Uploaded March 2020 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This video is a reply to a video by Jordan Peterson who claims to "dismantle" the argument that "that wasn't real Marxism". I show his logical inconsistencies, grammatical mistakes and big argumentative flaws. I also show how he completely switches the topic and argument within just 2 sentences. Then I continue and dismantle that argument as well. At the end I conclude that Jordan Peterson either won't or can't support his claim.
Patreon: patreon.com/viki1999
Twitter: twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
Transcript:
There are many problems with structuring an argument like that. The main problem is that you usually misrepresent the opposition. Since you disagree with them your opinion on their opinion will influence how you represent their opinion. That was a very complicated sentence. Let me rephrase it. Peterson misrepresents his opponents.
This is called “Straw manning” because you are essentially making up a fake version of your opponent. A straw man. This isn’t to say you can’t repeat the arguments of your opposition, but you need to be more careful with it. Really the only way to do it correctly is to either ask your opposition if your presentation of their views is correct, which you can only do in a debate or you quote them directly.
That’s why I showed you the entire video. I do not want to misrepresent his views and I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting him. And I genuinely want to engage with his views as well as I can. To be fair that’s easier for me since I am arguing against a person rather than against a straw man. Oh sorry, I meant he is arguing against “The marxists”.
But hey whatever, he condensed the opinions of some people for rhetoric effect. He isn’t writing a scientific paper, he is just talking for a bit and we can’t ignore his arguments just because he made up his opposition. Let’s have a look at how arguments work in the first place. The core of any argument is “I say XY” “because of” “Proof”.
Any arguments needs those 2 parts. An assertion and something to found it on. If you just have an assertion that’s not an argument. That’s an opinion. And opinions can just be ignored. If you say “Red is the best color” that’s an opinion and I can ignore it or claim that blue is the best color. We will never get to resolve which color is the best one if we just say that.
However, if you say “red is the best color because it is used to make dangerous things and warning signs stick out” that’s an argument. And that is a lot more persuasive. To refute this I would have to argue against the WHY you put forth. That means I would have to explain why marking dangerous things isn’t important to me. That’s rather basic don’t you think.
And what if I came forth took your assertion that red is the best color because of its high visibility and said: “My opponent think that red is the best colour EVEN THOUGH poisonous berries are red”. Would I have honestly engaged with the opinions of my opponent? No. What I just did was not only straw manning but also ignoring the reason my opponent believes what they believe.
Now let’s get back to Jordan Petersons argument. His has 200 words and I will try to break it down to it’s basics. Essentially his argument is: “It was real marxism” or at least that’s what his argument is supposed to be based on the beginning and the title. But then he completely changes what he is talking about.
He goes: “They say it wasn’t real Marxism and I think they say that because they feel like they could have done better which they wouldn’t have”. Yea I had to shorten it but that’s his argument. He then goes on supporting why he thinks that that “they” wouldn’t have done any better, citing mass killings by Stalin.
Now, looking at this do you see what’s wrong with this argument? It is the most blatant insertion of an opinion I’ve seen so far. He straight up says that HE THINKS that the Marxists mean something other than what they said. Here is the quote: “what it really means, and I’ve thought about this for a long time…. It’s the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make. It means: If I would have been in Stalin’s Position I would have ushered in the damn utopia”
This video is a reply to a video by Jordan Peterson who claims to "dismantle" the argument that "that wasn't real Marxism". I show his logical inconsistencies, grammatical mistakes and big argumentative flaws. I also show how he completely switches the topic and argument within just 2 sentences. Then I continue and dismantle that argument as well. At the end I conclude that Jordan Peterson either won't or can't support his claim.
Patreon: patreon.com/viki1999
Twitter: twitter.com/Viki1999Yt
Transcript:
There are many problems with structuring an argument like that. The main problem is that you usually misrepresent the opposition. Since you disagree with them your opinion on their opinion will influence how you represent their opinion. That was a very complicated sentence. Let me rephrase it. Peterson misrepresents his opponents.
This is called “Straw manning” because you are essentially making up a fake version of your opponent. A straw man. This isn’t to say you can’t repeat the arguments of your opposition, but you need to be more careful with it. Really the only way to do it correctly is to either ask your opposition if your presentation of their views is correct, which you can only do in a debate or you quote them directly.
That’s why I showed you the entire video. I do not want to misrepresent his views and I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting him. And I genuinely want to engage with his views as well as I can. To be fair that’s easier for me since I am arguing against a person rather than against a straw man. Oh sorry, I meant he is arguing against “The marxists”.
But hey whatever, he condensed the opinions of some people for rhetoric effect. He isn’t writing a scientific paper, he is just talking for a bit and we can’t ignore his arguments just because he made up his opposition. Let’s have a look at how arguments work in the first place. The core of any argument is “I say XY” “because of” “Proof”.
Any arguments needs those 2 parts. An assertion and something to found it on. If you just have an assertion that’s not an argument. That’s an opinion. And opinions can just be ignored. If you say “Red is the best color” that’s an opinion and I can ignore it or claim that blue is the best color. We will never get to resolve which color is the best one if we just say that.
However, if you say “red is the best color because it is used to make dangerous things and warning signs stick out” that’s an argument. And that is a lot more persuasive. To refute this I would have to argue against the WHY you put forth. That means I would have to explain why marking dangerous things isn’t important to me. That’s rather basic don’t you think.
And what if I came forth took your assertion that red is the best color because of its high visibility and said: “My opponent think that red is the best colour EVEN THOUGH poisonous berries are red”. Would I have honestly engaged with the opinions of my opponent? No. What I just did was not only straw manning but also ignoring the reason my opponent believes what they believe.
Now let’s get back to Jordan Petersons argument. His has 200 words and I will try to break it down to it’s basics. Essentially his argument is: “It was real marxism” or at least that’s what his argument is supposed to be based on the beginning and the title. But then he completely changes what he is talking about.
He goes: “They say it wasn’t real Marxism and I think they say that because they feel like they could have done better which they wouldn’t have”. Yea I had to shorten it but that’s his argument. He then goes on supporting why he thinks that that “they” wouldn’t have done any better, citing mass killings by Stalin.
Now, looking at this do you see what’s wrong with this argument? It is the most blatant insertion of an opinion I’ve seen so far. He straight up says that HE THINKS that the Marxists mean something other than what they said. Here is the quote: “what it really means, and I’ve thought about this for a long time…. It’s the most arrogant possible statement anyone could ever make. It means: If I would have been in Stalin’s Position I would have ushered in the damn utopia”
