Jordan Peterson DESTROYING Woke LIBERALS for 14 Minutes Straight!

Why is society too feminized? Well, I never said that society was too feminized, so if we are going to discuss my views, we should use my actual work, what precisely is the purpose? I'm quoting things you said, why, what is that? you're trying to understand because you said I thought we were all talking about masculinity no, no, yes, we're talking about masculinity because I'm asking you what you think about men and women, no, basically, what. You've been trying to do, I would say for the last 15

minutes

, put me in a Corners sequence accusing me of various forms of misconduct, so why are we doing that?

What's the point here? These are things you said, uh, my job. as a journalist is to ask questions about what you represent and the ideas you defend your work is also to select the things that you could ask about in a way that does not indicate substantial bias you chose three things to talk about with me in the last 20

minutes

that were selected with be very careful, like why did you choose those things because this is my job, if your right to freedom of expression trumps the right of trans people not to offend you because in order to think you have to take risks. being offensive, I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now, you know you're certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of the Truth, why should you have the right to do that?

It's been pretty awkward, well, I am. I'm so glad I put you on this call, well I'm great, you get my point, it's like you're doing what you're supposed to do, which is do a little research to see what the heck is going on and that's what you're supposed to do. but you are exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me and that is okay. I think I have more power as far as I'm concerned too, so you haven't sat there and I'm just trying. I just tried to work. that's what I mean, you got me, you got me, you got me, maybe you just think women should be equally represented in our nation's decision making, maybe it's really just about having proper equality in a body that should be well representative.

I think women should have done it. I do not understand your question. I guess you're doing it right. How about you express it more clearly instead of just insulting me? Look, look, look, look, look at it this way, let's talk about quotas for a minute, so there's a wide range of jobs that are fundamentally done by men, for example, Member of Parliament 99 99.9 percent. I'm happy to give my minute to Jordan. 99.9% of bricklayers are men. If we had rooms for women, it is representative of bricklayers. democracy that has nothing to do with the question the question is whether there is evidence of structural inequality and oppression because women are not represented precisely at 50 percent in all professions at all levels and why don't we have a conversation about having the Women represented it in all professions and at all levels.

Why do we talk about top management, for example? Why do we talk about politics and positions of power? Why don't we talk about it in all areas? That's my idea of ​​patriarchy, which is a system of male dominance of society, yes, but that's not my sense of patriarchy, so what is yours? In what sense is our society dominated by men? The fact that the vast majority of wealth is owned by men, the vast majority of capital is owned by men. women do more unpaid work very few abortions of men and a huge proportion of people who are seriously dissatisfied are men most people in prison are men most people on the streets are men most victims of violent crimes are men most people who commit suicide are men most men most people who die in wars are men people who do worse in school are men it's like where's the dominance here?

Precisely what you are doing is taking a small substrate of hyper-successful men and using them to represent the entire world. structure of Western society there is nothing in that that is vaguely appropriate and I could equally say that one of the most victims of rape are women. Terrible things happen to people of both sexes and you could perfectly usefully say that, but that doesn't provide any evidence for the existence of a male-dominated patriarch, well, that just means that terrible things happen to both genders, so which certainly happens, but there are almost no women who rape men, for example, so there is an asymmetry in sexual violence, well, yes, there is an ace.

There is asymmetry in all kinds of places, but that doesn't mean that Western culture is a male-dominated patriarchy. The fact that there are asymmetries has nothing to do with your basic argument. I want to know what your response is to young people to some of the really big problems facing humanity, like the climate catastrophe, the economic crisis, the precarious job market, because they just don't like that you talk so much about individual responsibility, most of them We will never be able to afford to have all of these assets. You are responsible for them, so what is your advice?

Beyond banal comments like cleaning your room well, you know it's actually quite difficult to answer a question that ends with your comments or benell politely, so you know, I would consider it more opinionated. personal and political statement than actually a question, so why don't you try rephrasing that so there is a real question? What is your advice to young people when you talk about how they should be individually responsible, but when there are things that are so far out of our control like the climate catastrophe and the gig economy, what's your answer? Do you think you're worse off? what your grandparents?

I think there are different challenges. Do you think you are worse off than your grandparents? Jordan, once again, we're not going to mentally interrogate our questions. I am a psychologist and my experience has been that people can do an enormous amount of good for themselves and the people around them by looking at themselves. their inadequacies and their own shortcomings and the things that they are not doing in their lives and starting to build themselves as more powerful individuals and if they are able to do that and then they are able to expand their career and if they are able to expand their career and their competence , then they are able to take their place and that of the community as effective leaders and then they are able to make wise decisions instead of reckless decisions when it comes to making collective political decisions that do not suggest in the future.

At least and I have never suggested that there is no scope for Social Action. I'm suggesting that people who don't have their own houses in order should be very careful before they start rearranging the world, which happens in many ways. Can I explain why? If you feel that someone's personal gender identity and pronouns infringe on your freedom of speech, can't you also argue, based on your interpretation, that teachers can use racial slurs in their classrooms and that not being able to do so would violate your freedom? expression? There's a difference between saying there's something you can't say and saying there are things you have to say, and I consider these made-up pronouns all neologisms of radical PC authoritarians, you get it and I don't?

I'm not a fan of those kinds of people and the reason I'm not a fan of those kinds of people is because I've done my homework, I've read everything I can get my hands on about the development of authoritarian political systems, and I know the literature. from the inside out and the other way around and I'm not going to be a spokesperson for the language that I hate, we had that series of statements from you, speaking clearly is one of your 12 rules and I wonder why in a situation like that in many other situations. What really happens is that you sow confusion.

I don't sow confusion. The journalists then interviewed me. The woman who wrote saw confusion. Why do you think this happens? They misunderstand you in your points of view. and we spent 30 seconds talking about the application of monogamy and she is a very intelligent woman and she knew exactly what I meant and she chose to make that the centerpiece of the article because I would say to attract attention in a way that was completely inappropriate , You know? It's not just the journalists at The New York Times, you know this happens over and over again, that's because journalists read each other's journalism.

No, sometimes it's my fault. I mean, it's not like I always say everything perfectly, but there is. No, I mean it's getting boring to read news stories because there are just mirror images of everything that's been written in the last year and a half and the same old things, there are ten epithets that are generally thrown at me at everyone who meets me. happen to you and people have gone over everything I've said to my students for the last 30 years, almost everything is recorded and they have found absolutely no evidence of any of it, even once I would say that there are many journalists online who actually try to interview . series seriously trying to come to a proper understanding and that what you just told me is a very common thing, you say, I have overcome the evidence, there is no evidence anywhere, it is just me who has overcome the evidence and has been trying to get me out .

For those who have reviewed the evidence and been unable to find any, I stand by my original claim that there is a more radical type of feminism that insists that our culture is best characterized as an oppressive patriarchy, and I believe that all of that is a horrible sociological doctrine and I think it has very negative psychological effects and they will not be limited to men because if it is true that there is something toxic, say about masculinity per se, that will inevitably mean that as women adopt more traditionally masculine roles what Is that toxicity somehow going to go away? but that is a strong man because no one says that there is something toxic about masculinity per se.

What do you mean no one says the term exists? How come he is a strong man, but where did he come from? The term comes from a phrase used about forms of masculinity that are harmful to men and women. It's not about masculinity per se. You should know that I read the American Psychological Association's guidelines for the treatment of poisoned men and I know perfectly well that this is not strong. Strongman, why do you think much of what you say is so popular among the far right? It's not, and you have no evidence of that, any more than there is evidence that people on the far right I don't want neonite websites, oh well, there was a civilization that was dismantled today by various Jewish publications, by the way, which show that the whole thing was a satirical comment by the alt-right aimed at tearing me down, for example, in the first place. and yesterday a far right article was published saying that I was a jewish student, relax, so this is absolute nonsense and I'm not appealing primarily to the far right, there is no evidence of that at all, it's just productivity , I never said, I never said mainly, um Jordan, what I'm interested in is why do you think you get the reaction that you get from the alt-right when watching, you know, the Kathy Newman documentary in the interview, there's 10 million people watched. that in common I'm talking about what I saw and I'm curious to know what your reaction was to the Glee that was exploited by the far right, so I don't deal exceptionally with the death threats, I mean, I think you accept the concept that it was the extreme right that was doing this.

There were 10 million people who commented on that video and about 95 of them commented negatively on Kathy Newman's behavior. Do you think there are 10 million far-right trolls watching that? The trans woman is a real woman. I don't really like the way those questions are asked. You know, I don't know what that means. What do you mean a real woman? Well, I'm asking you mentally. You know, it depends on what you want. I think a real woman is, but do you think a trans woman is a woman? No, why not? Because I think that women in general are capable of having babies and they have female genitalia and they have an XX chromosome and I look at the studies and I'm also really very interested in studies like the analysis done by the American Psychological Society that looks at 45 analyzes of whether there are sex differences for 20 years and his conclusion was that men and women are basically equal in terms of personality in terms of cognitive ability in terms of leadership, but what he did find was that media representations of men and women as fundamentally different perpetuate concepts erroneous just like the workplace and women are actually more equal than different, but the problem is that small differences at the population level can turn into very large differences in the extreme, so, for example, men and Women are very similar with respect to aggression, although men lean a littlelittle more toward aggression, so if you picked a random person from the male and female population and guessed that the man was more aggressive, you would write that down sixty percent of the time, but if you took one in a hundred people more aggressive, they are all men and that is why the overwhelming proportion of people who are in prison are men now.

I want to match that just out of curiosity, what about bricklayers? There are 99 men and we have about three quarters of the population now in the humanities and social sciences universities are women. Are we going to equal that and men work? More hours they work, more dangerous jobs. They are more likely to move, they are more likely to work outside, they are more likely to participate in jobs in the forestry fields that are scalable, they make more money for those reasons and all of that is hidden under the idea that the reason men and women earn different amounts of money is due to their gender.

It is a very simplistic analysis.