Alex O' Connor and the power and costs of podcast civility

[@PoorEdward]

This is the exact kind of thing that has made Destiny turn into Nebraska Steve; he doesn’t want to be perceived or interpreted like Alex is here.

[@lighting7508]

Yeah but Alex has a degree in philosophy (or theology?) so he is capable of jumping down these bullshit logic wormholes with Peterson. Also he knows the bible inside out, probably better than Peterson 🤷‍♂️ I don’t think destiny could do something like this if he tried.

[@razzle_dazzle]

@@lighting7508 Maybe Destiny couldn't do this about the Bible in particular, but he had a long conversation with Peterson about a variety of topics, in which he challenged Peterson very successfully on his global warming denialism, vaccine skepticism, and other topics Peterson is conspiracy-brained about. Not sure why you're so eager to downplay Destiny's abilities.

[@-47-]

​@@lighting7508 No one said that Destiny would've done a better job. The point was that Alex should drop the overly civil act like Destiny did. If he did that, all the things you mentioned would actually get discussed, rather than swept under the rug. He's way overqualified for this passive approach.

[@gabrielethier2046]

Would you rather talk to Destiny or Alex?

[@sathrielsatanson]

@@gabrielethier2046 This is a silly binary. I bet Ben Shapiro would prefer to talk to Jordan Peterson than Andrew Neil but it was the latter who proved that Shapiro is thin skinned boy obsessed with leftist boogeyman.

[@virteddyvio]

This was a great conversation and Alex got Jordan to bluntly state many of religious views, which up to that point he was able to slither away from quite easily

[@ClintStone-t9m]

he still slithered away from most of them. The truth is, Jordan doesn't believe in christianity at all, so instead of having to concede that point and loose many christian viewers, he formed a non-answer / dogwhistle answer: "I think everything written in the bible is true, but I don't know in *what way* ". Christian viewers are statisfied because he didn't renounce their faith and agnostic viewers are statisfied because JP doesn't believe in "some fairy tale".

[@andresfontalvo17]

He said if there was a camera pointed at the grave of Jesus it would probably register him coming out on the third day. That's as big an admission to the belief in resurrection as can be

[@ClintStone-t9m]

@@andresfontalvo17 he later still said(when Alex kept digging), he didn't know "in what way" one would have seen Jesus, i.e.: was someone carrying out his corpse? Was he drowsily coming out of his own grave to die soon after? (biologically Jesus could have survived the injuries for three days) What people really want him to admit is wether or not he believes that god intervened and performed a miracle to revive Jesus' body and if Jesus rose as the omnipotent god on earth.

[@andresfontalvo17]

@@ClintStone-t9m must have missed that ( i was only half listening on the background). My guess is that Peterson finds the question irrelevant. I don't think i've heard him outright say that though. I guess because it is kind of counter the Pauline doctrine where faith/ belief in the resurrection is paramount.

[@sathrielsatanson]

Yeah, it's not true. Jordan still weaselled away from any substantial statements.

[@QuintEssential-sz2wn]

Thanks, guru guys! You landed on an issue that’s been sort of irking me as I have watched Alex’s transformation. I generally think he’s excellent. But these days when I’m watching his conversations, I feel like I’m pulling my hair at half the time thinking “ Alex, why are you letting them get away with saying that one?” he just gives a lot more deference to very dubious views these days., letting many points slide that he wouldn’t have before, and I’m not sure I see why that’s a good thing.

[@ck58npj72]

Not good for us, but good for Alex.

[@huxleybennett4732]

I think he wants to have conversations to hear different perspectives, and pushing back too much can stop people from coming in his podcast, therefore meaning he can’t have as many of these conversations. I completely agree though, I think he should have a place for more pushback and have said so for a while now. I think there’s totally a place for both.

[@monkeybudge]

Destiny treated Peterson with Kid gloves and Peterson still went on to bitch and moan that Destiny was combative.

[@gregkirk1842]

Hehe "dubious" views? According your ignorant brain.

[@Will-kt5jk]

Tbf, I think he synthesised his viewpoint more through the convo & has been gently taking the piss out of JBP regularly ever since. The next time they talk is likely to be interesting.

[@gravytopic]

it's fun to see Peterson's jacket and those chairs fight for attention. I'd like to think everything was upholstered at once

[@nancyborth2785]

Gravy, you stop that right now……you just made me pee my pants❤❤

[@Thalefrastus]

Peterson’s oh so fashionable style reminds me of big old colourful Deusenberg cars built to both impress and run straight over the plebeian class. Suits him well!

[@waelaltaqi]

😂

[@bennymountain1]

What in the Jesus frick is going on with that jacket? Isn't he, like, a real Christian? Why is he wearing that? Orthodox value their iconography, it's like he's screaming god's name in vain over and over with that garish fit 🤣

[@lonepantalones8284]

I love that Alex has taken this route. I'm so tired of people giving into the "spectacle" of shit debates for views.

[@mukkaar]

Honestly, it has pros and cons. You do gain more access and other side will like you more. But being too cordial also might just reinforce other side, and at the same time you won't be pushing back and expressing your own views clearly. I think personally, it's good to be civil, but you should also be forceful when needed, and you could do it in civil way. But I do have to say, I hate nothing more than comment section that says "it's such a nice conversation" I do think this is direct proof that actual content of the conversation was being undermined by being too civil. Comment section should be mostly talking about content of the conversation if the actual content was engaging, interesting and relatively easy to follow.

[@ottz2506]

I hate it when many of these types (not referring to the creators here) will default to “hey why can’t we have civil conversations” when they receive even the mildest of pushback. Rarely do they say this when they’re sitting with someone echoing their views back at them.

[@duck2477]

Alex was one of the early voices to pull me away from the allure of the right-wing voices of the late 2010s, along with Rationality Rules and GMSkeptic. They helped me understand that I wasn't thinking much when listening to Peterson and my whole view change. Alex was also part of my process of becoming an animal rights activist. I still appreciate that Alex is having some strong conversations with people (demolishing Dinesh was well deserved), but I don't feel as strongly about Alex anymore.

[@gregkirk1842]

What a shame.

[@veryfitting]

I've really enjoyed Alex's new approach. Like him I have actually learnt a lot about the opposite position that I thought I understood BUT I think you've simplified Alex's interaction with Jonathan P, he did push back quite a few times and, like he said, quite bluntly. So much so that Jonathan kept being dumbfounded by Alex's points.

[@pmccartney75]

Alex has also seemingly made a point of steering clear of any direct political statements preferring instead-whenever the politics do come up-to talk about them in very broad terms that never lands on a side. Perhaps no great sin on his part, but per y’all’s point, it allows him to sit down and have conversations with obvious partisans who make declarative and pointed political comments without being challenged. Alex pinned Peterson on some specific points on religion, but he basically never wades into the culture war stuff that’s essentially peterson’s bread and butter, and it would be nice for someone of his intelligence and perception to be able to take a stand on something other than a topic that is, by his own admission, not really a hot button issue anymore (religion, in this case).

[@DamienChristopher2001]

Alex stays in his lane which is a good thing. He is passionate, and knowledgeable in philosophy and theology and that's where he stays. It's no different to when Alex was on Triggernometry a couple months ago. They tried to make him wade into the waves of the culture war and Alex just said "I don't know enough to hold an opinion or discuss it". Which is admirable, and something that these anti-woke shock jocks should take heed of. You don't need to have an opinion on everything. P.S. the only other times I remember seeing Alex bring up/respond to culture war topics is his discussion with Douglas Murray, and when he went on Andrew Gold's Heretics and said he doesn't understand the basis/premise of people who say you can identify as X

[@nsbd90now]

@@DamienChristopher2001 Alex O'Conner is NOT knowledgeable in philosophy or theology. He has the education of a college student, not any kind of actual scholar whatsoever. The "debate" with Ben Shapiro was so totally embarrassing when they didn't even define the word "God" they went on to talk about for an hour...

[@fixpontt]

it is still Alex who exposed Jordan's religious beliefs the most and he did it in the most _"Cambridge educated"_ ways, he obviously does this to a different audience than Destiny for example, rhetorical takedown and intellectual takedown is not the same

[@_surreal99]

Key word there is "content", whether you're on the rationalist side or the zealot side, it all boils down to that algorithm and audience retention.

[@FoxfireDraven]

I was hoping you guys would've gotten more into the meta aspect of civility in a conversation, such as how it interacts with possible concessions or commonalities. Also was hoping to see more of when civility is appropriate as opposed to combativity, rather than mostly how it benefits creators. Not bad insights regardless.

[@decodingthegurus]

@@FoxfireDraven We do cover the positive outcomes Alex extracted in a later episode that we will put up in a bit.

[@youtubeconnoisseur3215]

Glad you covered this Alex is well spoken at times but is super tactical with what he chooses to talk about no covid no trans issues just Alex trying to get jordon to admit he is an atheist

[@j.spiegel3650]

Nothing wrong with that imo

[@chadreilly]

I'm sure that Jordan Peterson does this. He recently had Robert Sapolsky on, and they talked at length about everything but Sapolsky''s new book on Determinism. Which Sapolsky was making the podcasting the rounds promoting. Presumably, because it goes, effectively, against Jordan's take on free will. So I'm sure Jordan's team got Sapolsky to agree not to talk about it before coming on Jordan's show.

[@TimeGhost7]

I feel it is good to be as accomadating (while still holding a tention within the self) to as many different interpretations from one's own. You can critisize overaccomadating (as there's always an extreme that makes a conversation worthless), but if disagreeing with someone adamantly (where both can hold their own in converation), it's not going to sound like talking past each other to both sides. Talking past each other can highlight differences, more distinctly, for those in the middle but for the audiances it's confirmation bias. I feel in the commentry space, as the format isn't around direct conversations, accomadation isn't as essentialy built in. A non-accomadating response to this video could be "More Jordan Peterson bashing, this time critisizing people being civil to him." But what is the ensuing conversation going to achieve with that tone?

[@gabrielethier2046]

Some people just want drama, they're more interested in dunking on christians than in having good arguments.

[@TimeGhost7]

​@@gabrielethier2046 Atheists who are prone to ridicule, can almost inadvertedly dunk on christian sensabilities, but I don't feel christian is the best overarching descriptor for who catches this channel's ire. I also don't feel we can classify the absence of good arguments too readily. This particular argument was couched as 2 sides of an accomadation dichotamy. Their strong desire to denounce Peterson, coloured their analysis as overaccomadation. There's a lot of back-argumentation on Peterson in prior videos for that denouncement reasoning, which I haven't watched, but my point is, I don't know how good their arguments are without that.

[@willmosse3684]

Yeah, I’ve noticed that lately Alex seems to be framing what he says so as to sound like he more or less agrees with whoever he is talking to. He’ll sound like he’s anti-woke when talking to GB News, but then agree with “woke” positions when talking to someone else. He still does pull it out sometimes tho. He got Peterson to take a position on “did this actually happen” in relation to Christ’s resurrection, which I’ve never seen before. And he absolutely folded Dinesh D’Souza on Christianity recently.

[@gaylecheung3087]

Jordon Peterson looks like comic book villain 😱

[@georgegraham472]

"...becoming a podcaster..." great name for an album/novel/film...

[@dunno23]

I am relatively a new fan of Alex and was instantly attracted for his content on atheism. But I became kind of disillusioned recently, when I came across his talk with Peter Boghossian (at 1:46:20 on the KZbin episode) where Alex admits that he believes there is like 45% probability of existence of a theistic god. I was shocked by that statement (so was Peter Boghossian). Ever since then, I am a lot uncertain about his true belief / position on God and religion; and suspiciously find him being too indulging in Christian culture and theism stuff.

[@dunno23]

Link of the video kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZi4p4GsrM6AiJIfeature=shared

[@myhatmygandhi6217]

Seems like you have become disillusioned by him because you feel like he's no longer on your team.

[@dunno23]

@@myhatmygandhi6217 So you liked your own comment buddy? Haha.. 🤣 Btw he is still on my team (if there were one), he is still an atheist.

[@bennymountain1]

Alex literally has a degree in theology or some such. Can't expect him to full hog worship satan, can you.

[@fixpontt]

_"Alex admits that he believes there is like 45% probability of existence of a theistic god"_ but he clearly states that God image has nothing to do with religions on Earth, and probably that numbers comes from the philosophical arguments for God like the ontological, cosmological, teleological etc. he clearly states (many times in other videos) that the Christian God's existence (omnibenevolent) is close to zero because of suffering

[@jeffh2166]

I would never watch Pageau if it wasn't for Alex and I will never watch him again. The let them speak approach often works

[@davetaddeo]

there's no better conversation than one that makes you pause and ponder, 'oh, i hadn't thought of it that way before '. it's so important, maybe even critical, that you're open to having someone you disagree with change your mind.

[@alantasbler4581]

What is up with the coat of many colors? Worn over another coat. Guru attire?

[@rachael_grey]

He's taking ugly jackets into the realm of blasphemy for a few million Orthodox Christians. 😂

[@opensocietyenjoyer]

it's to signalize that he hates jahwe and his commandments

[@ogolthorp]

Peterson was gifted custom suits by a suitmaker. So he wears them a lot. They’re definitely a unique look, but I get wanting to show off a fan’s work.

[@matthewmulkeen]

Jordan and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat 🤮

[@nancyborth2785]

He bought that jacket at a St. Jude’s garage sale…….😂😂

[@benday1218]

This reminds me of the concept of 'white space' in marketing = an area with no products in it. These civil conversations place these guys in various conversations in the white space and create a new 'product'.

[@Jay-kx4jf]

4:14 well you're creating new spaces, modelling exploratory convergent modes of conversation. I'm not sure why the need to reduce it to "service" when the object at hand are *conversations*. Is primary objective of this activity to be of service? Or to a communicate deeply? Should I be thinking of service while conversing with people around me?

[@Aaron-rw3lv]

Nothing to be gained by being civil with Peterson. It reminds me of uninformed people that say Ukraine should negotiate with russia. What could you possibly have to talk about with orcs?

[@sathrielsatanson]

This is such a silly comparison it's not even funny. There is no realistic chance for Russia's military defeat so negotiations with Russia is the only way the war ends. And there is a big difference between a military confrontation and verbal exchange.

[@BennyAscent]

The difference is, one is committing war crimes, and one has ideas that you are at odds with and displays intellectual dishonesty. Its nonsense to equate the two. Stop this Diet Poe's law nonsense, it impresses no one who is worthy of impressing.

[@sathrielsatanson]

@@BennyAscent That's life, people love to make most insane comparisons.

[@BennyAscent]

@@sathrielsatanson not really interested in the inane things people "love to do", given the retrospective wisdom of hundreds of generations that screams out about the dangers of this mindless tribalism and "us vs them" mindset. Only need to look into a history book to see that the worst of humanity is permitted when we equate all opposition to the archenemy.

[@RobbertJan]

Civility, the Lex Fridman way of grifting.

[@DoomKaiserGliders]

Can we get a wave check Matt

[@scoon2117]

Scott Adam's next.😊

[@tgrogan6049]

They love the "nice atheists".

[@themrch4oskol206]

Hey, hope the headwear is not due to medical reasons. And if so, god bless you and have a good recovery

[@rumidude]

Podcasting in some realms is a circle-jerk. Among the big guru types, they are on each other's podcast all the time. As long as they avoid calling to other stupid or worse, then they can have a civil conversation about certain topics that they either agree about or if they disagree they at least are not diametrically in disagreement. Sam Harris is one of the worst at that. He will sit with Bret Weinstein and NEVER say to him what he says elsewhere about whacky vaccine deniers. Elsewhere he is derisive but with Bret he just says he disagrees.

[@ericooliveira9693]

All of the public conversations Sam had with Brett were before the vaccine/ivermectin debacle, they have not spoken since. Did you expect Sam to call Brett out on his views before Brett ever had those views?

[@GlobeHackers]

"have the conversation" increase your audience to audience capture repeat. i miss Christopher Hitchens

[@guywalsh3283]

You’re concerned with bizarre Christian/religious symbolism which isn’t a threat to Western democracy at all, why not focus more attention on Mohammed Hijab and Dilly Hussain?

[@verdehue6319]

On beliefs alone you’re probably right, but Peterson is far more influential and consistently voices his support for politicians that are hurting the integrity of the democratic institutions they’re supposed to serve. Also Peterson himself seems to not think Hijab a threat to democracy since he had him on his podcast and never challenged him on his anti democracy views. Instead they mildly spoke on religion. So it sounds like by Hijab being a threat to democracy, which I agree, Peterson is as well since he promotes him without any meaningful pushback.

[@guywalsh3283]

@@verdehue6319 I was talking more about Pagaeu than Peterson (someone they also discussed in this segment) also the Democrats have proven to be anti democratic, The EU and social media platforms. Let’s not pretend it’s just people Peterson favours who might show signs of being anti democratic. The EU is 100% less Democratic than the Brexit vote. The Guru’s blocked me on Twitter for saying Brexit gives more democracy to the British than Ursula Von Der Leyen and the unelected officials in Brussels. Hijab is a dangerous threat to radicalising young men in England. We have Green politicians screaming Allah Akbar and this week groups of activists screaming Allah Akbar outside Rochdale police station. Radical Islam in the U.K. is more dangerous than Christian symbolism from Pageau.

[@sathrielsatanson]

That\s a great whattaboutism yet a weak argument.

[@jackcover5578]

Perfect take. I do believe that if you stick to your guns, and make your point more clear, you will be better off in the long run. Sure Joe Rogan has the numbers, but can he really sleep well knowing that there are some shows where he just appeasing the guest the entire time. As a viewer, you can't take them seriously anymore and they all become just another Tucker Carlson. I don't know about you, but that's not as entertaining in the long run as hosts like Destiny are becoming more and more of the unicorns, as there content remains evergreen.

[@hunterseufert8066]

What a cynical take

[@RyuuGotSwagg]

The destiny hasan beef is blantly just content farming but there fans can’t figure it out

[@scoon2117]

Fu k the internet

[@tim290280]

Alex is the worst kind of liberal. Everything is just a matter of opinion to be debated, rather than very real topics with very real impacts. So he can go on (or have on) some terrible person's show who lies (or is just wrong) and feel very comfortable "exchanging ideas". The fact that he will get invited (or would appear) on to JP's show just illustrates that he is civil at the expense of any standards or values.

[@GrandmasterFerg]

You're the wirst kind of whatever you are.

[@tim290280]

@@GrandmasterFergthat would actually be you and your trolling.

[@nsbd90now]

@@GrandmasterFerg Tim is absolutely correct. Republican just have no actual principles.

[@phantom_drone]

Alex L Connor

[@scisher3294]

The Destiny 1 v 10 debate with Moldovan host, Kat, was a WILD change of pace. 🫣

[@phantom_drone]

TRUE

[@ottz2506]

Yeah even though Destiny’s reaction to the Trump shooting went way too far, I felt his performance demonstrated that being the “civil” and soft spoken one doesn’t make you right or good. “Yeah, I may have god awful opinions but if I expand on them in a calm and civil tone, that means I’m rational and thus I win”

[@scisher3294]

@@ottz2506 now, we say hello to the Destiny era of “Long Arms, that slap hard” 💪

[@bennymountain1]

And a much needed one 🤣