Brief: Mehdi Hasan vs Jordan Peterson

Summary

Conspirituality Podcast Episode Summary

Title: Brief: Mehdi Hasan vs Jordan Peterson
Hosts: Derek Beres, Matthew Remski, Julian Walker
Release Date: July 26, 2025
Duration: Approximately 39 minutes

---

Introduction

In this episode of Conspirituality, hosts Derek Beres and Julian Walker delve into the recent viral episodes featuring journalist Mehdi Hasan and psychologist Jordan Peterson on the Jubilee platform. These episodes have sparked significant debate and criticism regarding Jubilee's role in facilitating debates between controversial figures and their opponents. The discussion aims to unpack the dynamics of these debates, the quality of discourse, and the broader implications for public discourse and media consumption.

Overview of Jubilee Debates

[01:02] Derek Beres introduces the central topic: the controversial episode titled "Mehdi Hasan vs Jordan Peterson." He highlights the backlash Jubilee has received, including scrutiny over founder Jason Lee's fundraising tactics and accusations of promoting clickbait content. Derek questions whether Jubilee's approach is purely sensationalist or if there are deeper, valuable conversations to be had within their format.

Mehdi Hasan vs. Far-Right Conservatives

[01:52] – [08:50]

Julian Walker reflects on Mehdi Hasan's recent appearance where he debates far-right conservatives. He praises Hasan's debating skills, noting his composure and effectiveness under pressure compared to Peterson's more reactive style. Julian observes that the far-right participants often come unprepared, embodying stereotypes of cruelty and ignorance, which Hasan adeptly exposes.

Notable Quote:
Julian Walker [07:09]: "Mehdi Hassan is a better debater. He comes across as less conflicted... He just handles himself well under pressure."

Analysis:
The hosts discuss how Hasan's episode contrasts with typical debate formats by featuring participants who openly identify as fascists. Hasan's strategic decision to end conversations when faced with blatant extremism ("when people revealed themselves as fascists, he said, fuck you, this conversation is over") has inadvertently increased his visibility and sparked further discussion about the platform's role.

Jordan Peterson vs. Atheist Debaters

[08:50] – [32:35]

Shifting focus, Derek and Julian examine Jordan Peterson's debate with a group of 20 atheists. Peterson's approach is critiqued for being less effective, as he becomes easily provoked and struggles to maintain composure. In contrast, some atheists like Parker demonstrate strong debating skills, effectively challenging Peterson's arguments.

Notable Quotes:
Derek Beres [13:00]: "You support principles or you don't. Speech 100%."
Julian Walker [27:00]: "Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people that you care about. Like, there could be a Jewish friend that you have and you want to protect them."

Analysis:
The debate format allowed atheists with philosophical and psychological backgrounds to dismantle Peterson's assertions, particularly his claims surrounding the definition of God and the inability to derive morality from science. Peterson's reliance on thought experiments and semantic arguments was effectively countered by well-prepared debaters who exposed the circular logic in his reasoning.

Comparison of Debates

[33:38] – [37:32]

Derek and Julian compare the two debates, emphasizing the preparedness and quality of the participants. Hasan's encounter with far-right individuals often led to swift disengagement when extremist views were presented, highlighting a "red line" against fascism. In contrast, Peterson faced participants who were more nuanced but still struggled to effectively challenge his points, ultimately resulting in Peterson's frustration and departure from the debate.

Notable Quote:
Julian Walker [35:03]: "If you are saying things that are not true, it's not about whether or not can you say it. But then if you're demonetized or if you're kicked off a platform because you're spreading that misinformation, that is not an abnegation of your free speech rights."

Analysis:
The hosts discuss the implications of Jubilee's platforming choices, questioning whether facilitating these debates underscores a form of free speech absolutism or if it inadvertently promotes harmful ideologies. They highlight the thin line between allowing open discourse and preventing the spread of misinformation and extremist views.

Implications for Public Discourse and Free Speech

[37:32] – [39:02]

Derek and Julian explore the broader consequences of such debates on public discourse. They argue that while platforms like Jubilee aim to create engaging content by pitting controversial figures against opposing viewpoints, this can lead to the amplification of extremist voices and the monetization of fringe beliefs. The discussion emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between legitimate free speech and the dissemination of harmful misinformation.

Notable Quote:
Julian Walker [38:48]: "It's very, very complicated and I don't think think absolutist stances on either side really serve us as we try to figure out the reality of this new media landscape."

Analysis:
The hosts advocate for a more nuanced approach to media consumption, urging listeners to look beyond sensationalism and engage critically with the content. They recognize the challenges posed by algorithms and echo chambers but remain cautiously optimistic about finding constructive ways to navigate the evolving media environment.

Concluding Thoughts

[39:02] – End

Julian Walker concludes by acknowledging the complexity of the issues discussed, from platforming and filter bubbles to the need for substantive debates that challenge participants' beliefs. He leans towards a balanced view, appreciating Jubilee's potential to foster meaningful conversations despite its flaws. The episode wraps up with a brief, unrelated advertisement message.

Final Quote:
Julian Walker [37:32]: "I think that distinction is really important."

Key Takeaways

• Debate Quality: Mehdi Hasan's debates with far-right conservatives showcase effective argumentation against poorly prepared extremists, while Jordan Peterson's debates with atheists highlight challenges when facing well-prepared and philosophically grounded opponents.

• Platform Responsibility: Jubilee's format of facilitating high-stakes debates raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of media platforms in curating content that balances free speech with the prevention of harmful rhetoric.

• Free Speech vs. Harmful Speech: The distinction between protecting free speech and restricting the spread of misinformation is crucial, with the hosts advocating for critical engagement rather than blanket censorship or absolutism.

• Media Consumption: Listeners are encouraged to navigate the complex media landscape thoughtfully, recognizing the influence of algorithms and the importance of seeking out substantive and well-reasoned discourse.

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• Julian Walker [07:09]: "Mehdi Hassan is a better debater. He comes across as less conflicted... He just handles himself well under pressure."

• Derek Beres [13:00]: "You support principles or you don't. Speech 100%."

• Julian Walker [27:00]: "Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people that you care about. Like, there could be a Jewish friend that you have and you want to protect them."

• Julian Walker [35:03]: "If you are saying things that are not true, it's not about whether or not can you say it. But then if you're demonetized or if you're kicked off a platform because you're spreading that misinformation, that is not an abnegation of your free speech rights."

• Julian Walker [38:48]: "It's very, very complicated and I don't think think absolutist stances on either side really serve us as we try to figure out the reality of this new media landscape."

---

Conclusion

This episode of Conspirituality offers a critical examination of the current state of public debates facilitated by platforms like Jubilee. Through analyzing the performances of Mehdi Hasan and Jordan Peterson, the hosts highlight the complex interplay between free speech, platform responsibilities, and the quality of public discourse. The conversation underscores the necessity for thoughtful media consumption and the importance of fostering environments where meaningful and respectful debates can thrive.

Transcript

[Julian Walker]

Thanks for selling your car to Carvana.

[Derek Barris]

Here's your check. Whoa. When did I get here?

[Julian Walker]

What do you mean?

[Derek Barris]

I swear it was just moments ago.

[Julian Walker]

That I accepted a great offer from Carvana online. I must have time traveled to the future. It was just moments ago. We do same day pickup. Here's your check for that great offer.

[Derek Barris]

It is the future. It's. It's the present.

[Julian Walker]

And just the convenience of Carvana. Sorry to blow your mind.

[Derek Barris]

It's all good.

[Julian Walker]

Happens all the time. Sell your car the convenient way to Carvana. Pick up.

[Derek Barris]

Times may vary and fees may apply.

[Julian Walker]

On WhatsApp, no one can see or hear your personal messages. Whether it's a voice call message or sending a password to WhatsApp, it's all just this. So whether you're sharing the streaming password in the family chat or trading those late night voice messages, that could basically become a podcast, your personal messages stay between you, your friends and your family. No one else, not even us. WhatsApp message privately with everyone.

[Derek Barris]

Well, Julian, we're back on the Jubilee tip, and I didn't expect to return so soon, but the recent episode, which is called one progressive versus 20 far right conservatives that feature journalist Mehdi Hassan, has absolutely blown up. It's been all over my social media feeds along with it. There have been loads of criticism about the platform, including a resurfaced video of the founder of Jubilee, Jason Lee, saying that he told Silicon Valley investors that the platform was going to get a ton of clicks and make a lot of money when he was trying to raise money. This fits into the broader issue we discussed a few weeks ago when we looked at Jubilee on the main feed, which is, is it pure clickbait or is there important context to be mined from the conversations? What do you think?

[Julian Walker]

Well, it's interesting, right, because Mehdi, of course, is getting a lot of. He's doing a lot of appearances off the back of this and the whole thing. We don't debate fascists. And it's interesting because he's now getting all of this additional exposure and discussion. And it's largely because during the recording, he refused to debate fascists. When people revealed themselves as fascists, he said, fuck you, this conversation is over. So it's this interesting sort of gray area. The last time we talked about Jubilee on our air, I did say I have very mixed feelings about what they do. But there is also the fact that they're getting a lot of traction. Part of that is tackling highly charged issues by using this combination of little known gen Z participants and then quite famous boomers and Gen Xers. And that of course draws a lot of views and clicks. It's a winning strategy and I think we don't have to enjoy or co sign everything a company puts out to acknowledge that some of it has value and is and is working well in this space. Right. As I've continued learning about Jubilee, I'm realizing that often the Gen Z kids may be unknown to me, but they have large social media accounts which are all then linked in the YouTube video description, all of their Instagrams and TikToks. So again, that's also a point of kind of marketing and audience sharing genius on their part, which is part of why they're so huge. Regarding my mixed feelings, the Mehdi Hassan episode that we just talked about we're going to cover here, I actually appreciated a lot of the editorial choices in terms of how the final video was presented. So more about that later.

[Derek Barris]

Well, I'm Derek Barris, you're Julian Walker. This is a conspirituality brief, Mehdi Hasan versus Jordan Peterson, which are the two episodes we're going to be looking at today. Of course, you can always support the work that we do as independent media via [e-mail] conspirituality as well as Apple subscriptions if you want to receive our Monday bonus episodes. To get back to what you were saying a moment ago, Julian, one thing I find very interesting is during the Mehdi Hassan conversation, he explicitly says, if you believe in the First Amendment, then you're a free speech absolutist. In fact, I'm going to play one of the clips that kind of gets to that point later where he says that. But I agree with that. Now there are calls for Jubilee to be shut down right now, and I just don't agree with that. We've both watched Teller Lorenz's review with Jason Lee, the founder, where he lays out the case of why he's created the company that he has. And the reality is, for the criticism of this Unearth video, I've worked for a lot of tech startups over my years. If you are trying to raise money for anything, you have to convince people that it's going to make money. That is just the field that you were playing on. So if people are treating it like, oh, I got it. I knew he really wanted to make money.

[Julian Walker]

He told the VC people that it was a really good proposition. Oh really? That's what he did. But he was trying to raise money.

[Derek Barris]

Yeah. So there's that level, which is just pretty annoying to me. Of course, that's, that's what's going to happen. I've also seen claims like Jubilee is a psyop or participants or Jubilee employees, which may or may not be the case. I don't know. But one thing that Lee does tell Tyler Lorenz is that hundreds of thousands of people have applied to be on these things. So regardless of your feelings on it, he is striking a nerve. And I just want to briefly tackle one of the other criticisms I've seen, which is people relating it to like the 80s shows like Jerry Springer. You know, we are in a different media environment right now. There are not only a couple of stations to watch. You can make an argument that he was platform, the company was platforming fascists and should be demonetized. That's something for YouTube to, you know, weigh. My feeling on it is it's different in a debate format when someone's openly admitting their fascist. To say someone willfully spreading vaccine misinformation in order to sell products, that is just a different terms of service to me. Now if YouTube decides, hey, this guy said he's a fascist, we're going to demonetize, that's, that's their choice as a business. But all of this downward pressure coming from people, if you don't like what they're doing, you don't have to tune in. You do have that choice. And I agree with Medi. And Medi has spoken to the bull work and many other places now about his experiences there. And he has no problem with that format and what happens. And it obviously is drawing eyeballs. So overall, again, I have problems from a media perspective with what they're doing. But should or should they not exist? I'm like, that's not even a question to me. It's like they do exist and you can learn some things from their content, as I think we're going to find today.

[Julian Walker]

Great.

[Derek Barris]

Now, as I said, we're going to talk about the two episodes of Mehdi Hassan which we brought up already. And then we have Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists from a few months ago. Now, you floated the idea of talking about the differences in the audiences, not just Mehdi and Jordan, but how they were engaging the people they were engaging with. What piqued your interest about that?

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, I watched both of these because I, I will watch anything that has either of those characters in them. And the way Peterson handled himself versus how Hassan handled himself, that contrast was very apparent to me and very interesting. Mehdi Hassan is a better debater. He comes across as less conflicted. I'm talking about body language, facial expression, tone of voice, how he argues, what he does when he's put in a corner. He just handles himself well under pressure. Whereas Peterson is reactive, is easily provoked. He debates terribly. He can't handle being challenged at all. And then there's the other contrast, which is between the group of 20 that they each faced, sitting in a circle around them, surrounded. The atheists that Peterson debated were all smart and eloquent. They had well practiced debate skills. Some of them seem to have academic philosophy education. But the 20 far right conservatives who were squaring off against Mehdi Hassan, sadly, I have to say, lived up to the stereotype as being cruel and bigoted and mostly not really that smart.

[Derek Barris]

They really didn't come prepared. Mehdi, you know, along with this conversation about media analysis, remember Mehdi spends a lot of time on Piers Morgan, which is sort of Jubilee. Like it's meant to provoke that conflict between people. But the thing about that show is you have to be really good at cutting in and having strong arguments. And the same holds here. I will say this about Peterson. He listened more than Mehdi did. He gave people more time to unpack arguments. Although I agree with your overall sentiment that he was definitely getting way more frustrated.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, and let's not forget Mehdi Hassan is the author of a recent book about how to win any debate. So this is something he's really into.

[Derek Barris]

Yes. So the first couple of clips are from Mehdi's claim, which is that Donald Trump is defying the Constitution. And if you didn't listen to our episode a couple of weeks ago, the way this is surrounded, that particular show on Jubilee is formatted is that the guest makes a claim and then people come up to debate them. Now, as happened in both of these episodes, but more in the Medi episode, they really didn't stay on topic. They just kind of took it off to wherever they wanted. But that is the claim. And now debaters go off the rails here. The first clip is of Connor, who is one of the men going viral for openly claiming that he's a fascist. Apparently he got fired from his job. Some people are debating whether or not he actually had a job, but he has raised over $30,000 on GiveSendGo because of this. So regardless of how you feel about this dickhead, he is, he is making money off of this. Now, this clip ends when he claims he's a fascist, but how he gets there is worthy of discussion and he claims that he wants to see autocracy in implemented in America. How would Conor's America look? What would it look like? Well, quite frankly, I think we would deport people who shouldn't be. What does the government look like? What's the government look like? Yeah, I would say, quite frankly it's under a sort of benevolent leader such.

[Julian Walker]

As where does he crank?

[Derek Barris]

It could be a kind of aristocratic class. Could be someone who picks the autocrat, frankly, the people. I mean, we could hold a vote on it. Kings is not democracy. Well, sure, you can have a vote to get to that and then no more votes afterwards. Absolutely. 100. Wow. And if that autocrat kills you and your family, you're fine with that? Well, I'm not. I'm not going to be a part.

[Julian Walker]

Of the group that he kills because.

[Derek Barris]

That'S the whole thing. How do you know? Everyone makes this point very well in his work.

[Julian Walker]

It's the friend enemy distinction.

[Derek Barris]

Right. You the Nazi theoretician? Absolutely.

[Julian Walker]

I don't care.

[Derek Barris]

Are you fan of the Nazis? I don't, I frankly don't care. Being called the Nazi. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I said, are you a fan of the Nazis? Well, they persecuted the church a little bit. I'm not a fan of that. But what about the persecution of the Jews? Well, I mean, I certainly don't support anyone's human dignity being assaulted. I'm a Catholic. But you don't condemn Nazi persecution of the Jews. I think that there was a little bit of persecution because you're a little bit more than a far right Republican.

[Julian Walker]

Hey, what can I say?

[Derek Barris]

I think you say I'm a fascist.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, I am. It's like he's practiced the, the Tucker Carlson laugh. Right, Right.

[Derek Barris]

You know, a benevolent leader like Burning Man. He just wants Burning man all the time.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah. So once you get into power, no more elections. I'm not one of the people. This is the whole thing. He says, I'm not one of the people who would be killed.

[Derek Barris]

Right. Which is what MAGA is finding out right now with Jeff Epstein. As we, you know, talked about on Thursday, it's like, oh, wait, I am one of the people. What happened? Now since we're talking about the Constitution in this claim, the First Amendment inevitably comes up and this speaker says, this next speaker says he doesn't really care about the Constitution. He asks Mehdi, as a UK born Indian whose parents emigrated to Britain, why he would care. Mehdi lays out a few reasons, including free speech. But then returns to wondering how a society is governed without a framework. How do you run a country without any kind of laws or due process? And by the way, you do care about it, because without the First Amendment, you wouldn't be sitting here. Well, I agree with the First Amendment, and I think with Donald Trump's crackdown on the First Amendment, he's imprisoning people for their speech. He's crack. He's. He's threatening free speech, media organizations, he's threatening peaceable assembly. These are all rights under the First Amendment. Why aren't you bothered by that? As a conservative claims to love the First Amendment. So I actually, I don't like the First Amendment. I like free speech. Okay, so First Amendment is what guarantees free speech speakers. By the way, I'm from the UK which is a democracy. We don't have the First Amendment. No, that's one of the things I do like about the Constitution. I wish the UK did have a First Amendment. So people are arrested for praying outside.

[Julian Walker]

Abortion clinics and stuff like that.

[Derek Barris]

So. So you're, you're opposed to people being arrested for speech crimes? It depends what it is. If it's like. So you're like one of the previous speakers.

[Julian Walker]

You don't know.

[Derek Barris]

As long as it's someone who agrees with you, you don't mind? No, no, I support. We consistently support principles or we don't. Speech 100%. Okay. I don't think any. So do you think Donald Trump is defying the Constitution by cracking down on the First Amendment?

[Julian Walker]

So I think he's cracking down on.

[Derek Barris]

Free speech, like the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, who's. Who was just released from prison by a judge saying his First Amendment rights are violent. And I agree with the judge and I disagree with Trump deporting them, but.

[Julian Walker]

I think that's more a matter of.

[Derek Barris]

Free speech and not the Constitution. I think that's pedantry at this moment. I think you've conceded that he is cracking down on free speech, which is the First Amendment. So he is defying the Constitution. So it's pleasure to be in agreement with you, sir.

[Julian Walker]

So, yeah, that's fascinating that that kid actually brings up Mahmoud Khalil. And this is the place where I feel like one of the things I appreciated about the editing choices is that in the way that they've cut the different cameras together, you do get to see the kids raising the red flags. You do get to see some of the reactions in the crowd, and I feel like they are fairly open about showing, wow, look at how Reactionary this crowd is. Look at how the things that they won't tolerate, the expressions on their faces. And Jubilee put fact checks up quite frequently during this debate. I felt I'd have to go back and look and see if this is accurate, but it seemed like it was more often than I've seen in other debates where they. They fact checked. And I, I feel like just about everyone I read was affirming what Mehdi Hasan was saying, which in terms of the argument of, like, are they platforming fascists? Are they spreading misinformation? Well, they're having a debate and they're also saying, look, here's the fact, you're.

[Derek Barris]

Right, they did do a lot more fact checking, and I didn't see one that refuted any of Mehdi's claims. As for that Khalil comment, which they both agree on, the way that surrounded the format works is you get voted off the island by the other participants holding up a red flag. And as soon as he said that, you'll notice the part ended. It was only like 10, 15 seconds because everyone was like, oh, you agree with Khalil being disappeared by ice. Okay, red flag. And they voted him off. So that tells you a bit about the crowd there. And again, I just want to point out that Mehdi is very consistent, and he was continually pointing out the inconsistencies in their arguments throughout. And one of them is about free speech absolutism. And he's like, if you're going to be for free speech, you got to be for it, even when you don't agree with what people say. And that is again, where I fall overall with Jubilee as a platform. Now, his next claim is immigrants overall are good for America. Now, this one doesn't land so well either. And interestingly, a few people in the crowd are either immigrants or children of immigrants. So there's actually, actually more common ground in this claim. Still, this clip is indicative of the broader issue that we're discussing today. The woman is claiming that immigrants are stealing jobs, making it harder for people like her to find work. She opens the claim, as you're going to hear, by differentiating between immigrants and citizens, which Mehdi ties in and addresses with extreme clarity. Unemployment under both Biden and Trump has been at record low levels. Okay. Is this in regards for American citizens? Yes. Okay, okay. Well, I'm unaware of that statistic, but from what I see from right, I'm an immigrant and an American, and I employ many American citizens, and both naturalized and the ones born here. I employ my Parents? No, my parents Americans as defined by you?

[Julian Walker]

My parents came as immigrants become naturalized.

[Derek Barris]

So I'm not necessarily post immigrants. So you're the child of immigrants.

[Julian Walker]

Correct, I'm a child of immigrants.

[Derek Barris]

I was. But you don't accept that immigrants are Americans? Not at this moment. Your parents are not Americans? Not at this moment. Your parents are citizens.

[Julian Walker]

They became natural naturalized.

[Derek Barris]

You just said you can't be citizens by being naturalized.

[Julian Walker]

No, I was born here and I'm.

[Derek Barris]

Not a born naturalization. Are you against naturalization? No, I never settles against. You did you began. You're very. Everyone was here.

[Julian Walker]

They can.

[Derek Barris]

They can play it back on YouTube. You said Americans or immigrants. Are your parents Americans or immigrants? No, my parents are United States citizens. But they're immigrants.

[Julian Walker]

You said no, they came here as immigrants.

[Derek Barris]

However, I came here as an immigrant. I'm an immigrant at this point when.

[Julian Walker]

They came name the United States.

[Derek Barris]

Happy with the way this is going for you? She was voted off very shortly after. But you know, I think for people who aren't used to this format, when you hear this, it is very disconcerting. It's just like they're just cutting into each other. But again, Mehdi is very effective at catching them in their claims and being like, but you just said this. And I think that really just goes to show in terms of audience participation between these two episodes, how unprepared to back up their arguments. The this particular group of far right conservatives was. There was one named Kai who actually did a really good job. At the end, they invite someone back to debate for 10 minutes without anyone interrupting. And he was the one that Mehdi chose, and that was that. Actually, you know, I still don't agree with what Kai was saying, but that actually was more like a traditional debate because he knew what he was talking about, but the other ones were so unprepared.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, so. So that's actually a nice place for us to begin transitioning. That kid Kai was the one who seemed educated, smart, relaxed, warm, like actually wanting to have a conversation. And I think he was. He was well versed in politics. He was well versed in economic theory. He was really trying to have the conversation. I didn't agree with what he was saying, but he was a good faith debater and he wasn't just some guy repeating MAGA talking points about, you know, America first or something.

[Derek Barris]

And that's important point to point out. It also happens into Peterson where we're going next, where some people come up, come on and sit hot, meaning they just want to get and rip people down. Like, in fact, the first person that went up against Peterson was kind of like that. I really didn't like that approach because he thought he had Peterson in a gotcha. And regardless of what you think of Jordan Peterson, the dude is pretty smart. And he can talk circularly, but he can talk as. As effectively as Mehdi in. In that capacity. And JP was able to just rip those arguments down. And the same thing happened here. But some people come up and they're just like, I want to know where you're coming from so we can have a debate. And they usually tend to sit in the chair longer because people are actually interested in listening to the unpacking of those arguments.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah. Beside themselves. Right. Despite the fact that they're there and they really are raring to go. When a real conversation emerges, most people go, oh, what's going on here? And kind of listen a little more closely. So that's actually a really good observation. So let's transition to Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists, which I'll say more about this later, but it's what the episode ended up being called. It's not what it started off being called now. Same show surrounded, same format. Jordan Peterson is in his usual natty suit and tie combination, of course, he always is. And he's sitting at a little table, which I was just realizing as I was writing. This is very reminiscent of a classical chess match. Same thing for the Mehdi Hassan thing. It's this very basic table and chairs. There's a timer on the table, and in this case, it's counting down 15 minutes of debate on each of the propositional claims. Right. He's surrounded by participants who seem to mostly be college student age. And his first claim is, atheists reject God, but they don't know what they're rejecting. And so this guy comes up, his name is Greg. He's reflecting philosophically on how words can mean different things. His example is how you can say you're moved by the Mona Lisa, but also that you're moved through space when driving to the museum to go and see it. And one would be misunderstanding the context if they retorted, what do you mean you were moved by the Mona Lisa? It's nailed to the wall. And this is his attempt to start to get at how Peterson plays with words. And it's important to know which definition you're referring to. So he imports this analogy into talking about God and saying we should just talk about one definition at a time. Peterson's next tack in that conversation is to try to get Greg to acknowledge that underneath all of his evidence and logic, he uses his conscience to determine right from wrong and truth from falsehood. And as it turns out, Elijah. Well, I'll just let Jordan tell you.

[Derek Barris]

So, Elijah, the prophet Elijah defined God in the Old Testament as the voice of conscience within. Okay, that's a definition.

[Julian Walker]

So you're just. You're saying by that definition of God.

[Derek Barris]

See, this kind of goes back to where I'm saying initially. I'm not defining it. Elijah defines. Okay, so as Elijah's. As Elijah defines God, it's defined that way in Jonah, too. Okay, so as Cardinal Newman also defined it that way. I'm sure you know many people who've defined it that way. And it's impressive.

[Julian Walker]

You're a very knowledgeable person.

[Derek Barris]

I'm not trying to be impressive. I'm just pointing out to you how God is defined in the Old Testament. All right, so to respond to that, I do think there are lots of interesting ways to define God. And that goes back to my. Then how do we specify what we're arguing about? We use context clues. Again, it goes back to my example of the Mona Lisa defining God as conscience. Okay. Elijah is one of the major Old Testament prophets. He's equal in stature to Moses. So it's not arbitrary.

[Julian Walker]

All right, so that is interesting, but.

[Derek Barris]

It'S not relevant to the context with which I am using the term God. It's directly relevant. Atheists reject God, but they don't understand what they're rejecting. You accept. Accept conscience as a guide and consciousness one of the defining characteristics of God in the Old Testament.

[Julian Walker]

I think you're being intellectually disingenuous.

[Derek Barris]

In what way? I just feel like you kind of retreat into this semantic fog. I'm not retreating at all. I'm advancing, sir. You are retreating. Oh, it was very nice to meet you. I appreciate the conversation. Yeah, yeah. It's very brave of you to do this.

[Julian Walker]

So I love that patronizing party shot from Peterson. And he tries to do this quite a bit in this discussion, in this. In this episode. It's very brave of you to do this. Meanwhile, I feel like that kid is someone who's. Who's maybe had some good therapeutic guidance on how to deal with, like, a personality disordered parent, where you're like, okay, okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay, so now what?

[Derek Barris]

I want to talk about one of the things I was upset about in this whole thing. I didn't see anyone talk about the emergent theory of consciousness, the idea that because Peterson really stakes his claim early that God is conscience being, you know, having a conscience and it has to come from somewhere. And no one, and maybe it's just the group because they were very smart people, but no one talked about biology and no one brought about anything from neuroscience about the fact that consciousness can emerge from our biological states, which totally to me is one of the most important arguments. If you're going to talk about someone who is proposing a Christian metaphysics here, any sort of metaphysics really.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, yeah. I mean there is one kid who, who gets into moral values can come the via evolutionary biology. This is an evolved function of social empathy, right?

[Derek Barris]

Yeah, he gets into the social theory, the evolutionary theory a bit. But even that, like Peterson was able to wiggle himself out of that one because I don't think he had a strong grounding, a strong enough grounding to actually make the connection between that and conscience, which is what Peterson is staking his claim on. And, and so it was just, it was just, that was just a broader, over, you know, unfortunate aspect. But what I appreciate about him and some of the other, you know, commenters was they were really able to point out Peterson's circular logic and how it very much does come back to semantics. Like he's able to try to run circles, but if you're actually paying attention, people are able to hold his feet to the fire a little bit more.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, and that's the thing. There's so much footage of Peterson doing that thing that these debaters were very well prepared. They're like, oh, he's going to do that thing. So I already know it's a semantic fog and you're, you're messing with the definitions of words, et cetera. So here's Peterson's next claim. Morality and purpose cannot be derived from science. And I think that his big problem on what I can only imagine was a pretty unpleasant day for Jordan is that he's in this room with young sharp witted atheists who in many cases seem to have philosophical and, or psychological education and they have good experience with competitive debating. So probably the best example of this is a streamer named Parker. This is actually his second appearance on Surrounded. He was one of the 25 Kamala voters who squared off against Ben Shapiro right before the election last year. So like eight months ago, this one gets interesting when Peterson asserts that if you really believe something, you'd be willing to die for it. And Parker says, well, you know, I might believe this pen I'm holding right here exists, but I would lie about it if it would save my life. And he says, I imagine it's the same for you, right? And Peterson gets very surly. He says, do you know anything about me? And so then Parker again, he does it. He like, manages him. Okay, okay, okay. And then he says, what about your family? Would you lie to save them? No, I would not. And he says, well, here's. And this is the classic thought experiment that he offers. Can there ever be a circumstance logically.

[Derek Barris]

That lying could save someone?

[Julian Walker]

Yeah.

[Derek Barris]

And if you're steeped in sin, you're likely to live in circumstances like that.

[Julian Walker]

I'll give you an example. If you're like in like Nazi Germany and it is the case that there's like Jewish people in your attic and you're trying to protect them, would you.

[Derek Barris]

Lie to like, the Nazis? I would have done everything I bloody well could so I wouldn't be in that situation. It's a hypothetical and it's not answering hypotheticals. No, I can't answer a hypothetical like that because. Look, did you play games? If you present me with an intractable moral choice that's stripped of context and you back me into a corner, you're playing games. I just told you I would do everything that I could to make sure that I'm never in that situation. By the time you've got there, you've made so many mistakes that there's nothing you can do that isn't a sin.

[Julian Walker]

Being born in Nazi Germany and trying to protect people that you care about. Like, there could be a Jewish friend that you have and you want to protect them.

[Derek Barris]

I think you should have them give up on that line of questioning.

[Julian Walker]

Give up on just like trying to clarify your position. Because it. I don't like, are you like, uncomfortable with me asking this question? It's just a basic hypothetical. Like I could ask you.

[Derek Barris]

It's just a basic hypothetical where you're like, you put Jews lives at stake in Nazi Germany. That's just a basic.

[Julian Walker]

Obviously you would lie in that scenario to save their life, but you're like, not trying to answer this question.

[Derek Barris]

What's. For some reason I just told you.

[Julian Walker]

Why are you anti fascist?

[Derek Barris]

Like, so you're asking that?

[Julian Walker]

I was just asking, just clarifying. But like, okay, again, you're not answering this hypothetical because you know, it shows that you clearly would lie to saints.

[Derek Barris]

Find acceptable. Obviously because I care about truth. I wouldn't be in that scenario. Nice to meet you. Yeah, nice to meet you. Remember Connor earlier? I wouldn't be one of the ones that the benevolent dictator would come after. So it doesn't matter. It's. It's the same sort of logic when you're, when you're backed into a corner where you actually have to let your philosophy play out. And even in a hypothetical situation you're willing to engage in it. It just becomes deflection. I also find it very interesting that Peterson is holding on to this idea of I won't engage in hypothetical situations when the hypothesis of God is a hypothetical situation. Like, he has no way of actually playing that out in reality or actually proving it. So it's all hypothetical, but he's engaging in that just fine, but put him in a situation where his philosophy is tested and he can no longer engage with it.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, I mean, it's, it's always confusing to me when people object to thought experiments or hypotheticals because they're way of defining the outer limits of what you think. Okay, you say this. What if we go to this extreme example? Is that a, is that a case in which it wouldn't apply? Okay. Doesn't mean it doesn't apply in all cases. It means we're testing the outer limits. Now, let's reason backwards from that and find out where that line is for you and how you come to that line. And the only reason you're uncomfortable with that is if you haven't thought that kind of stuff through and you don't know how to do it. I love that Parker turns around that parting shot move by saying, great conversation. And Peterson goes, yeah, great conversation.

[Derek Barris]

Okay.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Derek Barris]

You know, there was a moment before I ended up majoring in religion during college, I was seriously considering philosophy. And then I looked at the curriculum and I took the first maths class for philosophy. And I was like, wait, you have to do years of math to be able to get a philosophy degree? And I was like, nope, can't do it because I never liked math.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah. So on to Peterson's third claim, which is everybody worships something, including atheists, even though they may not know it. And this next clip is really the coup de grace. This is, this is one probably most listeners will have seen and heard before. But, you know, it never gets old. Before going here, this is the thing I referenced earlier as a teaser. It's important to know that this video was originally titled when it was published, Christian versus 20 atheists. But then something like 18 hours after the fact, the title was changed to Jordan Peterson versus 20 atheists. And I think you'll see why, because this did go viral and there was a lot of making Fun of Peterson. For what happens in this next clip, an absolutely fearless cutthroat debater named Danny comes up. And this is kind of jaw dropping. Peterson, his face was in a scowl right from the start, and it stayed that way until he said, I'm done with him. But your original.

[Derek Barris]

I added the hierarchy part at the beginning.

[Julian Walker]

Are you familiar with the Immaculate Conception?

[Derek Barris]

Why is that relevant?

[Julian Walker]

Because you go to a Catholic church, don't you? Or you've attended recently. You're interested in Catholicism, aren't you?

[Derek Barris]

Sure.

[Julian Walker]

All right. Are you familiar with their doctrines?

[Derek Barris]

Somewhat.

[Julian Walker]

Okay, you're familiar. How do they regard Mary?

[Derek Barris]

Why are you asking me that?

[Julian Walker]

Because you're a Christian.

[Derek Barris]

You say that. I haven't claimed that.

[Julian Walker]

Oh, what is this?

[Derek Barris]

Is this Christians versus Atheists? I don't know.

[Julian Walker]

You don't know where you are right now?

[Derek Barris]

Don't be a smart ass. Well, either you're a Christian or you're not.

[Julian Walker]

If you're a smartass, either you're a.

[Derek Barris]

Christian or you're not. Which one is it? I could be either of them, but I don't have to tell you.

[Julian Walker]

You don't have to tell me. I was under the impression I was invited to talk to a Christian. Am I not talking to a Christian?

[Derek Barris]

No, you were invited to.

[Julian Walker]

I think everyone should look at the title of the YouTube channel. You're probably in the wrong YouTube video.

[Derek Barris]

You're really quite something. You are.

[Julian Walker]

Aren't I? But you're really quite nothing. Right. You're not a Christian.

[Derek Barris]

I'm done with him. Why I love this one so much is up until this point. This is about halfway through the episode. Peterson has been building this argument that there are ways of being a Christian. There is a black woman I name is Za. She ends up being the debater at the end.

[Julian Walker]

Zena Z I N A. She's. She's a streamer. Yeah.

[Derek Barris]

Zena. Yeah. She was amazing. He really gets into this box where he's basically making an argument that in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, you have to. You have to have a belief in God that is structured around Christianity. Everyone else lives in sin is. It's a very classical Christian argument. Now, if you're up there debating people, I don't know what Jubilee told him the title was going to be. I don't know if they informed him beforehand. So it isn't fair to assume that he knew the title going in. I. If the participants did, I think he would know.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah.

[Derek Barris]

So he could be a little disingenuous here. But he's been making this argument about there is one way to enter the kingdom of heaven, and, and he's also there defending the concept of God. Just logically, you would think that he would be trying to live that path. Because if your whole belief system hinges on the fact that if you do not believe these things and take these actions, you' going to live in some damnation, which is an argument he's making, then I would imagine he's a Christian. So when he's actually being challenged on the role of Mary in the church and the sort of hierarchy he claim he lays out, and he's being pushed back on it all of a sudden to say, doesn't matter if, you know whether or not I'm a Christian. It's. It's a little disingenuous.

[Julian Walker]

I mean, after that moment, the whole room was silent. Usually after, once someone gets voted off, people give them some applause. It was silent. But. But a lot of the kids that are in the circle have their hands over their mouths. I mean, there's a sense of glee. There's a sense of like, oh, my God, I can't believe he just did that. What just happened here? And the reason is that everyone who's critical of Jordan Peterson, this is one of their top reasons. You preach a lot of stuff about the importance of religion and especially the primacy of Christianity. And then when someone says you do believe in God, you said, well, it depends on what the word do you believe in and God actually means. So let's break that down for the next two hours. It's like, dude, really, are you a Christian? Well, I never said I was a Christian. He doesn't say he's not a Christian. He just says, I've never claimed to be a Christian. But the thing that's most interesting here for me is earlier we found that Mehdi Hassan had a red line. And that red line is openly acknowledging that you're a fascist. Like, I don't want to talk to you anymore. Jordan Peterson has a red line, too. It's a kid who's being a smart ass. If you're a smart ass, I won't talk to you.

[Derek Barris]

I want to close on that because it does dovetail into the free speech argument. Because I've seen some people comment, you know, or even in that jubilee, people were saying, well, you wouldn't, you wouldn't debate with him. You're not into free speech. And then he's like, yeah. Then he's like, no, he can say those things. That doesn't Mean, I have to engage with him because I understand that if you're that far gone politically that you are openly fascist, there is no discussion we can have that's going to move the needle in any direction that would actually help anyone. And I think that is a really important distinction because for the last decade plus we've dealt with a right wing who cries about their free speech rights being taken away, which usually at least in the beat that we cover, has been by spreading misinformation about vaccinations or about health in, in a variety of ways. That is not free speech. If you are saying things that are not true, it's not about whether or not can you can say it. But then if you're demonetized or if you're kicked off a platform because you're spreading that misinformation, that is not an abnegation of your free speech rights. That just means you're talking bullshit. And that is fundamentally different than what Mehdi is saying in those. And I think that distinction is really important.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, this is the whole thing, right? The, the kid who's who said that he was fascist and now supposedly he's posted about the fact that he's lost his job. We don't know if that's true or not. But we do know that he' a givesend go and he's raised over $30,000. So. And this is what we've seen again and again and again. We started calling it the free speech gambit over the last five years. You, you cry that your free speech has been taken away very loudly to a lot of people who can hear you freely speaking. And then you get even more wealthy and get even more exposure as a result of saying that. I think that, you know, when Mehdi Hassan says, I'm not going to debate you because you're a fascist and people complain about that being, you know, him being a hypocrite on free speech. It's like, no, he's saying you are able to have this debate with me because we don't live under pure fascism. You want to live under pure fascism, which would literally stop me from being able to criticize the power structure. And there's a really, really strong distinction there between actual legal, oppressive infringement on free speech versus being told, no, those are really untrue, pseudoscientific, baseless conspiracy theory claims or the things you are saying are actually deeply anti human. They are discriminating against people in ways that I profoundly object to and you should shut the fuck up. That's not an Infringement on your free speech.

[Derek Barris]

Well, we are recording this on Thursday. It is 10:46am and as of now, he has raised $37,801. So I will admit that is an unfortunate consequen of Jubilee. I can understand the outrage about it and why people would be pissed. Most of the donors are anonymous. Surprise, surprise. But I still say taking it off would be more counterproductive. And as Jason told Taylor Lorenz, he's already talking to a number of streaming networks about taking some of these shows to different platforms. So that's sort of a moot point anyway. My advice would be to either ignore them if this isn't your thing, or learn how to engage in a media environment that's the younger generation really is grappling with in this capacity. And don't just write it off because you don't like some of the things that some people say. In fact, as Jason said to Taylor, he, he says he has instances of people who have watched the social media clips but then watch the full episode and actually gotten something from it. And I will say that I'm also one of those people.

[Julian Walker]

Yeah, I mean, these are such difficult issues. If you could spend an entire episode trying to unpack all of these distinctions. Functions around platforming, around, around filter bubbles, around how people are locked into their own kind of echo chambers, around what it means to try to reach people who you might not otherwise be able to reach, about how to have debates in which people actually get engaged into a thought process where they're measuring ideas against each other. And even though they may come in with their biases, maybe it stimulates some kind of process in them whereby they can start to see through some of their own blind spots. This is, it's very, very complicated and I don't think think absolutist stances on either side really serve us as we try to figure out the reality of this new media landscape and you know, how content functions and how algorithms function. It's, it's just we're trying to figure this thing out. And so I come down more on the positive side for Jubilee. While I understand and agree with a lot of the criticisms.

[Derek Barris]

Support for this.

[Julian Walker]

Podcast and the following message comes from America's Navy. The Navy offers new graduates hands on training and experience in careers like computer science, aviation and medicine, plus education and sign on bonuses.

[Derek Barris]

Parents, help your grads start their career [e-mail].