Jordan Peterson & The Meaning of Life | Philosophy Tube

thinkest thou that hell is but a fable i think so still to experience change thy mind why this is hell nor are we out of it hell hath no limits nor is circumscribed in one self place for where i am is hell and where hell is there must i ever be [Music] [Laughter] i lucifer lord of hell and regent of the damned i'm a huge fan of jordan peterson in fact i'd go so far as to say i am the only true jordan peterson fan in the entire world for the damnably uninitiated jordan peterson is a canadian psychologist author of 12 rules for life a very popular self-help philosophy book and maps of meaning which is also a book he does a lot of tv and live appearances and has a devoted following both on the internet and in hell which are increasingly the same thing fortunately for me there are a lot of philosophers down here turns out in order to get into heaven you have to be both muslim and trans so there's a lot of people there but it's still pretty exclusive and i've learned a great deal peterson presents as a warrior battling the forces of hell and darkness by which i mean nihilism a lack of values and goals in life and the accompanying sadness that can sometimes go with it which he and several other thinkers believe is endemic to the modern world he's a big fan of nietzsche who did a lot of work on the death of god which sadly wasn't literally about god being killed but about how can you humans live meaningful lives in a secular age how can you go on without falling into despair in the face of the sheer pointlessness of it all that's where the self-help aspect of his work comes in if everybody sank into nihilism then human society would collapse so you've got to aim at something sort yourself out stand up straight clean your room and all that entails peterson doesn't just think that nihilism is depressing to live with though he also thinks that it's dangerous in his book he talks about how mass killers can spend too long in nihilism and come to believe that life isn't worth anything anymore there are other causes of mass killings if it was just nihilism which everybody sinks into occasionally then hell would be full of mass shooters from every demographic when in fact they're not a very diverse bunch he also thinks that postmodernism and marxism are dangerous in that nihilist way which it is a little confusing approaching peterson's work from the point of view of philosophy because words like post-modernism and marxism relativism and nihilism have technical meanings that he tends to wind around and one popular tactic for arguing against him is to explain those technical meanings and show how he's using them incorrectly but more talented demons than me have tried that before and it doesn't seem to faze him so what i'd like to do is show why his attack on nihilism isn't all it's cracked up to be and then present an alternative peterson seems to use the word nihilism as interchangeable with relativism which it isn't really and we'll get to that but if you follow his work you'd be forgiven for thinking that relativism is a bad thing the good doctor has condemned moral relativism multiple times in his lectures he went on the joe rogan show to say that it was quote just wrong and 12 rules for life contains a forward by psychologist norman deutch presenting peterson's whole career as a counter to relativism the supposed link is that if we were all die-hard relativists and every goal was as good as every other then we would never truly value anything hence nihilism and societal collapse and peterson's not the only one worried about this the philosopher stephen hicks and neuroscientist sam harris see relativism as a rejection of science and enlightenment values we'll come back to both of them former breitbart editor ben shapiro has linked it with cultural decay and in his video the ugly truth about relativism with over 90 000 views ex-software salesman stefan molyneux says that relativism is part of a plot driven by a demonic thirst for power there's also this video from weird mail youtube which honestly has one of the best openings since genesis so this video is going to be on does moral relativism lead to [ __ ] worship the common theme running through a lot of these thinkers is that objectivity which is associated with things like reason the enlightenment modernism the west and judeo-christian values is good as has been pointed out by an inspiring angel in another video also featuring wings and nudity many of those terms are more complicated than they appear whereas relativism which is associated with feelings social justice warriors the not west postmodernism and dangerous leftist thinking is bad a lack of strongly grounded values can leave individuals and maybe societies open to corruption by demonic peterson actually has quite an unusual stance compared to some of those others and i'm not lumping him in with them carelessly down here everyone's punishment is bespoke but it's worth noting that some of those who claim to have the answer to nihilism do share some political themes the question for now is how can you confront the meaninglessness of your life without falling into nihilism and despair you have a few options one is to believe in god another is to invent some new goals and meaning through pop psychology and recycling a lot of religion like jordan peterson does taking god's dead corpse and turning it into fertilizer or if magic isn't doing it for you anymore why not try science [Music] in 2010 neuroscientist sam harris responded to this alleged problem of nihilism and relativism in his book the moral landscape he claims that there are objective answers to moral questions and that science can help humans discover them he isn't saying that there will someday be single scientific answers to all moral questions but he is trying to find objective values without religion but the demagogues are right about one thing we need a universal conception of human values he thinks that people are too tolerant and that this is a symptom of a dangerous cultural relativism a theme he shares with peterson deutsch molyneux shapiro and others harris thinks you should all be brave free speech warriors and face the truth if there are facts about morality then doesn't it stand to reason that some people or cultures might know more about those facts than others whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded that is what it is to have a domain of expertise how have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering he's particularly concerned that you are too tolerant of behaviors that he associates with religion and conservative islam especially like requiring women to wear veils and honor killings although in fact both of those behaviors have parallels in societies that aren't quite so influenced by conservative islam and arguably say more about controlling women than they do about religion what this illustrates though is that for harris the quest to find objective value in life is not just for the fun of it in his book the end of faith he explicitly discusses these issues in the context of american military intervention racial profiling and torture apropos at the end of this talk a man comes on stage who is this guy is this ted is this ted talks is this theodore t talks anyway a man comes on stage and points out something harris neglected to mention that many muslim women wear veils voluntarily i mean can you engage in a conversation with that kind of woman without seeing a kind of cultural imperialist harris replies that voluntary doesn't really mean all that much in certain contexts they might be brainwashed by their delusional belief systems and so i think we shouldn't be so eager to always take their word for it so harris has allowed himself the possibility of saying i know what's good for you and i don't necessarily need to ask and it seems like he's at least open to the idea that those in possession of the moral facts can be justified in acting violently against the morally ignorant that's the power of having objectivity on your side elsewhere harris mentions brain scans as a way of objectively knowing who's happy and who's not but how can you tell the difference between a brain scan of somebody who's really happy according to harris and somebody who's merely deluded well you can't so even though he highly values the facts it seems like some are more valuable than others and it's not clear on what basis he's weighing them up interestingly this criticism is similar to one put forward by another thinker jordan peterson he and harris agree on an awful lot but one thing peterson has pointed out is that there are so many facts in the realm of objective science that you need some story to help you pick and choose which facts will be relevant philosophers would call that story an ideology but that's not a word peterson likes and he has his own ideas which we'll get to even more interestingly harris's idea is an accidental rip-off of a theory developed by philosopher richard boyd in 1982 called the homeostatic cluster property theory of meta-ethical naturalism sexy title boyd thought that words like good and evil refer to real properties out there in the material world and therefore statements like murder is bad are capable of being objectively true or at least true in the same way as scientific statements are which prompts the question to what exactly do these words refer boyd's answer is that they are cluster properties groups of things that tend to go together the example he uses is actually the same one harris does health there are all kinds of things that we would want to include in a definition of the word healthy like your heart should be beating and you should be able to breathe but do you have to be a certain size in order to be healthy do you have to not be in pain can you have a beating heart and be unhealthy there's a cluster of properties here somewhere that makes up the definition of the word health but we're never going to pin down a definite list because that's just not how the concept works despite that vagueness though it's still very obviously useful and meaningful similarly boyd thinks that a word like good refers to a cluster of things that are non-morally good for humans like sharing friendship sharing love having fun watching quality youtube videos but just like with health you're never gonna be able to pin down a full list because the concept just isn't like that and here's the big takeaway if we say john is healthy we could be talking about any number of things in the cluster of health whether he has a disease whether he works out whether he has a good relationship with his mother all of which are objective but whether the sentence john is healthy is true will still depend on what aspect of his health we're talking about it will still be relative to the context in which we are saying it so this relative objective binary that people like peterson and harris are working with is an oversimplification the theory boyd defends is called moral naturalism it's about as objective as ethical theories get but statements about morality will still be true or false relative to the context in which we use them objectivity and relativity can go together we've seen that attempts to find objective meaning in life through science can get pretty complicated pretty fast which might be a problem if that meaning is something you're expected to kill for turns out getting rid of subjectivity isn't so easy after all peterson has an interesting relationship with subjectivity he thinks there are two worlds the world of the objective and the world of experience and that it's the world of experience with things like pain and hunger and stories that people really care about it is such things experienced personally that are the most fundamental elements of human life from the archaic dramatic perspective and they are not easily reducible to detached and objective you're not objective you're alive you're subjective just as the objective world has atoms and fundamental particles petersen thinks that the experiential world too has its fundamental elements the dichotomy for which he is famous order and chaos chaos is the domain of ignorance itself it's the foreigner the stranger the member of another gang the russell in the bushes at night time chaos is also the formless potential from which the god of genesis 1 called forth order using language at the beginning of time and chaos is freedom order by contrast is explored territory order is tribe religion hearth home and country it's the warm secure living room where the fireplace glows and the children play but order is sometimes tyranny so here we see that peterson thinks order and chaos can manifest in different ways at different times no great problem there but in that talk i showed you peterson gives two examples of order the walls of the city and the uniform of the police but there are those for whom walls and borders are more representative of chaos if you've ever traveled internationally you'll know that crossing the border is a moment when the unknown and uncertainty and anxiety can confront you and of course there are many people for whom the uniform of the police is a symbol of terror so can the same thing be both order and chaos at the same time if the answer is no and they really are objective properties then it seems like peterson needs to answer questions like what are they and what are they made of from his books and his conversations with harris it seems like he'd rather say these are features of subjective experience so yes two people could experience the same thing one as order and one as chaos just as two people could experience the same work of art differently but if that's the case then order and chaos are relative not just statements about them either but the properties themselves although he's trying to escape it relativity is actually built right into the heart of peterson's entire worldview there's a big tension here between somebody who rails against relativism on the one hand but places subjectivity and contextual understanding at the heart of most of what he does on the other one of those fake jordan peterson fans might say he's not really a relativist he's a pragmatist he's not trying to defend a philosophical theory he's trying to help people there's the whole bit in chapter nine about how it's good to order your life based on some principles whether it's freud young religion or whatever the point is to avoid nihilism but i think it's a stretch to say that peterson would consider any ordered life to be as good as any other it definitely seems like he thinks some interpretations of order and chaos are more on the money than others which again is in deep tension with their relativistic nature peterson i'm sure would say that order and chaos are evolved into the structure of your human brains according to him your ancestors learned that some behaviors were advantageous and they unconsciously developed rules for those behaviors which we can come to be consciously aware of through the telling of stories that's why he thinks stories and tradition are so important so it's not 100 relative it's grounded in people's experiences but it's still objectively biological this is quite similar to an idea developed by swiss psychiatrist carl jung one of peterson's major inspirations who proposed the existence of a collective unconscious to explain similarities that he observed between his patients peterson came up with his version to explain similarities that he observed in the different fields he studied for maps of meaning but anything is similar to anything if you look hard enough lions are similar to lingerie in that they're both made of atoms judging two things to be similar in a way that matters though is subjective and relative to the context as a zookeeper once said to me lions are similar to lingerie and they're both made of atoms but this is the lion enclosure of the central park zoo so will you and your girlfriend please leave take these two images one is a 19th century painting by italian artist roberto farouzi showing the virgin mary and jesus and the other is a vaz from the 5th century bc showing the goddess demeter her daughter persephone and the man triptolemus being given some wheat i might say i think there are similarities between these they're both images of women mothers symbols of new life but they're also different in many ways they come from very different cultures and times and are made of different materials to say i think there are similarities here that are relevant relative to certain contexts is a statement that forefronts a subjective judgment i think there are similarities that i am telling you about for some reason that i have but if i say mary and demeter are both instances of the archetype of the great mother which exists in the collective unconscious then it sounds like i'm being objective 12 rules for life is full of this what philosophers call raiification making something into a thing from hierarchies to archetypes peterson uses objective sounding language when really what he's doing is subjectively drawing comparisons for his own reasons and as the only true jordan peterson fan in the world i don't have a problem with that but it doesn't mean that all his psychology still can't get him out of relativism by the standard he sets himself his attempt to find meaning in life fails none of this by the way is me claiming that science is all subjective or that reality doesn't exist maybe there really is a collective unconscious maybe you have similar brains and therefore tend to think in similar ways but the point is that the subjective and the objective are not so easily crowbarred apart which is why questions like who gets to write the stories who gets to decide what represents order and what represents chaos are important and don't look now but it looks like we're heading into [Music] bertolt brecht was a 20th century playwright and theater practitioner one of those horribly pretentious people who tried to combine philosophy with theater for which he was down to hell for all eternity and brecht would often employ theatrical techniques that drew his audience's attention to the fact that they were watching a play he called it epic theater in contrast to dramatic theater which tries to present an illusion of reality rather than maintain a fourth wall brecht would try to deliberately remind his audience that what they are watching is just a show so far i've done my best to engage with peterson's ideas on their own terms and take them seriously or be in a bit of an irreverent tone but now i want to take a step back i said that there's this tension there between being very against relativism on the one hand but actually relying on it on the other and i'm curious about why that tension's there peterson does not like post-modernism at all he associates it very much with the relativism and the nihilism that he's trying to combat and he says that the goal of post-modernism is to reduce everything to power relations there are no real categories like race and gender no real morality only power and if only power exists then the use of power becomes fully justifiable it is almost impossible to overestimate the nihilistic and destructive nature of this philosophy it puts the act of categorization itself into doubt it negates the idea that distinctions might be drawn between things for any reasons other than that of raw power why so down on post-modernism well peterson does not like marxism at all he's reviewed the history of the 20th century and he thinks that marxism leads inevitably to tyranny and genocide and chaos and that's another topic for another video we don't have time to get into it today that's just his political position he then says that marxist intellectuals like sartre and derrida needed some way of making marxism cool again after everybody in europe supposedly realized that it was evil so they substituted the idea of power for the idea of money society was no longer repression of the poor by the rich it was the oppression of everyone by the powerful and this allowed them to crack right on with being evil marxists but just change up the lingo unfortunately this misunderstands both marxism and postmodernism as other youtubers more talented than me have pointed out before those two sets of ideas are actually contradictory and at the time a lot of the early post-modernists were writing the marxist left did not need help it was still going strong so this idea that post-modernism was a pr move or a cover-up by marxists is i'm afraid just theoretically and historically false and i know where he's gotten this idea too peterson's major source for a lot of these claims is a book by the right-wing philosopher stephen hicks called understanding post-modernism and unfortunately for our boy jp the book is to put it technically it's really [ __ ] bad if you want the blow-by-blow of all the sloppy mistakes then [ __ ] philosophy has a great video on it but hicks's central era that then gets transmitted over to peterson is this idea that post-modernism is essentially destructive but when foucault for instance was talking about how knowledge always presupposes some power relations the real goal was to say oh you know knowledge in the logic it's just what the oppressors say it is and the truth is just whatever so let's tear down the capitalist to the patriarchal the structures of the west and uh roll on nihilism and lose the world and that's just not what post-modernism is about at all so i mentioned brecht a few minutes ago an example of a brechtian technique might be using title cards to tell the audience what's about to happen doing a serious piece in a silly costume showing them how a particular effect is achieved or showing them how the show is made to draw your attention to the fact that what you're watching is a constructed representation not reality because once you see how the story is made to go the way it goes you also see how it could have gone differently brecht himself was a marxist and he wanted his audiences to criticize his characters and their stories as an intro to criticizing their own but it needn't be just a marxist thing the british comedian see the sun's just come out from behind a cloud and it's completely changed the color temperature in here this is why i hate filming with natural light this this is why colored lights are just objectively better i mean of of the two principles apollonian and dionysian this is a clear demonstration of whether dynasty is better brecht himself was a marxist and he wanted his audiences to criticize his characters and their world as an intro to criticizing their own but it needn't be just a marxist thing the british stand-up comedian stuart lee uses a lot of brechtian theater techniques to get his audience to criticize the comedy industry which is probably why so many young stand-up comedians struggling in that same industry try and rip him off comedians will often take something that's got a grain of truth and build on an elaborate in order to make you forget that what you're watching is just an act it's just pretend and uh that's [Music] one of the best modern examples of brechtian theater techniques i can think of is this tv show it's really thoughtful it's really cerebral like very intellectual bit of a slow burner it's called rupaul's drag race the show cuts between footage of the queen's performing and confessional footage which is shot out of drag reminding the audience that at least on this show these are performances done by and large by men and when they perform as the queens they're outrageous and campy and over the top it's kind of hyper femininity which prompts the audience to ask why what are gender expectations anyway really and do you care more about meeting those expectations or about looking good but getting somebody to question why something is the way it is isn't the same as getting them to throw it out peterson says that postmodernism and critiques about how power shapes our ideas remove the possibility of choice choice has no place in the ideological picture if men and women act voluntarily to produce gender unequal outcomes those very choices must have been determined by cultural bias in consequence everyone is a brainwashed victim whatever gender differences exist and the rigorous critical theoretician is morally obligated to set them straight the surrounding context makes it clear there that he's talking about setting people straight through force so again there's this idea that it's essentially violent and destructive generously ignoring the fact that peterson frequently does the same thing he's criticizing there assumes without talking to people that he knows what's going on inside their heads and what's really good for them trans rights he's correct to note that power sometimes shapes us even on the level of our desires but realizing that doesn't take away choice if anything it gives us more choices because now we can think about why we value the things we do like brecht the goal of post-modernism and critical theory isn't to minimize the role of choice or the individual or justify violence against those who make the wrong choices it's to get you to realize that many of the things you see around you and the ways in which you look at them can change if you want them to and that's exactly what peterson's doing drawing people's attention to their psychological bad habits so that they can reflect on where they come from and whether or not they want to indulge them post-modernism is doing a similar thing just on the level of societies and ideas in 12 rules for life peterson talks about the importance of articulating clearly what you want of standing up for yourself of thinking about what you value and why you value it of taking risks and being daring even if it potentially risks your safety or other people's and that's all good advice but he only wants you to do it as an individual if you start getting together with other people standing up for yourselves articulating clearly what you want thinking about what you value and why you value it politically speaking maybe advocating for some potentially risky and transformative social ideas all of a sudden that's a bad thing because it doesn't fit with his politics or his understanding of human psychology which as we've seen is pretty subjective the peterson project is deeply relativist deeply subjective and deeply ideological and again as the only true fan of jordan peterson in the entire world i don't have a problem with that but i'm not the one who built my whole career telling people that these ideas pave the road to hell [Music] well bugger me blue it looks like life really is meaningless after all whether we try to find objective value through brain scans or petersonism or whatever stefan molyneux peddling it looks like we can't escape the quicksand of relativism and subjectivism we could give religion another go but that just seems like a lot of work also it has its own philosophical problems which are pretty well trodden i just want to have fun is there any philosophy that's about having fun well there is one idea i know it's a little bit controversial maybe you've heard of it it's called try and [ __ ] enjoy yourself hedonism is like snakes it has a nasty reputation but it's actually quite sweet it's associated with vice and frivolous enjoyment social media and second pleasure outside of the light of christ but when philosophers talk about pleasure they don't just mean the cheap and easy thrills pleasure can mean any mental state that is desired that means that we can still talk about somebody experiencing pleasure even if they are physically in pain and yes there are some pleasures that if over-indulged in might lessen your pleasure in the long run heroin and infidelity to name just two components of my typical friday night i once spent an entire sunday in a bathtub coming down from getting absurdly high on mdma and it was one of the bleakest periods of my life because my brain wouldn't make any more of the happy juice and now i don't do mdma anymore because it's a whole lot of pleasure in one go but it limits the pleasure of my whole life and a general attempt to maximize pleasure over your lifetime could lead to a pretty meaningful existence and if you don't want to think of it as hedonism think of it as maximizing your own rational self-interest with respect to happiness you can be a hedonist and still reflect on why you want what you want still pay attention to your own thoughts as peterson might put it it's not about being a slave to your passions all the time by choosing to get off the mandy i'm sacrificing small pleasures now for greater pleasure overall which is something that peterson also places a lot of emphasis on believe me hedonism is entirely consistent with delayed gratification a philosophy of life that tells people to ignore pleasure just isn't going to go anywhere that's why i'm not so hard on most major religions even peterson with all of his life is suffering rhetoric knows this the final rule in 12 rules for life is pet a cat when you encounter one on the street and what is that if not an invitation to take pleasure in the little things when you find them i know that in my darkest moments i find a little thing that brings me pleasure it's important to do something other than masturbate yes nietzsche's approach was to say look a work of art can be stylish yes and to say that it's stylish implies some standard but stylishness is less about the work conforming to an external objective standard and more about a particular harmony between all the notes so sing the song of your life like a work of art with balance and grace coloratura espressivo some forte and some pianissimo some solos and some ensemble pieces a little bit of dulente and probably some wrong notes especially if it's me singing the clashes acknowledged and faced up to were presented in such a way as to make them sublime so that the effect of the whole is a kind of harmony and this too is consistent with hedonism in order to get what you desire you have to know yourself and understand all of your varied wants even the dark ones see this is why jordan peterson's favorite russian author is dostoyevsky but mine is vladimir nabokov because the characters in nabakov's books understand that sometimes the best response to the meaninglessness of life is to just [ __ ] your own sister the french philosopher albert camus had his own strategy for confronting nihilism he thought there was a fundamental contradiction between humans desire to seek meaning in your lives and life itself which is meaningless and he gave this contradiction a name the absurd camus wasn't a hedonist but he wouldn't have been a fan of peterson either he thought you shouldn't run from the absurd try to pick goals and meaning like cleaning a room to escape it instead he wanted people to live their lives in full knowledge of its meaninglessness to confront the absurd and go on living anyway one of the figures camus discusses is don juan a legendary character of theater and literature who appears as a serial seducer of women he travels from country to country often in disguise seducing women of all ages and backgrounds not out of a secret desire for true love for any of that nonsense but for the sheer sport of seduction oh my god he was right all along many versions of the story give moral commentary on his actions some even end with him being sent here to hell and one of the objections to hedonism is that you could lead a very pleasurable life but a very immoral one camus may also have had a personal investment in the character of don juan in 1959 he wrote a letter containing the sentence this frightful separation will at least bring home to us more than ever the constant need we have for each other i await you full of strength and passion that letter was not addressed to his wife but to one of his four mistresses but camus says that don juan isn't immoral per se he's just a moral morality doesn't factor into what he considers a worthwhile existence how could it once he'd confronted the absurd and realize that life is meaningless this is distinct from hedonism because it's not just about pleasure it's about taking the right attitude towards the pleasure an argument that sadly mrs camus was not persuaded by his second wife francine iv had depression and jumped off a balcony in part because of her husband's infidelity she survived and they're reconciled but to me this illustrates a far stronger objection to hedonism sometimes it's straight up doesn't work some days are so bleak that even the thought of pleasure and happiness just makes me sick thinkest thou that i who saw the face of god and tasted the eternal joys of heaven i'm not tormented with ten thousand hells in being deprived of everlasting bliss and then the water goes cold but you sit there anyway because sometimes hell is a bathtub in debden but as we've seen other attempts to find meaning in life are hardly 100 effective or morally bulletproof either what i do on those days is try and talk to my friends and then they don't answer my messages because i'm a reclusive internet weirdo so i listen to music or look at art or if it's really not working i just wait for the drugs to wear off so that i can sing the next verse of my life and every single time i would rather have the snake than the snake oil [Music] [Music] you promised you would love us but you knew too much goodbye dr p you had all the answers but no human touch if life is [Music] [Music] superior [Music] you promised you would love us but [Music] if life [Music] [Music] is [Music] [Music] goodbye [Music] goodbye [Music] but you knew too much [Music] is [Music] [Music] oh [Music] does moral relativism lead to [ __ ] worship yes

Channel: Philosophy Tube

Views: 1,770,889

Rating: 4.8094296 out of 5

Keywords: philosophy, jordan peterson, oliver thorn, philosophy tube, sam harris, 12 rules for life, meaning of life, hedonism, nihilism, Nietzsche, Camus

Id: SEMB1Ky2n1E

Length: 39min 50sec (2390 seconds)

Published: Fri Apr 12 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/frenchtoastkid]

Is that Natalie North in the thumbnail? They've finally done it. They've merged together. We now have Contra-Philosophy

EDIT: I'm pretty dumb. I thought Ollie's last name was North. Oliver North is a piece of shit. Oliver Thorn is the shit. Carry on with your day.

[u/[deleted]]

Incoming thirst posting

[u/ratguy101]

Really great production and writing as always. It's probably one of Olly's more philosophically rigorous videos in a while, so I'll probably need to rewatch it to link everything together. I did find it interesting that he concludes with a push towards hedonism. It's kind of been in the subtext of a lot of breadtube videos, but I haven't really seen anyone endorse it this strongly outright. JBP has criticized hedonistic moral philosophies a fair bit, so giving a response to him there would have made me happy.

[u/PeteWenzel]

But...but I’m neither Muslim nor Trans :(

[u/IAmNewHereBeNice]

I was about to go to bed, but I can't sleep on the king when a new video is out.

[u/Ziggie1o1]

You ever watch those videos where there's a lot of interesting stuff that you wanna talk about, but there's so much of it that you get brain overload and the only thing you can think about when you're done is "he sure does have perdy wings". That's this video.

Um I like his Jordan Peterson impression. Very appropriately dweeby.

[u/Nemesinthe]

I so want a BreadTube Tarot deck with this Olly lewk as The Devil. I don't even lay cards.

[u/akkinda]

"What are gender expectations anyway, really? And do you care more about meeting these expectations or about looking good?"

God damn I came here for a video about Jordan Peterson I was not expecting to get called out like this

[u/connectivity_problem]

oh shit my man got a real snake