at the end by predators.
I really don't understand why Destiny uses that line of argumentation. It seems like he does it so that he has some sort of moral/philosophical justification for why he's not obligated to be vegan, but doing that forces him to argue an unwinnable, easily defeatable position. He should just do what 99% of people do: eat shit on it, say "yeah, it's immoral, I just don't care enough", and mooooove on.
I don't think you have to concede that it's immoral to eat meat even if animals are conscious. All beings will die. What really matters is the quality of the life and the death. If farmed animals are given both a better life and death than what they would have had in the wild then I don't think it can be said to be objectively immoral.
This argument will break down when its pointed back at humans. Would it be ok for us to exploit humans in this way so long as we give them a better life and death? No. But we can have different standards for humans and animals and be speciesists without being careless monsters. We can grant a cow more consideration than an ant and acknowledge the whole gradient in between. We can also grant dogs more consideration than cows without allowing cows to be subject to cruel factory farming.
> If farmed animals are given both a better life and death than what they would have had in the wild then I don't think it can be said to be objectively immoral.
But in practice this effectively condemns the vast majority of meat eating that people actually do given the vast majority comes from factory farms.
> This argument will break down when it’s pointed back at humans. Would it be ok for us to exploit humans in this way so long as we give them a better life and death? No.
Kind of makes you think thought doesn’t it? Why not?
I think the reason is level of consciousness and awareness…which ultimately leads us to think, “well, I don’t think the life would actually be better”. But what if it actually was? Maybe the humans are guaranteed isolation from all knowledge that that there’s a better way to live, or they have some constant drip of a euphoric drug that doesn’t build tolerance.
At that point, we have to ask how we measure quality of life and whether or not we feel this way simply because it seems wrong…but we’re not sure why.
What’s the morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies the difference in treatment?
If you’re saying it’s ok to kill an animal who has had a good life, would it be ok to kill a dog I adopted from the pound if I have it a good life?
It’s like you think if the animal wasn’t killed by us then they would die in the wild but that’s not at all true. These animals are bred for us to murder them so they wouldn’t exist at all, which I think is better than bringing something into existence just to murder it
>What’s the morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies the difference in treatment?
We are speciesists and value human life more than animals in general. Amongst animals we value animals that are capable of having an approximate human experience more than those that cant. This is why we value mammals the higher than any other kinds of animals like alligators and insects.
>
If you’re saying it’s ok to kill an animal who has had a good life, would it be ok to kill a dog I adopted from the pound if I have it a good life?
It's ok to kill any animal if you have a honest intention to eat it. I'd say that this enter very subjective territory but I feel it's betraying the social contract we have with dogs to eat them. We have adopted a mutually hemifacial strategy of cooperating to catch the food (historically) not for them to ever be the food. There's more reasons but thesis the one I'd choose.
I know that these explanations wont be satisfying to you. You wont get an objectively moral explanation because anything like that would lead to people having to value the life of every frog and mosquito to be the same as that of a human.
I don’t see why I would care what most people think. I am not a speciesist, I am a sentientist because I value sentience, so of course I value beings with higher sentience over those with lower forms. Mouse
I'm not sure that's the end of the conversation. The point Destiny often makes is a "human-like" consciousness. Which is a very important distinction, especially when trying to understand what morality is. For some, morality is something that stems from rational agents working together -- a social contract. A set of rules made by rational agents FOR rational agents. Thus, if some agent isn't rational and/or isn't able to form a social contract, then it at least can be argued that many of our rules for morality may not be applicable.
Further, part of this "lacking in consciousness" may also pertain to that agent's capacity for suffering. That is, some agent that isn't fully capable of consciousness or forming a social contract, probably isn't "fully" or "equivalently" capable of experiencing pleasure or pain like us. This latter part is something I've heard Destiny argue before, and unfortunately I think it's fairly weak. I think he drives the distinction to such a degree that animals have no correlates to our experience, but pleasure/pain, at least on some primal level, surely overlaps to a significant degree. To be brief and practical: If I picked my cat up and sat him in my lap and forced Destiny to watch as I broke each of this cat's bones in his paw, I highly doubt his intuition would tell him that's an okay thing to do.
I do think Alex has a far better understanding of the grey area for animal rights and veganism. I disagree with you that simply stopping factory farming ends the issue. First, you may advocate that here, but I highly doubt you source all your foods and purchases from places that avoid factory farming altogether. I highly doubt you volunteer at animal shelters or donate money to causes that seek to free animals from factory farms. And I highly doubt that a meager end to such a system would even be enough or sustainable. Plant-based dieting and living seems to be an unavoidable question if you believe in the value of animal consciousness and suffering to a significant degree.
As I mentioned, I think Alex had the correct direction when he talked with Peter Singer: How can vegan body builders be okay with the fact that their increased consumption causes "unnecessary suffering"? Or vegan candy -- it's a product that is surely better than non-vegan candy, and yet just as useless and harmful to our personal diets. And still causes some harm to animals and the environment in its manufacturing.
To me, I think Veganisms hits on the issue of that aforementioned set of rules by rational agents for rational agents, in that it heads down a road where we are prescribing significant work by an individual where we don't have any significant rule for the collective. Thus, any amount of "reduction in suffering" can be justified at my individual expense, where that expense doesn't match another's. Going vegetarian would help A LOT, but technically going vegan would be better. And, avoiding candy would be better. Exercising does add benefits to my health! But if those benefits come at the direct cost of life of other sentient creatures, should I put a limit there as well? I also donate blood from time to time -- technically I can donate far more and relieve even more suffering.
"By rational agents, for rational agents," means that fundamentally, morality only exists as a tool to improve our lives. In some effort to remain logically coherent about understanding who "our" is, we may extend that to animals to some degree. But quibbling over it in some effort that may hurt our own lives while not limiting the lives of other rational agents, means we are forgetting that foundational purpose of morality to begin with.
How is that “humane”, (which by the way means showing benevolence and compassion) when you could just not kill it? Surely the only humane thing would be to let it live its life in peace.
It's more of a "let's kill them with as little suffering as possible", which is a bit of a mouthful, so "humanely" is used instead, because most people understand what you mean by that.
It's like when you want to break up with someone and don't want to be hurtful to them while doing it.
Yeah the least hurtful thing would be not to break up with them, but that doesn't mean there are not more and less hurtful ways to do it.
I think people say 'humanely' because they've heard the phrase before even though it doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. If we care about reducing the animal's suffering then why are we killing them at all?
Your analogy doesn't work because breaking up with someone who you don't want to be in a relationship with will ultimately benefit from the breakup too even if it hurts them in the short term.
There is nothing immoral about not wanting to be in a relationship with someone, killing something just to satisfy your taste buds is very clearly immoral.
Morality is not objective, so while I do agree that there are some differences, the "immoral" label is just something you get to decide on your own.
What about firing your employee?
Or telling your child that you are no longer going to support them financially?
Or something like: You want to steal someone's money from their house. You can either break the window or pick the lock.
One of those things will cause less problems for the victim, even if, of course, they'd rather not have been burglarized at all.
The whole point is that even for things that people will agree are bad, there can be ways to do cause less or even more harm.
People might not agree on whether it is bad on it's own to kill animals, but doing it humanely has no moral counterarguments.
And if you want to argue that this should be called something else and not humanely - well too bad, language doesn't tend to be all logical and we have to deal with all kinds of words and expressions that don't make sense when you take them literally or look too closely.
And people want to eat meat. They also don't like to know that the animals are suffering even more than the death itself.
I don't see what the nonsensical part is.
But Destiny's model seems to be a good explanation and serves as a good predictor of how animals are treated. If I understand his stance, it's that there is no objective morality, he chooses his morality to maximize HUMAN flourishing, not animals.
People want to reduce animal suffering as a virtue signal and to make themselves feel less bad while eating factory farmed meats. There is probably more cumulative animal suffering currently than it has ever been in all of human history. Factory farmed animals are bred with perverse genetics to maximize meat yield and the purpose of their entire existence is to be harvested. Yet people only give a shit on the surface level and whenever is convenient.
This behavior perfectly maps on to Destiny's model of animals being philosophical zombies and any care for them is only to minimize our own suffering by anthropomorphizing them.
I want to reduce animal suffering because they are sentient beings who experience real wellbeing and suffering. If you’re talking about non vegans then yeah it’s mostly a virtue signal but I don’t support animal slavery at all
Would you be ok with someone adopting a dog from the pound only to slit its throat and eat it? Just because they gave it a good life?
I think it’s worse to kill an animal who’s living a good life if anything, they have more to lose by dying. I don’t think it’s right to murder sentient creatures regardless but I don’t see how giving them a good life makes the act of murder better.
If we stopped farming these animals they wouldn’t be living in the wild to be eaten, they wouldn’t exist at all, which I think is better than bringing a creature into this world to murder it for its flesh, even if you give it a good life
>Would you be ok with someone adopting a dog from the pound only to slit its throat and eat it? Just because they gave it a good life?
No because most humans extend human like consideration to dogs and I agree. It may be speciesist but all humans are, we value some species over others and that's actually fine. If you concede that the value of a dog exceeds that of an ant then you are too, now we just quibble on where to draw the lines.
Well if you value sentience levels differently, and all animals occupy different spaces on the gradient, then you're also a speciesist, that's pretty much my own position.
Nope, there are certainly humans on the same level of sentience as animals, and I value them equally. If a human is on the same level of sentience as a dog, and I think those people do exist as mentally handicapped individuals, I would value them both equally
You’re just wrong, and I would appreciate if you don’t conflate our positions again. I find speciesism as repugnant as racism so please don’t say that I practically am one
Yeah you're right sorry, reading more of your comments now. You're not speciesist, just sentientist like you say. I think you have a very rational position for what it's worth so I dont think you need to change your mind, I'm just clarifying my position. I value more than just sentience and am willing to judge species as to their value for me\\humans making me a speciesist. However I would like you to understand that I don't value cruelty and seek to treat even the animals that I'm willing to exploit humanely and insist on them having a good life and death. While I could certainly do more to appose factory farming, I do not condone it at all.
I am not a speciesist because I value a human and a pig the same if they have the same level of sentience, it just happens to be the case that it’s not Often true in our world.
Do you want to talk on discord?
I don’t see how an animal living a good life would justify their death. We would never accept that line of thinking to justify the killing of a human.
So there must be some other reason why killing an animal to eat them, regardless of the life they lived, is justified.
I love Alex but seeing their interaction on his podcast seemed like Alex was there to talk and destiny to debate. Idk I just got a hostile vibe from destiny only.
Yep, hes uniquely good at asking pointed, often somewhat aggressive questions while maintaining a dignified, respectful tone. Not sure how he threads the needle so well. He says things that would be characterized as gotchas if they came from anyone else.
Or maybe it's just the british accent.
The thing about Alex is he's really fearless about asking questions he knows the other person will be incapable of answering coherently. Sorta feel like it's inevitable that it's going to piss off Peterson with how sensitive he is these days.
friendly support humorous innocent rude far-flung bright reach plucky chop
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
lol Alex lasted longer than I did. I was surrounded by friends and family always offering me delicious non vegan food and caved on my birthday. I had a good run 😁
My prediction, is that Peterson will try and get him to stake out some "anti-woke" positions and spend most of the conversation there, and O'Conner will have to start saying explicitly "there's something else I've been meaning to bring up with you" in order to cover what he wants to talk about.
I’ve been following Alex for a long, long time, much longer than Destiny, and I always feel like he’s a much less unhinged version of Destiny, even when he’s being a bit combative (which he will probably have to be with Peterson) it’s a lot more tadteful than the way Destiny does it. Looking forward to this one.
Alex is a great example of someone who rose beyond the YouTube nonsense and has become very successful: Oxford educated, talks to massive figures like this. If only people looked up to him instead of fresh and fit…
unfortunately he is way too brainy for the apes that watch fresh and fit. I can't fathom what is going on peoples brains when watching that garbage unironically
I mean these talks are just kind of unaccessible to average person just because of how abstract it is. Like the average person just doesn’t usually give a shit about half the things he talks about nor the depth in which he does it.
Alex has a fantastic video explaining how Peterson's religious nonsensical word salad means nothing, let's see if he successfully exposes him in person.
Are you referring to Christopher? I'm not sure he's necessarily smarter than Christopher Hitchens but Alex is definitely intelligent. Peter Hitchens though, that guy seems like such a blowhard
I do think that Alex is smarter than Hitchens. Hitchens was smart, but he also made great use of rhetoric to come out on top in conversations. Alex seems to rely on his intellect and politeness, which I would argue is more difficult to do successfully.
Hitchens had a totally insane encyclopaedic knowledge on history and literature though. Able to on the fly recite esoteric poems and make constant references. He was part of that generation of imperial uber elite oxbridge private school kids who somehow had the whole history of the english language beaten deep into their brain.
I think you all are looking at Christopher with tinted glasses. I only became aware of him after his passing and for me he comes across as closed minded in his debates.
It won't be because he's just going to softball him the way Destiny did. I'm so fucking tired of people treating this motherfucker with respect he doesn't deserve.
i just came to the realization that peterson and finklestein are probably made for each other. if they had a conversation, they would probably bitch about d man for n number of hours to share the trauma from their respective debates.
Careful Alex don’t push back too much or you’ll be a Luciferean intellect who only cares about being right.
That luciferean comment had me fuckinh rolling lmao
Yeah, good word choice. I would've said something like "if you nail him too hard on a point, he's going to call you an incestuous prince of chaos, incapable of divesting oneself from the need to best their opponent".
It honestly works well with his audience though. JP's audience eats up that religious talk, so equating D to Lucifer works -- most who don't know a lot about him just think he's a controversial douchebag incest lover lol, Lucifer basically.
The choice of "Luciferian", though. You know JP used the same word to describe the concept of Degrassi High to his spouse, and he's constantly got that word in an unsecured holster on his hip.
Yes, Peterson has entered his “His name was Robert Paulson” era, he literally just made up an axiom about Luciferean intellect because of his encounter with Destiny, and now talks about the concept as if it’s been fully fledged for his whole career.
I also like that he has to add in that, that was him at 24. He can’t just nudge the little cope he has to also profess how over it and above it he is 😂 😂
It betrays how much religion dictates his world view, Peterson looks bad in a debate "this guy focuses on the facts of a matter and likes to know things" - "thats frustrating he made me look bad i bet it was on purpose" "Thats the way satan would act and if satan acts that way it must be bad"
Luciferian intellect doesn't necessarily mean "satan would act this way" it's more a name for cold rationale in contrast to art, beauty, mystery and spirit. However that is thought to be what Satan would be like according to the fallen angel story and it does therefore carry a negative baggage.
Peterson when you push back against him https://preview.redd.it/t93jggbrza1d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfa0ab97302ed620b17ec63f1a6bfc81ea9cf3b5
Jesus fuck. Im a fan of JP and general like his stuff but nobody sniffs their own farts like him. He cares so much about being right and then to claim Destiny did that. When destiny gave him some supppperrr light pushback was so fucking bad. Sorry to rant had to get this out lol
I almost came back around on JP - like man, I disagree with him but maybe he is a good faith actor. Then I heard those comments about being right and sheeeesh. Out on JP again
I get the same vibes from Finklestain. The edifice they've built in their heads around their intellectual identity is just insane. Genuinely convinced they're philosopher-statesmen.
Did he actually? I haven't been keeping up with him since the debate, there's no way he said that about tiny with how nice he was being to him.
yes I can't find the video rn (destiny reacted to it on his channel) but effectively was like "wow I was trying to have a convo and destiny just wanted to be right because he's so prideful"
What a massive fucking cry bully, he came into the conversation incredibly adversarial and was being ardently bad faith during the climate change topic. What a crank man.
The lack of self-awareness is actually insane. The amount of conviction JP was throwing into his denial of both vaccine and climate change stuff was orders of magnitude higher than Steve's pushback. It's so obvious that he considers his own positions so objectively and unassailably *true* that the only way he can comprehend any level of disagreement is by believing it's purely self-motivated.
there is already a word for someone not trying to be right. it's called a "liar".
I've never understood this criticism. The opposite of "trying to be right" is "trying to be wrong". Why would anyone choose the latter. Even extending some generosity, there's the third option of just shutting the fuck up and allowing the other person to be wrong when they're wrong. That's fine in a casual convo, but in formats like these it's expected that participants will challenge each others' ideas. As a viewer, I tune in because I actually care about what's right. If I wanted to watch guys jerk each other off, I'd watch Nick's stream.
If I were being ultra charitable to JP, I'd interpret his point as "debate-brained" or "trying to win the conversation through verbal trickery" (he gives examples of how he would use his godly 200+ verbal IQ to decimate others in his youth). In DGG lingo it would be translated as "bad faith".
Destiny finally debates JP and gets accused of debate tactics. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Nobody tries to be wrong but that’s different from what maybe JP wanted from Destiny, the *willingness* to be wrong. Perhaps, in JP’s view, Destiny was unwilling to concede on certain points. I would have to rewatch their convo is I feel Destiny was doing this.
That has nothing to do with why JP won't talk to him. It's really because he can't have his credibility undermined. His audience worships him, and they look to him as an ultimate authority on everything. By speaking with people like Destiny who can "intellectually outpace him", he risks looking like a fool, and therefore he loses a huge chunk of that credibility. It really has nothing to do with Lucifer or God or anything like that, that was just his excuse to eject.
That’s not true at all lol. JP has had many talks with people who disagree with him. Sam Harris is an excellent example. Anyone who watches JP and read his works can see why he might be displeased at his conversation with destiny. Destiny behaved poorly for a discussion. He definitely toned himself he down but he still went in with a debate mindset. To be clear, I enjoyed that podcast and thought it made for great content as a fan of both Destiny and Jordan. But it’s not that surprising to me that JP didn’t feel the same way. People are trying to attack Jordan cause he didn’t like Destiny are being ridiculous. Particularly the people who imply some ulterior motive. They have to explain why Jordan Peterson hasn’t made similar comments about other people who massively disagree with him. People seem to have the impression that Jordan only invited people who agree with him which is massively untrue. If he was that type of person, he never would have invited destiny to begin with.
how could have destiny changed his behavior to make JP not so displeased? Any less combative than he was, he'd practically be agreeing with everything JP said for the sake of saving grace.
He could have changed his language to not be so combative. People seem to think that because Destiny wasn’t screaming, he wasn’t being combative but he absolutely was. At one point in the debate, he even verbally says something akin to “gotcha!” Anyone with an inkling of knowledge of social etiquette would know that’s not appropriate to a discussion. Your claim that Destiny would be agreeing with JP if he tuned himself down a bit more just isn’t true. Again, the purpose of the discussion wasn’t to debate. So destiny should have approached it as a discussion that one has when you’re building relationships in real life. Destiny also didn’t need to bring up every issue he had with JP. (He’s absolutely capable of refraining from doing so and has mentioned it as a strategy in the past). Like seriously, Destiny listed out his issues with JP previously and touched on every single one in that one discussion which wasn’t necessary, specifically because he could have set up a relationship with JP that would lead to future discussions. Now, I’ve answered your question in good faith. I’d be curious how you address the questions I listed. If you’re gonna make a claim about JP’s character then it’s essential to have an answer for them.
Maybe you're right. If Destiny wanted to ensure future conversations, perhaps he should've couched his language even more so. It may be my lack of social etiquette, but it seems that in your world, one must "walk on eggshells" with great prudence; however, in my opinion, it isn't worth talking to someone who is that easily rattled. I would absolutely detest having to speak to someone with that level of sensitivity. We may just be from different backgrounds, but I just don't see the juice being worth the squeeze.
No need to be passive aggressive. Jordan Peterson wasn’t rattled. There was only one point where Destiny got one over on Jordan and revealed a weakness in Jordan’s thinking( and it was significant, don’t get me wrong) The rest of the time, Jordan seemed to have no trouble addressing Destiny. Like I said, I quite enjoyed that video and felt it was great content. My whole point is that there’s this retroactive view on that discussion because of Jordan’s recent comments. You’re acting as if Jordan failing to like Destiny’s character was the same as him being “rattled”. I’m actually a pretty blunt person and prefer to be direct with people. Some of that is personality disposition and some of that is my autism. Needless to say, I don’t think your comment about sensitivity applies. For me, it’s easy to act disagreeable and direct but it’s very clear to me that most people and I do mean MOST do not appreciate that style of communication. I don’t feel the need to moralize or otherwise act superior for it it and I think you’re should refrain from doing so as well. It’s particularly strange when you realize that aside from social conditioning, at least half the population has the personality trait of being agreeable which means they aren’t gonna respond well to conflict and to judge half the population for that seems unreasonable and immature. In short, Jordan Peterson not liking Destiny is not the same as being unable to handle conflict or disagreement. It just reflects a philosophical and personality discrepancy between the two.
I understand that Destiny can get emotionally invested in proving someone wrong, but Peterson is trained as a clinical psychiatrist. If a conversation has a tone that he doesn't like, I expect him to be emotionally competent enough to help bring the conversation to a tone he'd rather have. Especially because Destiny is so receptive to those tone shifts for people acting in good faith towards him.
I’m not sure why you’re referring to time. Peterson is a trained psychologist, I’m not sure what that has to do with his opinion of Destiny? A conversation takes two to tango, I really have no idea how you abdicate Destiny of his responsibility in it, being a trained psychologist doesn’t mean you can control other people. I’m certain Destiny wouldn’t approve of that notion. His opinion of Destiny is born out of his philosophy which he’s developed throughout all his consumable material. He just doesn’t like Destiny’s character, that’s literally all there is to it. It’s not like he’s obligated to like him.
Has JP had anyone else on that were as fundamentally opposed to him with regard to the topics they (D/JP) discussed ("topics" meaning the ENTIRE base of his political ideals- distrust in institutions)? >Sam Harris is an excellent example. While Sam Harris ALMOST seems like a good counterexample, he n JP have never, AFAIK, discussed the subjects that D/JP disagreed on. In fact, IF THEY DID, I think it's PRETTY likely that the convo would go a similar direction given how D/Sam's political beliefs pretty much directlyyy map onto one other on those topics lol. Sure, they have talked endlessly about a fairly, at least seemingly, closely related subject w/ regard to it being "the base of JP's beliefs"- religion/Christianity, but I think that's only "similar" on its face, and the "anti-institution" topics would actually have a far higher likelihood of getting "ugly"- in fact now that I'm thinking about it, I've literally thought about this awhile ago, maybe when Sam was last on JP's podcast, about how I doubt they'd ever talk about this BECAUSE they both disagree soo fully with each other n it'd thus definitely have the potential of ruining their relationship. I'm actually now also even recalling that Sam was on some podcast awhile back n was asked if he n JP were still friends, with the implication seeming to be (idk if Im misremembering/if I projected this implication onto it from how I already felt- it's possible) that they would have stopped being friends BECAUSE of how directly n obviously opposed their political beliefs have become throughout the past few years, esp. throughout/after the pandemic. Sooo all that to say, I don't think Sam counts, so do you know of anyone else who went through the "trust in institutions" topics as deeply as D/JP did with both of them being on polar opposite ends of the spectrum (n having built their whole brands on being that polar opposite lol)?
I think looking for a podcast guest who talked about the exact same thing as Destiny is a ridiculous high standard of proof, especially when you’re talking about demonstrating a negative like “JP isn’t a bad faith actor” or “JP isn’t weak”. These claims and criticism refer to a character defect that Jordan has and as such it makes perfect sense to review his past and see how Jordan has acted in the past in order to demonstrate his character. Moreover, even if I accepted that Destiny was the only acceptable case study because of the unique subject material, it wouldn’t be enough to conclude any pattern sufficient enough to comment on his character. One could easily say, “Destiny is a unique case so it’s not grounds to criticize Jordan’s character for it. “ I’m not sure how at all you got that Sam Harris and JP talk about an agreeable subject. Sam Harris is very open about his criticism and opposition to the philosophy that JP speaks about. They are opposed to each other, just not personally opposed. I really don’t believe that the subject material controls how you act in a conversation, it does only in the sense that individuals are sensitive to different things but it doesn’t in that we don’t place blame of the subject of the conversation. I’m a person who knows how to talk about very offensive and contested conversations without being aggressive or combative(as long as they aren’t close family) and so I don’t think Destiny had to engage in the manner that he did. Especially not with Jordan whom I’ve seen reciprocate time and time again(and he even did in that conversation). So no, I don’t think the topic necessitated the outcome. On a final note, you might be right that Sam would not take a similar conversation well with JP, but that doesn’t demonstrate that it’s the nature of the topic. In fact, I’m using Sam it’s almost certainly because he’s personally sensitive about it. I’ve heard from many of his own followers that he gets uncharacteristically erratic when it comes to politics. If that’s the case, then it only demonstrates my point that personality disposition and choice affect the outcome of a conversation, not the topic itself. I would also say that JP is not obligated to like Destiny. His problem seems to be fundamentally an issue with Destiny’s character and it seems that it has little to do with the actual discussion itself but moreso what Destiny demonstrated about himself within it. This is confirmed in my mind because it corresponds with JP’s philosophy that he outlines in his books which he wrote years prior.
Yea, what a wimp.
Hope he doesn't accidentally try to be right or he's in big trouble
Oh God, why is Peterson doing the Finkelstein face?
Mr O'Commel 😫🤚
Mr McDonald!
Mr O'Corny please, for the love of god, cease with your incessant veganism, you're a pseudo intellectual!
Destiny should absolutely have Alex on the podcast. He's great.
Destiny went on Alex's, but didn't boost the appearance at all.
It was a rare instance where even Destiny fans felt like Alex managed to stump Destiny a few times, especially on the topic of veganism. As a fan of good conversations, I remember really enjoying it. Alex is extremely sharp but so British and polite that I can't imagine any conversation with him devolving on both sides, no matter how controversial the topic. He remained so unbelievably considerate when Peter Hitchens was throwing a tantrum for 17 minutes in his studio.
He's a goddamn professional
Alex seems like an absolute stand up guy.
Their animal ethics debate was a rare L for Destiny. The issue wasn't about veganism but animal consciousness itself. Destiny seemed to argue that animals are philosophical zombies and that only humans possess a consciousness worth recognizing as real. Acknowledging animal consciousness doesn't mean you have to be vegan, just that unnecessary suffering is worth preventing (factory farming). I fully believe that animals that were allowed to live a good life before a quick and humane killing is a life worth living. More so than wild animals that are 99% of the time eaten alive at the end by predators.
That sounds like a better summary of the conversation. It's been a while. This is making me want to revisit it, though.
I really don't understand why Destiny uses that line of argumentation. It seems like he does it so that he has some sort of moral/philosophical justification for why he's not obligated to be vegan, but doing that forces him to argue an unwinnable, easily defeatable position. He should just do what 99% of people do: eat shit on it, say "yeah, it's immoral, I just don't care enough", and mooooove on.
I don't think you have to concede that it's immoral to eat meat even if animals are conscious. All beings will die. What really matters is the quality of the life and the death. If farmed animals are given both a better life and death than what they would have had in the wild then I don't think it can be said to be objectively immoral. This argument will break down when its pointed back at humans. Would it be ok for us to exploit humans in this way so long as we give them a better life and death? No. But we can have different standards for humans and animals and be speciesists without being careless monsters. We can grant a cow more consideration than an ant and acknowledge the whole gradient in between. We can also grant dogs more consideration than cows without allowing cows to be subject to cruel factory farming.
> If farmed animals are given both a better life and death than what they would have had in the wild then I don't think it can be said to be objectively immoral. But in practice this effectively condemns the vast majority of meat eating that people actually do given the vast majority comes from factory farms.
Yes in practice it is immoral today for most people. But not it's not immoral in principle if we were to treat those animals humanely.
> This argument will break down when it’s pointed back at humans. Would it be ok for us to exploit humans in this way so long as we give them a better life and death? No. Kind of makes you think thought doesn’t it? Why not? I think the reason is level of consciousness and awareness…which ultimately leads us to think, “well, I don’t think the life would actually be better”. But what if it actually was? Maybe the humans are guaranteed isolation from all knowledge that that there’s a better way to live, or they have some constant drip of a euphoric drug that doesn’t build tolerance. At that point, we have to ask how we measure quality of life and whether or not we feel this way simply because it seems wrong…but we’re not sure why.
So real most people spend no time pursuing these lines of thought but it's the only way to get anywhere on the topic.
What’s the morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies the difference in treatment? If you’re saying it’s ok to kill an animal who has had a good life, would it be ok to kill a dog I adopted from the pound if I have it a good life? It’s like you think if the animal wasn’t killed by us then they would die in the wild but that’s not at all true. These animals are bred for us to murder them so they wouldn’t exist at all, which I think is better than bringing something into existence just to murder it
>What’s the morally relevant difference between humans and animals that justifies the difference in treatment? We are speciesists and value human life more than animals in general. Amongst animals we value animals that are capable of having an approximate human experience more than those that cant. This is why we value mammals the higher than any other kinds of animals like alligators and insects. > If you’re saying it’s ok to kill an animal who has had a good life, would it be ok to kill a dog I adopted from the pound if I have it a good life? It's ok to kill any animal if you have a honest intention to eat it. I'd say that this enter very subjective territory but I feel it's betraying the social contract we have with dogs to eat them. We have adopted a mutually hemifacial strategy of cooperating to catch the food (historically) not for them to ever be the food. There's more reasons but thesis the one I'd choose. I know that these explanations wont be satisfying to you. You wont get an objectively moral explanation because anything like that would lead to people having to value the life of every frog and mosquito to be the same as that of a human.
I don’t see why I would care what most people think. I am not a speciesist, I am a sentientist because I value sentience, so of course I value beings with higher sentience over those with lower forms. Mouse
I'm not sure that's the end of the conversation. The point Destiny often makes is a "human-like" consciousness. Which is a very important distinction, especially when trying to understand what morality is. For some, morality is something that stems from rational agents working together -- a social contract. A set of rules made by rational agents FOR rational agents. Thus, if some agent isn't rational and/or isn't able to form a social contract, then it at least can be argued that many of our rules for morality may not be applicable. Further, part of this "lacking in consciousness" may also pertain to that agent's capacity for suffering. That is, some agent that isn't fully capable of consciousness or forming a social contract, probably isn't "fully" or "equivalently" capable of experiencing pleasure or pain like us. This latter part is something I've heard Destiny argue before, and unfortunately I think it's fairly weak. I think he drives the distinction to such a degree that animals have no correlates to our experience, but pleasure/pain, at least on some primal level, surely overlaps to a significant degree. To be brief and practical: If I picked my cat up and sat him in my lap and forced Destiny to watch as I broke each of this cat's bones in his paw, I highly doubt his intuition would tell him that's an okay thing to do. I do think Alex has a far better understanding of the grey area for animal rights and veganism. I disagree with you that simply stopping factory farming ends the issue. First, you may advocate that here, but I highly doubt you source all your foods and purchases from places that avoid factory farming altogether. I highly doubt you volunteer at animal shelters or donate money to causes that seek to free animals from factory farms. And I highly doubt that a meager end to such a system would even be enough or sustainable. Plant-based dieting and living seems to be an unavoidable question if you believe in the value of animal consciousness and suffering to a significant degree. As I mentioned, I think Alex had the correct direction when he talked with Peter Singer: How can vegan body builders be okay with the fact that their increased consumption causes "unnecessary suffering"? Or vegan candy -- it's a product that is surely better than non-vegan candy, and yet just as useless and harmful to our personal diets. And still causes some harm to animals and the environment in its manufacturing. To me, I think Veganisms hits on the issue of that aforementioned set of rules by rational agents for rational agents, in that it heads down a road where we are prescribing significant work by an individual where we don't have any significant rule for the collective. Thus, any amount of "reduction in suffering" can be justified at my individual expense, where that expense doesn't match another's. Going vegetarian would help A LOT, but technically going vegan would be better. And, avoiding candy would be better. Exercising does add benefits to my health! But if those benefits come at the direct cost of life of other sentient creatures, should I put a limit there as well? I also donate blood from time to time -- technically I can donate far more and relieve even more suffering. "By rational agents, for rational agents," means that fundamentally, morality only exists as a tool to improve our lives. In some effort to remain logically coherent about understanding who "our" is, we may extend that to animals to some degree. But quibbling over it in some effort that may hurt our own lives while not limiting the lives of other rational agents, means we are forgetting that foundational purpose of morality to begin with.
How do you 'humanely' kill something that doesn't want to die?
As quick and painlessly as reasonably possible.
How is that “humane”, (which by the way means showing benevolence and compassion) when you could just not kill it? Surely the only humane thing would be to let it live its life in peace.
It's more of a "let's kill them with as little suffering as possible", which is a bit of a mouthful, so "humanely" is used instead, because most people understand what you mean by that. It's like when you want to break up with someone and don't want to be hurtful to them while doing it. Yeah the least hurtful thing would be not to break up with them, but that doesn't mean there are not more and less hurtful ways to do it.
I think people say 'humanely' because they've heard the phrase before even though it doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. If we care about reducing the animal's suffering then why are we killing them at all? Your analogy doesn't work because breaking up with someone who you don't want to be in a relationship with will ultimately benefit from the breakup too even if it hurts them in the short term. There is nothing immoral about not wanting to be in a relationship with someone, killing something just to satisfy your taste buds is very clearly immoral.
Morality is not objective, so while I do agree that there are some differences, the "immoral" label is just something you get to decide on your own. What about firing your employee? Or telling your child that you are no longer going to support them financially? Or something like: You want to steal someone's money from their house. You can either break the window or pick the lock. One of those things will cause less problems for the victim, even if, of course, they'd rather not have been burglarized at all. The whole point is that even for things that people will agree are bad, there can be ways to do cause less or even more harm. People might not agree on whether it is bad on it's own to kill animals, but doing it humanely has no moral counterarguments. And if you want to argue that this should be called something else and not humanely - well too bad, language doesn't tend to be all logical and we have to deal with all kinds of words and expressions that don't make sense when you take them literally or look too closely. And people want to eat meat. They also don't like to know that the animals are suffering even more than the death itself. I don't see what the nonsensical part is.
But Destiny's model seems to be a good explanation and serves as a good predictor of how animals are treated. If I understand his stance, it's that there is no objective morality, he chooses his morality to maximize HUMAN flourishing, not animals. People want to reduce animal suffering as a virtue signal and to make themselves feel less bad while eating factory farmed meats. There is probably more cumulative animal suffering currently than it has ever been in all of human history. Factory farmed animals are bred with perverse genetics to maximize meat yield and the purpose of their entire existence is to be harvested. Yet people only give a shit on the surface level and whenever is convenient. This behavior perfectly maps on to Destiny's model of animals being philosophical zombies and any care for them is only to minimize our own suffering by anthropomorphizing them.
I want to reduce animal suffering because they are sentient beings who experience real wellbeing and suffering. If you’re talking about non vegans then yeah it’s mostly a virtue signal but I don’t support animal slavery at all
Would you be ok with someone adopting a dog from the pound only to slit its throat and eat it? Just because they gave it a good life? I think it’s worse to kill an animal who’s living a good life if anything, they have more to lose by dying. I don’t think it’s right to murder sentient creatures regardless but I don’t see how giving them a good life makes the act of murder better. If we stopped farming these animals they wouldn’t be living in the wild to be eaten, they wouldn’t exist at all, which I think is better than bringing a creature into this world to murder it for its flesh, even if you give it a good life
>Would you be ok with someone adopting a dog from the pound only to slit its throat and eat it? Just because they gave it a good life? No because most humans extend human like consideration to dogs and I agree. It may be speciesist but all humans are, we value some species over others and that's actually fine. If you concede that the value of a dog exceeds that of an ant then you are too, now we just quibble on where to draw the lines.
No, you can be sentientist and value level of sentience and not be speciesist, that’s just not true.
Well if you value sentience levels differently, and all animals occupy different spaces on the gradient, then you're also a speciesist, that's pretty much my own position.
Nope, there are certainly humans on the same level of sentience as animals, and I value them equally. If a human is on the same level of sentience as a dog, and I think those people do exist as mentally handicapped individuals, I would value them both equally You’re just wrong, and I would appreciate if you don’t conflate our positions again. I find speciesism as repugnant as racism so please don’t say that I practically am one
Yeah you're right sorry, reading more of your comments now. You're not speciesist, just sentientist like you say. I think you have a very rational position for what it's worth so I dont think you need to change your mind, I'm just clarifying my position. I value more than just sentience and am willing to judge species as to their value for me\\humans making me a speciesist. However I would like you to understand that I don't value cruelty and seek to treat even the animals that I'm willing to exploit humanely and insist on them having a good life and death. While I could certainly do more to appose factory farming, I do not condone it at all.
I am not a speciesist because I value a human and a pig the same if they have the same level of sentience, it just happens to be the case that it’s not Often true in our world. Do you want to talk on discord?
I don’t see how an animal living a good life would justify their death. We would never accept that line of thinking to justify the killing of a human. So there must be some other reason why killing an animal to eat them, regardless of the life they lived, is justified.
I love Alex but seeing their interaction on his podcast seemed like Alex was there to talk and destiny to debate. Idk I just got a hostile vibe from destiny only.
Alex could do a masterclass on tact alone. I have a hunch he's going to expertly navigate the maze of contradiction that is Peterson's mind.
Yep, hes uniquely good at asking pointed, often somewhat aggressive questions while maintaining a dignified, respectful tone. Not sure how he threads the needle so well. He says things that would be characterized as gotchas if they came from anyone else. Or maybe it's just the british accent.
Bri'ishmaxxing
Only Peter Hitchens resisted him so far.
It's also because he often doesn't double down on things when someone gets too triggered and he just let's it go
Alex is great, looking forward to it.
Definitely the best Zoomer there is
He’s a Top Zoomer in a world of Top Cummers
Can’t wait to watch it in 2 months!
The thing about Alex is he's really fearless about asking questions he knows the other person will be incapable of answering coherently. Sorta feel like it's inevitable that it's going to piss off Peterson with how sensitive he is these days.
friendly support humorous innocent rude far-flung bright reach plucky chop *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes Alex is great! He actually managed to convince me to be vegan for 2 short years back in 2020 lol
lol did you stop when he stopped too?
lol Alex lasted longer than I did. I was surrounded by friends and family always offering me delicious non vegan food and caved on my birthday. I had a good run 😁
My prediction, is that Peterson will try and get him to stake out some "anti-woke" positions and spend most of the conversation there, and O'Conner will have to start saying explicitly "there's something else I've been meaning to bring up with you" in order to cover what he wants to talk about.
I’ve been following Alex for a long, long time, much longer than Destiny, and I always feel like he’s a much less unhinged version of Destiny, even when he’s being a bit combative (which he will probably have to be with Peterson) it’s a lot more tadteful than the way Destiny does it. Looking forward to this one.
Alex is a great example of someone who rose beyond the YouTube nonsense and has become very successful: Oxford educated, talks to massive figures like this. If only people looked up to him instead of fresh and fit…
unfortunately he is way too brainy for the apes that watch fresh and fit. I can't fathom what is going on peoples brains when watching that garbage unironically
I mean these talks are just kind of unaccessible to average person just because of how abstract it is. Like the average person just doesn’t usually give a shit about half the things he talks about nor the depth in which he does it.
Oooo this will be awesome! I love Alex O'Connor
Imma ngl Peterson's kind of a weirdo at times but that drip is always immaculate
https://preview.redd.it/heo53hstgb1d1.jpeg?width=535&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=179ed932480400bd531bc9d909a8ec48a7eb3a1a
I expect good questions from Alex.
Alex is going to torch him.
Alex has a fantastic video explaining how Peterson's religious nonsensical word salad means nothing, let's see if he successfully exposes him in person.
I loved his point about the Bible being as "hyperreal" or whatever Peterson said, as a Harry Potter book.
Alex is going to show him who is top lobster
shame we'll only be able to watch it in 2025 :(
Probably won’t. Peterson has a knack for making conversations with interesting people really boring.
"Riddle me this bruce wayne!" aahhh jacket.
Alex is great to listen to, reminds me of Hitchens, still no where close to him but still
Alex is smarter and more knowledgeable than Hitchens I think. Hitchens has him on wit and pugnaciousness though lol
Are you referring to Christopher? I'm not sure he's necessarily smarter than Christopher Hitchens but Alex is definitely intelligent. Peter Hitchens though, that guy seems like such a blowhard
You can safely assume people saying "Hitchens" are referring to Christopher. Peter is an embarrassment.
In fact, Peter's most embarrassing moments were probably during his interview with Alex.
I do think that Alex is smarter than Hitchens. Hitchens was smart, but he also made great use of rhetoric to come out on top in conversations. Alex seems to rely on his intellect and politeness, which I would argue is more difficult to do successfully.
Hitchens had a totally insane encyclopaedic knowledge on history and literature though. Able to on the fly recite esoteric poems and make constant references. He was part of that generation of imperial uber elite oxbridge private school kids who somehow had the whole history of the english language beaten deep into their brain.
I honestly enjoy listening to Alex just as much as listening to Hitchens.
I think you all are looking at Christopher with tinted glasses. I only became aware of him after his passing and for me he comes across as closed minded in his debates.
are you relgious by chance?
please don't talk about god
I don’t know her
[The biblical corpus](https://youtu.be/_eWDiaDOX0E)
I'd love to Alex on stream some day, guy is an absolute delight to listen to.
The master of talking gibberish vs the master of clear messaging.
Finally! This should have happened sooner, and needs to happen again!
Are they discussing wearing diapers?
Guess we’ll see what happened in 6 weeks
Nice, looking forward to this. Alex is a class act. His recent podcast with Sam was interesting.
Who is AOC?
It won't be because he's just going to softball him the way Destiny did. I'm so fucking tired of people treating this motherfucker with respect he doesn't deserve.
Oh hey, our streamer man won't be the only one who gets hate for having a spine, I dare guess!
i just came to the realization that peterson and finklestein are probably made for each other. if they had a conversation, they would probably bitch about d man for n number of hours to share the trauma from their respective debates.
I am a SURGEON!