Jordan Peterson uses disingenuous debate tactics, primarily semantic wordplay, to obscure his true beliefs and derail conversations. The host, Cody Johnston, uses Peterson’s appearance on a “Surrounded” debate show as a case study for this behavior and connects it to a broader right-wing strategy.
Table of Contents
👀 Peterson’s Unclear and Shifting Position
The video first points out that the premise of the debate was fundamentally flawed from the start.
- Refusal to Identify: The debate’s title was changed from “Christian versus 20 Atheists” to “Jordan Peterson versus 20 Atheists” because Peterson refused to explicitly state that he is a Christian.
- Cherry-Picking Beliefs: This allows him to create an “amorphous fog” around his beliefs. When asked about specific Christian doctrines he finds inconvenient (like the Rapture or genocide in the Old Testament), he dismisses them as things he doesn’t “concern himself with.” However, he simultaneously cites other parts of the Bible to support his points.
- Pointless Debate: This refusal to take a clear stance makes a productive debate impossible, as his opponents have no solid position to argue against.
🤞The Core Tactic: Semantic Word Games
The video’s central argument is that Peterson’s primary tactic is to bog down conversations by endlessly litigating the definitions of common words.
- Defining “God”: When claiming atheists don’t know what they’re rejecting, Peterson defines “God” in an incredibly broad way, such as “the voice of conscience within.” He then argues that since atheists have a conscience, they unknowingly believe in God.
- Defining “Believe”: When asked point-blank if he believes in an all-powerful God, Peterson’s response is, “What do you mean by ‘believe’?” This leads to a long, frustrating tangent where he refuses to answer the question and gets sidetracked into a bizarre argument about whether he would lie to save Jewish people from Nazis.
- Defining “Worship”: He claims everyone “worships” something, then defines “worship” as “prioritize.” When an opponent uses his own logic against him, Peterson immediately contradicts the definition he just gave moments before.
- The Goal: The host argues this is an intentional strategy to run out the clock, exhaust opponents, and avoid answering direct questions.
✅ Peterson’s Actual Beliefs
The video asserts that Peterson’s word games are a cover because he doesn’t actually hold traditional religious beliefs. It presents clips where Peterson states:
- God is the “ultimate fictional character.”
- Religion is a useful fiction that is “good for stupid people” because it serves as a repository for moral stories.
The host concludes that Peterson is a non-believer who sees religion as a useful tool for social order and must hide this from his largely religious audience.
👌 Connection to Broader Right-Wing Tactics
Finally, the video zooms out to argue that Peterson’s methods are a microcosm of a larger political strategy on the right.
- Tangential Logic: This tactic involves using wordplay to meander off-topic and redefine reality. Examples include conservatives hijacking words like “woke,” “DEI,” and “groomer” and imbuing them with new, vague, and emotionally charged meanings.
- Cult & Fascist Language: The host compares this “cultish language” to the rhetoric of cults and fascists, arguing it’s designed to make communication “hazier, not clearer,” shut down independent thought, and provoke emotional responses. Donald Trump is presented as the ultimate master of this tactic.
- The Danger: The video concludes that this “war on words” is dangerous because if the meaning of words can be endlessly debated, then the meaning of laws and the Constitution can also be twisted to serve an authoritarian agenda.
More Topics
- What is Alavism: Suuni or Shia?
- What Was Wittgenstein’s Main Idea: Ideas, Legacy, and Key Questions
- Shrek and Maurice Tillet: An Uncanny Connection
- The Banshees of Inisherin: Thrownness, Pride, Anxiety, and Nothingness
- Thucydides was a Woke or Putin?
- The First Walking Dead: Social Collapse During the Plague of Athens
- Thucydides’s Trap: How an Ancient War Explains the Modern US-China Conflict
