Jordan Peterson SCHOOLS Intelligent Student On Hate Speech In EPIC Debate

In this video, we will react to Jordan Peterson debating a highly intelligent Oxford Asian student on the topic of hate speech and more.
►Subscribe for new weekly videos: bit.ly/MillionaireMentor
If you liked this video, please LIKE and SUBSCRIBE for more!
►Credits: Jordan Peterson.
Jordan Peterson DEBATES With Intelligent Student On HATE SPEECH: • Video
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
* Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
If you are the legal content owner of any videos used here and would like them removed, please contact [e-mail]. Any infringement was not done on purpose and will be rectified to the satisfaction of all parties.

[@magnuspym]

Hey kid...life is tough; get a helmet.

[@triviatrudy]

My most favorite comeback on the planet coined by the illustrious Candace Owens…at least, that is the first time I heard it.

[@CourtroomAnticsTV]

and a nail clipper WTF

[@remembermee5769]

People need to listen to Jordan Peterson....

[@evangelinewandering9547]

That people don’t care about what you said or don’t agree with you, does not automatically mean that you were not allowed to speak freely.

[@nomaambundy9989]

I don't see this kid as very intelligent, long winded maybe. Primarily he is supposing the role of a victim while asking for "just a little" censorship...

[@user-ct9eh3mp2r]

Mabe the code of the schoolyard spoke and he was offended? Now he wants revenge...

[@BigPunGymitCuz]

He's not intelligent at all, Like maybe, he may........ be able to do like a 4 unit maths question and perhaps do a chemistry experiment and controlling variables. I.e. that is to say: he's not intelligent at all, he's a dumbass

[@julesbrunton1728]

Peterson agreed with him 😂 I like Peterson , but he like a little censorship too, just in the form of taboos not laws

[@jaynesemurfin5621]

U nailed it

[@safetrades4133]

My friend it takes neurons to SEE neurons...

[@BasedBill]

This is precisely why I find "The Antisemitism Awareness Act" to be the most frighteningly dangerous piece of legislation I've ever seen in the USA.

[@kumar2ji]

Personal development is conceived in silence.

[@cjl990]

It didn't take long for that young fella to run through his entire store of intelligence did it?

[@Eugene19877]

You’re one to talk.

[@joshuawoodward8429]

It was actually an extremely well considered question and a very important one to raise in this kind of discussion...?

[@positivelydisliked]

​@@Eugene19877hypocrite! See i can do it as well.

[@audreykendall7939]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never harm me. Only if you LET it. We were taught to have a backbone!

[@chasepalagi7675]

2:08 How do people still question this? Yes, outside of inciting violence, or if your words result DIRECTLY to someone losing money etc. Free speech is absolute. Otherwise, it would be policed speech. If hurt feelings were the metric for restricting words, there would be no limit to the governments overreach. Every disagreement, every conflict at work, home, or even a debate would be subject to legal scrutiny. People need to grow up, that is all there is to it. Not being able to immediately recognize the imminent catastrophe any additional restriction to speech would have is concerning to say the least. Who decides what is or isn't appropriate speech and why would you want to give that power to ANYONE? I think it would behoove people gain the ability to think through their position before handing tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to an institution that promotes this lunacy.

[@helen9289]

if you choose to incite violence then you suffer the consequences if your speech creates the action of violence but people should still be free to say what they say .......laws should not be made to stop them saying it just to protect others if actions arise from the speech .....it is part of the saying ....'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it "

[@usafvet100]

If free speech is to mean anything, it must mean that no one has an inalienable right to not be offended.

[@mathewdennison5354]

This has got to be the best Jordan Peterson > Student debate ever! The student asked some great, highly intelligent questions, which allowed them to have a sensible engagement; well done to that student, and well done, Jordan, for some great points.

[@MindlessTube]

hate dont hurt no one, lying of one character does which should be against the law and of course inciting violence.

[@julesbrunton1728]

Isn't lying about someone a form of hate?

[@dimex3362]

Hate leads to action, generally. But I don’t think it should be policed.

[@MarcMartino]

Free speech is free speech. Choice is choice. But if you force the point of the minority over the majority then you are wrong and you should be questioned of why you are supporting the minority.

[@user-McGiver]

you pay, live, and die by your choices... not by your words... dishonesty is unethical, not a crime...

[@MarcMartino]

@@user-McGiver Ever heard of Perjury?

[@tamitami9275]

@@MarcMartino Perjury only matters in a court of law.

[@MarcMartino]

@@tamitami9275 oh that matters? How about slander and libel then.

[@Rundark-]

Everyone is free to say whatever they want but no one is free from the consequences of what is said..

[@adamstall3619]

Dork

[@stinkleaf]

There are no perfect solutions; only trade-offs.

[@johnchristopher3032]

Thank you Thomas

[@user-McGiver]

said the ''sell-out''...

[@usafvet100]

Love me some wisdom from the Sowell brother!

[@wh_kers]

my mouth speaks to my own will

[@timandellenmoran1213]

Peterson is brilliant!

[@BBshark000]

The kid asked a question... how did anyone "destroy" him lmao 😂😂😂

[@allennmickk3705]

I didn't really see that as a question, he made a a lot of false accusations and write a narrative that wasn't factual then asked a question off of his delusional beliefs..... It was kind of weird

[@BBshark000]

@@allennmickk3705 That is solely because you had your own predisposition going into the clip - that makes sense as most JP's audience are right-leaning and see "freedom of speech" as sacrosanct. The student was obviously trying to go into nuances of this argument about whether there are some very narrow exceptions where freedom of speech can be interfered with. He could very well be playing devil's advocate but 98% of you are so lazy to think intellectually or lack any robust academic training that you just entirely miss one of the key lessons JP has been advancing: "the devil's in the details" In any case, if you lack the intellectual capacity, simply observe JP's body language in this interaction. He was by no means thinking that was a stupid question or that student as being malicious like the white liberals in American colleges you see everywhere on KZbin.

[@ym5891]

He didn't ask a question, he was debating on very shaky moral grounds. In many ways, what he says, can be said to be hate speech itself.

[@BBshark000]

@@ym5891 He was offering a perspective and trying to see how JP responds to the most heinous form of hate speech (btw hate speech laws exist in every democratic/commonwealth country). It's almost universal, especially in the world of academics and legal professionals, that freedom of expression is not, and must not, be entirely unrestricted. Otherwise, people are free to defame, harass, shock, among others. This student was trying to see where JP stands, and unsurprisingly, as a psychologist rather than a lawyer, he fails to address any policy reasons how the laws should be, and instead focused on one very tiny strand of moral argument that no one should govern speech laws, regardless of the circumstances - a very weak and limited argument.

[@ym5891]

@@BBshark000 Defaming and harassing are generally well documented in a legal sense. Shocking is not. I can be shocked by your comment, it doesn't prove anything. Also almost universally, every country used laws to oppress their population at one time, even if those laws weren't meant for that purpose. Hence any law that restricts freedoms of the population needs to be VERY clear. 'Hate speech' is anything but clear. And that's the main problem with it; Mere disagreement is construed as hate speech these days. So I have to say; There is no such thing as hate speech, because nobody is able to define it.

[@helen9289]

freedom of speech means just that there should be no caveats ......laws exist so you cant incite violence with speech but to say you cant say it then that is not free speech .....

[@Caesarville]

Love JP ❤

[@Rapscallion2009]

I Lost interest in his question before he even got to it. Still not quite sure what it was.

[@bylakopbhu4852]

I was waiting for the brick layer statement 😂😂😂... Jordan Peterson ❤❤...

[@rkbuttonindrydenont]

Freedom is scary. Deal with it.

[@barbarossa5700]

What exactly constitutes 'freedom'? Language, in order to effectively communicate, necessitates objectivity and standardization to ensure mutual comprehension. This standardization provides a common framework for understanding. However, the existence of such standards does not inherently impede free speech. Free speech isn't merely a cacophony of disjointed noise; rather, it's the expression of thoughts, ideas, and opinions within the confines of established linguistic norms. Thus, the regulation of language for clarity and coherence does not equate to the suppression of free expression. Instead, it facilitates meaningful dialogue and exchange of ideas, enhancing rather than restricting the essence of free speech. What defines 'free'? When any form of constraint is imposed, it ceases to be truly free speech and instead morphs into compelled speech. Interestingly, the root of 'free' stems from 'to love,' suggesting that free speech is essentially an act of love through communication. Therefore, when we engage in free speech, we are not only exercising our right to express ourselves but also demonstrating a form of affection towards the principles of openness, exchange, and understanding inherent in the concept of freedom. Political correctness or the labeling of speech as 'hate speech' often results in a stifling environment where certain expressions are deemed intolerable and tightly regulated, sometimes to the extent that violence is seen as a justified reaction to mere words. This imposition of political correctness serves as a tool for those in positions of power within social hierarchies to maintain their authority, shielding themselves from criticism and dissent. By leveraging politically correct rhetoric, they effectively silence opposition and suppress voices that challenge their status quo, thus perpetuating a system of control and inhibiting meaningful discourse and progress.

[@bigg4454]

It's a good time to invest in a thick skin outfit line of clothing.

[@redginge4840]

If an individual is so fraught at the thought of being verbally attacked or bullied in a nonphysical discourse that they are unable to expound their opinion the fault is with the individual not the structure. Changing the structure and laws, at great risk to the whole community, for weaklings would be wrong. Besides, could such an individual have anything worthy to contribute?

[@cathylucas3653]

Who will decide what speech is hateful? Useful? Nasty? Painful? The audience must be allowed to hear the speech and decide for themselves. Any effort to curtail certain uncomfortable speech will spawn a bureaucracy to control that speech and automatically leads to tyranny

[@insanecowstar3008]

I used to work in a psych hospital. One of the many things we had to in part on the clients is that you are responsible for your own decisions. You can't blame others for your actions. Then victimhood happened. Imagine how dangerous a diagnosed psychopath is when they get convinced what they did is someone else's fault. I don't work there anymore.

[@ronbarton5589]

Thanks yall:-)""

[@IzudeDarkwolf]

It's the unspoken reality few want to speak of as it threatens nearly every sides claims, the inherent uncertainty and thus ignorance of any frame of refrence and chaos theory given the convoluted and immeasurable components of an observably cause and effect axiom/truism; making the mere assumption that one can do anymore than vaguely, educatedly guess at the nature of the present and the abstraction of the future; ignorant, arrogant, and diefication.

[@ReyCimeni]

Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to blow it away out of reality. Deal with it kid.

[@clintonsmith9931]

Why does each time I hear these young people speaking great platitudes it reminds me Of the same sort on Mars Hill that Paul encountered. They were arguing about gods that really weren’t real anyway.

[@PopcornLoverr]

That kid's way of speaking was so loud, fast, and headache inducing that by the time he got to his question I was too exhausted to care.

[@michaelwirth6843]

It´s amazing Jordan Peterson in every speech lays out everything so clearly.

[@fedup3582]

Learn proper values, learn responsibility and respect, get properly educated, be a decent person and treat others decently and respectfully, and freedom of speech will work much better.

[@allennmickk3705]

China boy said a whole lot without saying anything😂

[@pan8a]

Again, this was a good video until the guy with the red shirt started talking

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

Yeah, I've been thinking of how to diplomatically say I wish he'd just shut up. Like we need him to translate Jordan Peterson for us like we're a bunch f blithering morons?

[@bridgewatercontract1]

It's rare that commentators add to the clips they present. You do. Impressive.

[@sashabenoit1518]

Counterspeech and open dialogue would obviously be great if we didn't have so many people who have been ideologically captured to believe that words are vio|ence and that merely questioning their beliefs is seen as "harmful" and problematic. You can't debate ideas when one side either refuses to even have a conversation or enters the conversation in bad faith and a completely closed mind. These people don't even know how to effectively defend their beliefs or how to challenge them because they've never learned how to think critically, only emotionally and through the lense of the victim mindset. They've just been conditioned to parrot the talking points that they've been told and have heard repeatedly and how to use thought blocking techniques on themselves and conversation blocking techniques on others that disagree with them. Until we figure out how to break through that extreme indoctrination, trying to have any kind of meaningful debate or meeting of the minds will prove to be pointless unfortunately.

[@srt8turboawdjeep146]

The answer is NO

[@neilprice513]

The major thing is you don't limit hateful speech at all, even if society at large thinks you should, because when you do it will just go underground and fester ending up devolving into vi0lence or terr0ristic action. This sadly does still happen as we see this from the self inflicted echo chambers from the far left and far right that end with extremism resulting in destruction of property, vandalism, ri0ting, ars0n, vi0lence and murd£r.

[@mikerupp2312]

Write a book, good ideas will win out and survive the test of time

[@fllf3078]

JP 100% correct

[@restcure]

Wow - I am so easily distracted. Can't stop watching that kid in the jacket & sweater vest. Those expressions - what is going through his mind? He sure seems amused by _something._

[@user-tn5pi5bv6h]

Why the kid have to talk too loud and aggressive?

[@ym5891]

It's the only way they know how to argue.

[@wacobeer6469]

Freedom of speech is ABSOLUTE. And limitless. Any so-called restrictions are CONSEQUENCES of said free speech. Just because you CAN say something, it doesn't mean you SHOULD. Libel for example, is NOT a restriction on speech. It is a possible CONSEQUENCE. I want to hear ALL voices so I can make my own judgements on the it's validity. If ANYONE is prohibited from speaking, then we lose access to that speech. Therefore the signals we might receive from that speaker are blocked. This is really easy stuff.

[@BBshark000]

Go get a law degree and study media law, perhaps you would enlighten yourself on how reductionist your view is. If freedom of expression is "absolute", then law of libel would be a form of restriction on the right of free speech. There are always conflicting interests, e.g. right to privacy vs freedom of expression.

[@wacobeer6469]

@@BBshark000 You didn't read my whole comment. Libel is a CONSEQUENCE of speech. The only way it can be considered a restriction on free speech is the deterrent nature of the consequences. You can't legislate what people say by banning speech. We can all say whatever we want. If your speech offends me, I can sue you. No need for legislation. You might win naturally, or I might win based on the consequences of what you said. Clearly making speech illegal hasn't stopped anyone from saying those things. Speech Legislation only creates criminals when we only speak words.

[@BBshark000]

@@wacobeer6469 I humbly believe that you do not have a good understanding of law. If what you're suggesting is that you don't need a criminal code for libel and people can only rely on civil law procedures to claim damages then I really think you have underestimated the whole situation. If that's the case you give massive advantage to the rich, where they are undeterred by fines, and massive disadvantage to the average person, where they don't have the resources to go through all this lengthly civil law procedures (and yes, if you rely solely on civil law procedures you inevitably make the law convoluted which further lengthens court proceedings). Funnily enough, this is also why criminal law exists: the only common thing we have that is fair is time, and a billionaire would be just as worried to be jailed than an average person while fines don't have the same effect on both.

[@BBshark000]

@@wacobeer6469 Also, the logic of your argument is poor. This can be shown easily by analogies. "Libel is a consequence of speech, therefore we should not criminalise it'. Well, surprise surprise, ALL crimes are consequence of freedom. So do we decriminalise EVERYTHING?

[@wacobeer6469]

@@BBshark000 No. We punish CRIMES. We don't punish speech. Are you a Lawyer?

[@grantbaker371]

That boys aggressive tone and ridiculous arguments were punctuated at the end with a 'singsong' little "thank you". I would have to say,; using his argument, the aggressive nature of his speech overrides that of people that are not so aggressive. Therefore his speech should be censored. Using his own logic of course. I don't believe in censoring people like him of course. I'm glad he was able to show us all how he thinks and what he is trying to force on our society. And Dr P showed him exactly why his argument is flawed.

[@phoster3322]

FREEDOM TIL DEATH

[@toonnoon19]

Off topic... Are your hands bigger than your face? I mean, they look like you could squeeze juice out of apples.

[@carolinemcnulty6169]

What a poor questioner.....if only he could frame the question without all the extraneous words. I wish I could have edited the script before he got to rant. Shorter sentences are powerful. Peterson's sentences are complete: one idea per sentence, no distracting verbosity, makes it easier to understand.

[@0ttoRex]

So we're all just supposed to ignore our eyes and ears and act like there's no correlation between race/ethnicity and the belief in rights such as free speech? He looks of asian decent... He can go see if he likes speech laws in an asian country....

[@rorrschach8339]

Implying asians are inherently against free speech, which is racism.

[@BBshark000]

There are speech laws EVERYWHERE.....😂

[@0ttoRex]

@@BBshark000 so what other country has free speech like America? And who are the first people to come up with "freedom of speech"

[@inmyopinion_3672]

There's no such thing as hate speech. Just speech you disagree with. Limit free speech and it might be your opinion that's censored next. "Sticks and stones...." So many marshmallows today.

[@Sparky6string]

I thought the kid was eloquent and was in pursuit of truth. I disagree with both kid and Dr. Peterson regarding 'hate speech' which I find to be not only unnecessary but a travesty of 'justice'.

[@stevenator0281]

I cannot help but think that the young man wants to force others to listen to him. Am I off-base here?

[@DaVinci368]

Exactly. Try being a woman or child in Canada now. Safeguarding of children has been eliminated in schools and law. Women now have to contend with males in womens bathrooms, locker rooms, hospital wards, rape shelters, prisons, sports, scholarships and anywhere that has long been considered women only safe spaces. Even the Supreme Court recently decided that reference to a female rape victim as a “woman” was an “unfortunate choice as it may have offended some people”. In his final ruling the judge thereby redefined the female rape victim as “the person with a vagina”. Moreover, women who try to protest for the return of women’s rights are routinely physically attacked, harassed and threatened by male trans activists. In response to those threats the WOMEN face criminal penalty for complaining.

[@vaendryl]

very old clip. do something else with your hands than hold your fingers against each other in front of you. the shaking makes you look incredibly nervous and therefore not very convincing in what you're saying.

[@tapacitosmith9184]

That is the most irritating and annoying personality I have ever seen.

[@ym5891]

Not a very intelligent Asian. Everything he says can also be construed as hate speech as he is actively trying to restrict rights because of his feelings.

[@TheDreamtimezzz]

This kid takes himself too serious. So annoying.

[@pennythpmas5787]

If my side of the aisle, Lefties, takes your speech, its fine.

[@TheWerewolfOfNorway-mf5jz]

Please checkout Australia's "E safety commission" v Elon Musk.

[@davidmorrison2739]

Sorry. I refuse to watch this new genre of video where someone thinks it necesary to have their picture in an inset all the time for no good reason.

[@tizioincognito5731]

Stop using the world latte for a cappuccino. Latte means milk. It Is so stupid.

[@psychcowboy1]

Did Peterson say something intelligent?

[@Ecoscienceczar]

He's speaking way too fast it's distracting I'm not going to watch these videos anymore if this keeps up and ridiculous

[@rorrschach8339]

Stop posting old clips for clicks.

[@andrewdavid9412]

Sounds like it's blue t-shirt's time of the month.

[@BuffaloianALLDAY]

Dude this British dude with the mic just has that liberal shake to him and emotional build up. Haha 😂

[@tonymalerba1067]

Asian boy loves his word salads

[@hookwaddell8102]

Jesus, ease up on the coffee, bro. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@SirChiefUK]

You can tell from the beginning that chinese pretending to have the intelligence…. There’s no way he can recover from that experience… 🤣