Name: Joe Rogan Experience #1933 - Jordan Peterson
Uploaded: 2023-01-28T00:00:00.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1933 - Jordan Peterson' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2023-01-28. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1933 - Jordan Peterson' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2023-01-28. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #1933 - Jordan Peterson

Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out.
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Showing by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day.
Hello, Jordan Peterson.
I didn't even notice you have a two-tone suit going on.
Can I tell you about this suit?
Please do.
Okay.
Well, the company made this for me, LGFG.
They made me a dozen suits.
Yeah?
One for each rule from 12 Rules for Life.
Ah.
The rules are printed on the back of this.
Underneath the collar.
This is a heaven and hell suit.
So it's quite fun.
Which one's hell?
I'll show you in a sec.
So this is...
Hell's red, Joe.
Come on.
But that's not really red.
Well, you know, it's stylish.
Yeah, it's...
Okay, hell's magenta.
Okay, hell's magenta.
Yeah, it's designer hell.
Ah, nice.
So this is made out of sheep's wool, and this is made out of goat's wool.
So that's pretty funny.
And then in here, you've got your basic heaven lining and your basic hell
lining.
Oh, okay.
Yeah, so...
I don't think I've ever seen a man walk around with a...
I think you're one up.
Am I one up?
Yeah, you're one up.
Are you?
No, that's good.
No, you're good?
It's double-breasted.
Double-breasted.
Fancy.
Yeah.
Fancy.
I've got one suit with you in the lining, too.
Oh, no.
I was going to wear it today.
I thought about wearing it.
It's a black suit with platinum wires in it, which is kind of cool.
And inside, it's got black and white images of, like, really sharp, harsh
graphic images of you and Brett Weinstein and Ben Shapiro and Russell Brand.
And, you know, as an assortment to the...
Oh, that whole intellectual dark web thing?
Sam's in there.
Sam's in there, too.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I still have hope for Sam Harris.
Yeah, me, too.
Me, too.
Yeah, I hope he makes a comeback.
I mean, he's not really going away.
He's just got some weird opinions.
Yeah, well, there's plenty of that floating around.
Well, you know, I think when you have, like, complex, fascinating brains, they
go off in all kinds of different directions, don't you think?
This is one of the dangers of being creative, right?
Most creative ideas are wrong, and a good section of those wrong ones are fatal.
But now and then you get one that's necessary.
Yeah, we were talking about Twitter files before we got rolling and what the
new stuff is.
So the new stuff has something to do with AI and some sort of content
moderation?
Oh, yeah.
Well, Tabby released some Twitter files today on Twitter, obviously, and they're
going through the code.
Now, I don't understand the technical details, but, you know, you don't exactly
know when you see the output of a code-generated system exactly what rules it's
using to sort the information.
I suppose that's the equivalent of shadow banning.
And there's all sorts of, there was apparently all sorts of directives built
into the code to amplify certain kinds of messages and, you know, de-amplify
others.
And so, apparently, Musk is doing what he can to clean that up.
Rubin reported that the other day.
And then Tabby today, he was talking more about the whole Russian collusion
fabrication.
Yeah.
So that's also real fun.
Well, how about the one guy that was going after Trump who, it turned out, was
actually in collusion with the Russians?
Oh, yeah, that's a rough one.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, the best defense is a good offense, you know, and so.
I guess.
I guess.
Yeah, I guess.
I know.
We're in a crazy world.
But it's just like, why would anybody not think that that was going to come
around to get them?
It's amazing how often people don't think that, you know, what they're doing
isn't going to end up aimed squarely at them.
Well, this Twitter thing, right?
Like, they never suspected that someone like Elon was going to come along and
buy Twitter and then, in an unheard of tactic, have a bunch of journalists
review everything in all of their Slack meetings and all their emails, look
under the code, look under the wiring under the machine and find out how it was
actually running.
And, well, I mean, the fact that anyone would ever think that any of this stuff
is a good idea, that people don't understand, like, the dangers of censorship,
they don't understand where this leads to.
Yeah, well, we're seeing a little bit of that emerge on the right now, you know,
which is kind of frightening to me.
So, I'm an admirer in many ways of what's going on in Florida, you know, with
DeSantis.
But him and Rufo, who I also think has got a bit of a clue, are trying to, what
would you say, limit or even ban critical race theory.
And the problem with that is you can't define it, right?
Right.
So, how do you control something you can't define?
And the answer is you battle it out on the battleground of ideas, because as
soon as you start to try to define it and then try to censor it, well, first of
all, that's just going to grow, because that's how those things work.
You know, like, where does critical race theory shade into Marxism?
Well, who the hell knows?
Where does Marxism shade into socialism?
That's an even harder question.
Then, where does socialism shade into, you know, just being on the side of the
working class?
Well, all that's fuzzy beyond belief.
And so, once you get to the point where the government has to step in and
regulate, say, what education systems are doing, you're already in deep trouble.
And because I can't, I don't see how it can really be done.
Because I can't define critical race theory.
You know, I mean, more or less, you can get some sense of the cloud of ideas
that's associated with it.
But trying to draw the lines, how are you going to do that?
And then, of course, you enable, inevitably, no matter what your goal is to
begin with, you're going to control a certain form, let's say, of pathological
communication, misinformation.
That's just going to play into the hands of people who like to censor, and that's
just as likely on the right as it is on the left.
So, no, it's a real dangerous game.
And there's a problem, like, the term critical race theory is, it's open to
interpretation.
Yeah, well, it's often even hard, except in retrospect, to understand a lot of
what these things actually are, you know, because new clouds of ideas emerge.
And they kind of have an animating spirit, and they have a set of associated,
what would you say, presumptions, and you can often only see what that is in
retrospect.
You know, it took me a long time to understand whatever existentialism was,
enough to sort of define it, phenomenology, these different schools of thought
that occupied the thoughts of psychological investigators over a couple of
centuries, post-modernism, modernism.
You know, it's not an easy thing to extract out the gist of those and define
them.
Plus, as I said, they have very fuzzy boundaries.
Well, what I saw with DeSantis was there was, he had a concern that they, that
it wasn't just black history that they were putting into this critical race
theory, but that he saw that there was queer theory, which was in this thing
that they were teaching in school.
Like, what does that have any, how does that have anything to do with black
history?
Like, why is queer theory inserted into that?
Well, I think, I think the way those are linked is essentially through what you
might regard as, well, it's an implicit Marxism, but it's even deeper than Marxism.
So, if you're a Marxist, you basically, you have a heuristic that simplifies
the world, and that heuristic is that you can understand any social
relationship from, well, from an intimate relationship all the way up to the
state by just dividing the parties, let's call them the narrative partners in a
discussion or an interaction, into those who are oppressed and victimized and
those who are taking advantage of them and profiting.
That's basic Marxist theory of economics.
That's basic Marxist theory of economics.
And there's obviously some truth in that, because when systems become corrupt,
that's how they operate, right?
It's exploitation and victimization.
And every system tends towards corruption.
And so, and if you're, if your eyes are open a little bit, or if you're, let's
call it, if you've moved from naivety to cynicism, then you can see every
interaction has a power dynamic.
And then that drives, as soon as you have that established, that idea that the
basic relationship is one of power, well, then you can see, well, there's no
difference between what's happened to queer people in relationship to those in
power and what's happened to black people in relationship to those in power.
But it's, but it's united by that underlying, that's why I always make a case
for the domination of something like postmodernism and Marxism.
You know, I've been criticized for that, but I think it's an accurate
association.
The postmodernists figured out, and they were right about this, that we see the
world through a story.
Now, that turns out to be something unbelievably complicated.
And I think all the top end neuroscientists like Carl Friston are, what would
you call, converging on this presumption that you have to see the world through
a story.
And the postmodernists actually figured that out.
The French postmodernists, you know, Foucault and Derrida and people like that.
But then they did something that was a sleight of hand.
And this was, this all happened in the 1970s.
They said, well, we have to see the world through a story.
And even if you're a scientist, you're not exactly objective because there's a
narrative driving your work that you might be unaware of.
That's your implicit narrative.
That's what might be implicitly biasing you.
But they jumped to the conclusion that the underlying narrative was one of
power.
It's basically that all human relationships are predicated on power.
And, you know, there isn't a more cynical viewpoint than that.
And it's easy to take apart, you know, if you think about it for a moment in a
practical sense.
If your marriage is just based on power, first of all, it's an unpleasant place
because it's tyrant and slave.
And second, like, good luck with that.
Because people aren't that easy to tyrannize, you know.
Like, maybe you have a willing slave in your wife, but I doubt it.
If you're just trying to play power games with her, she's going to fight back
with everything she's got.
And then if you have friends, it's like, that's a relationship of mutual
exploitation, is it?
Then you're just a bully with henchmen, and they're going to stab you in the
back the first chance they get.
You're a mob man.
Yeah.
You're a mob leader.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, worse than that, even.
A dictator.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You're a dictator.
You're a dictator.
You know.
And, you know, people say, well, look at how successful dictator psychopaths
can be.
But I look at them, and I think, well, that's your definition of success, man.
Yeah, what is success?
I mean, how are you spiritually fulfilled?
You're the biggest devil in hell.
Yeah.
Are you happy?
Yeah.
Right.
Well, the leader of a bad place might be the person who's worst off in some
fundamental sense, right?
They're the most corrupt.
Isn't that funny, though, that the way we define success is power and money.
Like, look how successful they are.
Yeah.
Power and money.
But a complete absence of love and trust and respect and basic human dignity.
Well, it's also not really how people operate.
So there's an anthropological literature on the formation of elders in, say,
traditional societies.
Because you might ask yourself, you know, who becomes an elder?
And if you were a Marxist cynic, you'd say, well, those who used exploitation
to dominate,
like the priestly class or something like that.
And that goes along with the supposition that, you know, religion is the opiate
of the masses.
And some of that's obviously true, and some of that's obviously true, but a lot
of it isn't.
The elders aren't that at all.
They're the people who others go to spontaneously to ask for counsel.
And then you ask, well, who do people naturally gravitate towards for counsel?
And the answer is, well, productive, generous people w