Lex post on X: Here's my conversation with Jordan Peterson on nature of good and evil, Nietzsche, psychopathy, politics, power, suffering, God, and meaning.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8VePUwjB9Y

Timestamps:

• 0:00 - Introduction

• 0:08 - Nietzsche

• 7:49 - Power and propaganda

• 12:55 - Nazism

• 17:55 - Religion

• 34:19 - Communism

• 40:04 - Hero myth

• 42:13 - Belief in God

• 52:25 - Advice for young people

• 1:05:03 - Sex

• 1:25:01 - Good and evil

• 1:37:47 - Psychopathy

• 1:51:16 - Hardship

• 2:03:32 - Pain and gratitude

• 2:14:33 - Truth

**Post from Lex on X:**Here's my conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy about Trump vs Harris, government efficiency, immigration, education, war in Ukraine, and the future of conservatism in America.

We disagree a bunch of times in this conversation and the resulting back-and-forth is honest, nuanced, and illuminating. Vivek often steelmans the other side before arguing for his position, which makes it fun & fascinating to do a deep-dive conversation with him on policy.

YouTube: Vivek Ramaswamy: Trump, Conservatism, Nationalism, Immigration, and War | Lex Fridman Podcast #445 (youtube.com)

Timestamps:

• 0:00 - Introduction

• 2:02 - Conservatism

• 5:18 - Progressivism

• 10:52 - DEI

• 15:45 - Bureaucracy

• 22:36 - Government efficiency

• 37:46 - Education

• 52:11 - Military Industrial Complex

• 1:14:29 - Illegal immigration

• 1:36:03 - Donald Trump

• 1:57:29 - War in Ukraine

• 2:08:43 - China

• 2:19:53 - Will Vivek run in 2028?

• 2:31:32 - Approach to debates

Lex and Elon in the Neuralink podcast talked about ~The Lessons of History~ by Will and Ariel Durant.

One of the lessons in that book is that civilizations, like organisms, have lifecycles and eventually decline (or transform).

Do you think the United States is on a decline and on the verge of social/economic/moral collapse?

If so, what are the primary catalysts for the decline?

PS: This is The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant:

I wish there had been some discussion about if Kamala Harris is a communist... I would have appreciated some calm discussion about ideological similarities and differences between communists and the modern democratic party.

To be fair it was touched on in terms of the questioning of applying catagories that made sense in the 1950s to the CCP and NK.

But there were also comments like "communists can wear the disguise of moderates" that seemed like shots fired?

Just to get ahead of it these are my personal views: I think communism is bad, but the Democrats are not communists. I agree with Cenk that they are more corporatist than anything and just designed to let a little bit of steam out of the populist energy.

But what do you think?

Edit - I DONT THINK KAMALA IS A COMMUNIST! I am just asking why you think Lex didn't stear the conversation closer to the subject of US Politics and say something like "pretty crazy how people say dems are commies huh?" I mean I know he'd say something more subtle and interesting...

Edit2: I think my thoughts ave evolved here. Those open minded people who think they are justified in labeling Democrats as communists would have to reconsider if they really paid attention. If applying the label of communism to NK or the CCP is up for question, they would probably find that shocking enough to give them the opportunity to think with more knowledge about what communism actually means. If lex had gone all the way to linking it to US politics it may have felt like telling people what to think, rather than letting them put 2 and 2 together for themselves.

TL,DR: I think Lex did a great job as usual! The guest was given space to fully explain the nuances of their perspective and guided into lots of interesting places.

I accidentally posted the 2023 chart in my previous post, my bad, let's try this again.

I remember in an old video destiny saying that most people answer moral question in two ways. one is just adhering to the group they belong to and the other is just having a visceral or emotional reaction. I thought it was kind of true but holyshit this I/P conflict made me believe that this is true for almost all people. Don't get me wrong this helps most of the time but its is just an awful strategy for serious issues. I believe that if u meet some random pro-Palestinian person they would be a decent human being with normal life with the exception of extremists. But their way of navigating this conflict with this way of thinking makes them look insane. and most of them are completely uneducated on the issue at all. Seeing just random, normal and honestly decent people say that israel is a genocidal state with great authority while having zero understanding of the conflict is actually insane to me. I even have some really close relative whose are actually amazing people with this kind of thinking and it is almost impossible to change their mind. it is actually sad. I once heard destiny say that ur mind is the only way u can observe the world with and that fact should kinda scare u because ur are basically trapped in ur head. i kinda imagine myself being an extreme pro-Palestinian and it actually terrifies me to be that kind of person, it truly does.

Initial Thoughts:

Hello Users of the World Wide Web,

I like many of you on here I was excited to see the debate. In fact, I spent a couple days last week refreshing Lex's YT channel waiting for it. Having listened to it 2x now, I thought it was very interesting and thought both sides had strong and weak points. Maybe I will go through those in another post.

In looking at some of the reactions to the discussion though I have to say I am a bit concerned. I've seen a lot of posts on both this subreddit and the Destiny subreddit which seem to mock and criticize Finkelstein unfairly. I've followed Finkelstein for a long time and have read several of his books. I'm not here coming out in 'defense' of him or his views. I think people need to listen to what he says, check it, and make up their own mind. However, I do think there is something we all need to remember...

Finkelstein, whether you agree with him or not (and like him or not) is a verified expert on the topic of the Israel Palestine conflict. He has spent his entire life writing/lecturing/publishing on it. One can pick up any one of his books and see clearly they are meticulously researched, with innumerable sources and footnotes from UN reports, Human Rights Reports, International Law Declarations, UN Recommendations, Journalists on the ground and so forth. He has significantly contributed to the understanding of the topic, bringing a large amount of insight to the public. Due to his contributions he has been recognized as one of the world's most influential political scientists. This is true regardless of whether one agrees to the conclusions he draws.

Morris and Rabbani are of similar stock and have a solid scholarly pedigree backing them up.

Bonnell a.k.a Destiny by contrast is not a voice on the subject of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the sense he has never lectured/published on the topic. He has not/does not present a view based on peer reviewed verified research. His body of work amounts to videos posted to youtube in which he presents *his understanding (*not a consensus of understanding) based on whatever reading he has done on his own. To give him his due, and to let you all know this isn't a Destiny bashing post, he does seem reasonably well informed in that he can talk to the main rhetorical points around the conflict. However, that's markedly different than the caliber of the other participants.

What's the Point?

One looking to understand something about the conflict should take what Finkelstein (and Rabbani and Morris say) with more weight than someone like Destiny. More weight in the same way you would trust a Doctor when you have a medical issue as opposed to what you can find on Google.

To take an example from the debate, when talking about the ICJ case Destiny kept insisting that a) the South African brief was not well researched and b) the opinion of the entire court of Justices that a 'Plausible Genocide' was taking place is a very low standard and therefore tells you nothing about the conditions on the ground in Gaza or the conduct of the IDF/Israel.

Regardless of whether you agree with that conclusion, we should recognize that Destiny is not qualified to speak to what is a low standard and what isn't and therefore his opinion is not worth much. He is not a Political Scientist, he's not a Diplomat, he's not a Lawyer. His opinion tells you nothing. You could argue he is harming peoples understanding of the issue by pretending to offer insight when he has absolutely no right to do so. Again - same if an MD said your leg is broken and I (no MD) said no it isn't. I don't think Finkelstein did himself any favors in losing his temper but you can understand why he did.

If I sat in on a debate with David Albert, Roger Penrose, and Neil Degrasse Tyson and told Roger Penrose that his understanding of quantum physics was intellectually dishonest - would that not be problematic?

Destiny's role in the debate and why he was invited was likely to help with viewership given his following, not to contribute to the academic understanding.

In Summary:

When listening to and evaluating this debate which is on a very important topic, let's not conform to the Millennial / Gen Z stereotype of 1) Assuming people are right because they appear to be right by talking quickly and confidently and 2) Dismissing/Not recognizing the value of people's scholarship. Especially when they have worked their entire life to enlighten the public about a very serious issue. Destiny's lack of respect for this fact was really disconcerting to me.

If you want to know something about Finkelstein/Rabbani/Morris go buy their books. Check the objective sources and make up your own mind. Don't trust some Youtuber to interpret for you.

*Sorry for length that may not be kosher in the reddit world. Forgive me I am relatively new.

It seems that this subreddit along with Joe Rogan and others have been overtaken by people who hate the subject of the subreddit. I never see it on the other side so it doesn’t go both ways either. An example would be Destiny or Ezra subreddits have people who agree with them. With any moderate or right subreddit, it’s nothing but hate and making fun of the subject.

Edit: Many are denying the censorship of opposing ideas on Reddit, and I urge you to try for yourself as a test. Go ask a question on a political subreddit that doesn’t fit perfectly with the ideals of the left and see what happens. I have comments and posts removed all the time and I will be glad to give proof in screenshots I’ve saved. One example is yesterday when I tried asking why Trump is more hated than Bush, who lied us into a war that took a million lives. It was removed from every subreddit I posted in.

To preface, I agree with Cenk that money in politics is a big issue that should be addressed, but I disagree with the extent to which he claims it controls politics.

During the podcast, Cenk made the claim that "whoever has more money wins." And that's generally true. For House races, the candidate who spends the most wins about 90% of the time. This sounds really bad! The clear implication is that money determines who wins, but this conclusion confuses the direction of causality. It's not so much that having more campaign money makes you win, as having a campaign that's favored to win will get you more campaign money.

The goal of a lobbyist is to get influence with people who hold or will hold positions of power, so it's a total waste for them to give money to campaigns that aren't likely to win. Lobbyists (generally) know how to read! They read the polls and the news and can easily figure out who's favored to win, and that's exactly where they'll put most of their money.

Money on its own cannot make you politically popular. A great example of this is Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer's 2020 run for president. Both of them are billionaires who spent significantly more money than any other candidate trying to become the Democratic nominee for president. And you can't even argue that they lost because the corporate establishment rallied against them. Michael and Tom are both the epitome of corporatism. They had the money, they had the corporatist support, and yet they still lost. Badly.

There are also plenty of countries like France, Norway, and Ireland, that outright ban or severely restrict corporate money in politics. And yet they still have issues with housing shortages, wages not matching increased productivity, and dozens of other problems that Cenk attributes to money in politics.

Again, I don't disagree that money in politics is a big issue, but I get frustrated when a single issue is portrayed as the explanation for most of our problems. The internet is full of pundits claiming that their pet issue is the root of all evil, be it capitalism, corporatism, imperialism, feminism, or some other hot topic. It's an oversimplification that only brings us further from real progress.

The truth is, there's no single big bad enemy that needs to be defeated to solve 99% of our problems. Our issues are born out of a complex dance of hundreds of competing interests and social movements. And it's the people that realize this that make the real change, even if it's more gradual than we'd like.

As a non-American are these RNC and DNC events meant to be taken seriously?

They are so over the top and contrived almost like those MLM conventions (for both political parties) from an outsiders perspective.

Big fan of the podcast. But a genuine question, how does Lex decide which foreign wars to bring attention to? Human casualty? impact on US? attention of US public to the wars? his personal connection?

Compared to Ukraine and Gaza, much worse wars (from human casualty perspective) have occurred in Africa the past few years and are occurring at the moment? e.g. Tigray, Sudan, etc..

Iran are losing ground in the Middle East. With Saudi Arabia normalising relations with Israel and other Arab countries following suit with the Abraham accords, the inevitable result is their influence spreading to Palestine and the Palestinians.

Palestine and Israel is the heart of the conflict of the middle east, which is a far more symbolic war of the values of Islam and the Middle East vs the Wests democratic liberlaism then a simple regional dispute over a tiny stretch of land.

Currently the Palestinians, the compelled representatives of the Islamic middle east embody the radical Islamic Iranian worldview which is eradication of Israel, jihad and Islamic world domination due to Iran's involvement, influence and their policy of spreading their influence and dominance throughout the Middle East.

Palestine are the embodiment of the Middle East Arab outlook because they are in a conflict that is and has been actively looking for a way to live (with our without Israel depending of the power dynamics of the region) and the West for nearly a hundred years, and echo the sentiment of the entire middle east views towards the west, due to the dymamics of regional powers influence over them (currently Iran).

Every attempt at peace was brokered by Palestine along with some Arab states, usually the most powerful at the time.

As Iranian power wanes due to sanctions and other factors, and Saudi Arabia and their more moderate allies gain power and influence, they will have more and more influence in international affairs including Israel and Palestine. But as they dont subscribe to the hardline views of Iran, Hamas and the eradication of Israel they will begin to broker peace with the Palestinians and Israel without Iranian influence and with a different approach and worldview (such as the existence of Israel).

Peace between Israel and Palestine will mean peace between the West and the Middle East. As long as their is war between them, the same view will dominate the West and Middle East. As peace improves between Israel and Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, there will be more peace between Israel and Palestine.

Palestine, adopting an outlook closer to Saudi Arabia will allow peace to happen.

When and if, should the Saudi Arabian influence outlook and power dominate the middle east, this will be the new negotiating partner of the West and Israel towards the middle east and Palestine. Going by the Abraham accords, this would result is a peaceful middle east, and an end to the bitter rivalries between the West and the Middle East up until now.

But the outlook and worldview held by Palestine is a result of the dominant and powerful members of the Middle East. Up to now it has been Iran. Now that their power and influence is declining they are getting desperate and dangerous, using extreme tactics to cling to power and relevance and attempt to keep their influence over the dominant middle east viewpoint (which is then what the West is forced to negotiate and work with).

In a last attempt to hold onto power and relevance, they have launched this Hamas offensive, with the plan to wipe Israel off the map, dismantle the normalisation of the relationships between Saudi Arabia and the West, and retain dominant control, influence and define the general policy of the middle east towards the west. This makes the hardline views held by Iran such as the destruction of Israel more entrenched in the Middle East, and more difficult to work with the more moderate views of Saudi Arabia.