Jordan Peterson interview on C4

MagicIRL

Brian? wrote: »

When making a report yes. When interviewing, no. She’s challenging someone sitting in front of her for answers. Why is impartiality needed? They can defend themselves, as Peterson did very well.

But she didn't challenge him at all. This was Jordan Peterson's facts against her opinion. If she had remained objective then she could've challenged him with actual statistics and facts herself. Instead, she harped on about a 9% pay gap based on gender, which was her opinion and misinformed, and when that was dismantled, she had nothing else to go to so went digging in the same well time and time again. She resorted to trying to put words into his mouth to preface all of her statements.

Why do I believe impartiality is needed? I'm not watching this interview for a Man vs Woman slugfest. If Jordan Peterson is claiming some extraordinary things relating to gender and pay discrepancies then I would like a decent journalist to be well researched and to challenge his facts and claims with evidence. You know, do a little journalistic research beforehand instead of going with what they themselves believe and trying to force it to be right, despite everything pointing to the contrary.

But no. All we got was a woman with an ill-informed opinion getting progressively louder and louder until she eventually got completely tongue tied. I'm none the wiser as to whether Jordan Peterson's claims are correct or not or if they have any gravitas at all.

Brian?

A Little Pony wrote: »

You still can't give a name of any feminists who could stand with Dr Peterson in any debate. This is literally Dr Peterson's life work. He is a clinical psychologist. His dismantling of opportunity of outcome as one such example in the interview. 

If I was feminist I would look to avoid at all costs, they don't need that work as they would say in boxing.

You asked me if I could name a feminist who beat him in a debate. What are you asking me now, if you're asking me anything?

markodaly

Brain, who would you classify as an Intelligent Feminist?

xckjoo

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

Can you give some kind of explanation on what you found that made you form the opinion? He seemed well put together here so I'd like to see an alternative point-of-view.

razorblunt

I've just watched the video, my word she was completely out of her depth, quite quickly. I don't doubt she's bright but she went into this with an agenda and was just torn apart. Torn apart politely which is probably the worst part of it for her. He just brushed her aside.

This can be added to the time Downey Jr sent Guru-Murthy packing, though I don't think any cards were played that time other then "congrats, you've embarrassed yourself".


Also the smugness when he said he was "uncomfortable", she thought he had him there, but his whole point snookered her.

Zulu

Max Prophet wrote: »

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

Seriously - wtf. :rolleyes: Your slating a guy because of a photo.
I know this is afterhours, but come on.
Sweet suffering jesus.

valoren

Instead of attempting to deflect using the angle of her getting attacked in the aftermath, perhaps it would be wiser for Channel 4 to simply not draw attention to this interview where the lack of professional competence of their News team is very politely exposed.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

This carry on of “Let’s all cheer Dr Peterson for winning a one sided debate, because we already love him.” Is a nonsense.

Nah, that's just an assumption you're making. Many readers on here haven't seen or heard Jordan Peterson's videos until this thread. This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

cantdecide

Omackeral wrote: »

This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

This wasn't even his best work!!

Herb Powell

silverharp wrote: »

family photo, I think I know who wears the pants in that family, the comment about women wanting men they can dominate takes on a new meaning now :pac:

Max Prophet wrote: »

Wow she's snagged herself a nice girly-man anyway !

That's fairly pathetic from ye now I'd have to say.

Omackeral

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

Well he is a literal professor like...

Max Prophet

Zulu wrote: »

Seriously - wtf. :rolleyes: Your slating a guy because of a photo.
I know this is afterhours, but come on.
Sweet suffering jesus.

Not slating anyone. But I think it might explain her aggressive and looney behaviour when he pointed out about women with weak partners usually ending up unhappy. It was inadvertently too close to home for the lass.

silverharp

Herb Powell wrote: »

That's fairly pathetic from ye now I'd have to say.

it explains her motives somewhat, she doesn't have any sons and her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene. If she had 2 boys I bet she would have approached Peterson differently or her views would be a bit more mellow

Max Prophet

silverharp wrote: »

it explains her motives somewhat, she doesn't have any sons and her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene. If she had 2 boys I bet she would have approached Peterson differently or her views would be a bit more mellow

Beta males tend to produce girls.

silverharp

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

I draw the line at that unless you have some evidence.

Sonics2k

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

What the hell?


Please, please please tell me you're trolling and not this stupid.

benjamin d

Guys this thread is proving to be seriously interesting and respectful for the most part. PLEASE drop the photo talk and related discussion as it's completely beyond the pale and exactly what some people would probably like this thread to descend to.

Zulu

Max Prophet wrote: »

It was inadvertently too close to home for the lass.

And you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

silverharp wrote: »

...her husband looks pretty subservient in the whole scene.

To you too: you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

Ahh ok, its a wind-up? Right?? I mean, right??? Please...

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

Brain, who would you classify as an Intelligent Feminist?

Who’s this “Brain” character?

JMNolan

There will always be people that will personalize these topics but what I don't like is the narrative that these people are Petersons "followers" which implies that he condones this activity and therefore his arguments can be disregarded.

silverharp

Zulu wrote: »

To you too: you are seriously asserting this from a single photo you've looked at? Seriously??

combined with her statement that women might like their relationships where they dominate men.

cantdecide

Brian? wrote: »

Who’s this “Brain” character?

brevity

Max Prophet wrote: »

Beta males tend to produce girls.

Well that's ****ing stupid.

Brian?

MagicIRL wrote: »

But she didn't challenge him at all. This was Jordan Peterson's facts against her opinion. If she had remained objective then she could've challenged him with actual statistics and facts herself. Instead, she harped on about a 9% pay gap based on gender, which was her opinion and misinformed, and when that was dismantled, she had nothing else to go to so went digging in the same well time and time again. She resorted to trying to put words into his mouth to preface all of her statements.

Why do I believe impartiality is needed? I'm not watching this interview for a Man vs Woman slugfest. If Jordan Peterson is claiming some extraordinary things relating to gender and pay discrepancies then I would like a decent journalist to be well researched and to challenge his facts and claims with evidence. You know, do a little journalistic research beforehand instead of going with what they themselves believe and trying to force it to be right, despite everything pointing to the contrary.

But no. All we got was a woman with an ill-informed opinion getting progressively louder and louder until she eventually got completely tongue tied. I'm none the wiser as to whether Jordan Peterson's claims are correct or not or if they have any gravitas at all.

There are too many posts to reply to in detail.

What “ill informed opinion” did she express? I’ll need to rewatch the video, but I don’t recall her ever actually expressing an opinion on any of it.

Zulu

silverharp wrote: »

combined with her statement that women might like their relationships where they dominate men.

Oh well thats a solid argument so!

...you're pulling it out of your ass, and ironically appear to be doing exactly what she appeared to be doing - projecting - dealing in vague wishy-washy assumptions as opposed to established facts.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Nah, that's just an assumption you're making. Many readers on here haven't seen or heard Jordan Peterson's videos until this thread. This is the first time I've seen a full segment with him so had no pre-existing fan boy love for him and I most certainly would cheer, for want of a better word, him now if he's consistently like this. He comes across as articulate, truthful and reasonable.

I didn’t mean just here.

ligerdub

It must be nice to have the sort of job Cathy Newman has. She can just make up the rules as she goes along, depending on the result of course.

If it goes well she is the "pull no punches" "tough" journalist who cuts right to the facts. If she doesn't do so well she's playing devil's advocate, and played her role of getting him to bring his opinions forward like a pro. It's nonsense! The fact is she went in for him and completely failed. Not only that she seemed to have absolutely no willingness to consider or listen to his viewpoint. I thought that was a thing that men were stereotypically viewed upon negatively for, funny that.

When that didn't work then it's time to go to the tried and tested victim status. Once this is done of course the seed has been planted and all of the negative stuff that she was on the end of (apparently) can be attributed to Petersen. It's pathetic, and bordering on the juvenile.

She didn't have to be in that role either. It would have been no problem if Petersen was debating with an invited panelist, in fact it would have looked quite normal.

It doesn't surprise me that she completely bombed on this one, she was up against a vastly superior intellect and temperament than herself, and on the subject matter that is his forte. I dare say most people didn't really know who she was to begin with, I'm just surprised this sort of clanger hasn't come to public prominence before. I recall an interview she did with Milo Y about a year or so ago. He was describing something or other and she kept on twisting his words to insist on that making him a feminist. That was merely the starting point to it.

It's so unbelievably disingenuous that it's almost at the point of being sad that this is seen as acceptable/encouraged within the media (of which Channel 4 is definitely a suitable example of).

As for JP, I find some of the criticisms of him hilarious. I'm particularly tickled by the claims that he's:

1. some sort of pied piper for the alt-right. He has quite clearly distanced himself from them. I'm not even at all sure they like him either!

2. Doing this as a way to cash in - this is a guy who was virtually unknown outside of his university and decided to resist the compulsion of him to speak in a certain way......and did so at the risk of entirely losing his livelihood.

In fact were it not for the fact that he was able to garner a degree of support, a support he could never envisage, he would almost certainly have been fired from the university. He makes a few quid from various different things.......so what! He has something to offer, and there are plenty of people in similar jobs to him who have done exactly that for decades.

You also have to consider the fact that he's protecting his future. He could still find himself forced out of his job.

I have no issue with those who criticise the man for specific views that he holds (as some on this thread have done). There's a bit of ammunition there for sure. However, much of the criticism of him seems to be wildly generic and clearly just on the basis that he's an inconvenience to "the cause". It smacks of hollow trashtalk and without a deep understanding of him or his views.

I like Petersen, I think he's a crucial voice in a world which had decided to forget principles of how to properly support your argument. There seems to be this mindset that you win the debate in the sort of Question Time type format where you're looking for the biggest claps from the audience, rather than through proper reasoning. Petersen takes the debates on head-on and with confidence, and so he should.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Well he is a literal professor like...

This goes back to the point I made earlier, that no one had addressed. This is arguing from a position of eminence not evidence. You can simply point to someone’s qualifications as a reason they’re right.

brevity

She seems to have picked some headlines and used them as her argument. Which in one way is great as it allowed Peterson to pick them apart.

Saruhashi

20Cent wrote: »

I didn't comment on the video just him from other stuff I've seen. Media is so dumbed down anyone can state obvious things throw in some scientific words or facts and be hailed as an intellectual. That's what he is doing and also selling buzzfeed style self help. Not impressed by him at all but he is telling the alt right what they want to hear so cashing in on it.

"So you're saying you agree with the Alt-Right?"

Oh noes! The Alt-Right? Whatever shall we do?

Haha. So he is stating obvious things and the alt right are happy because they like to hear obvious things...

Are we supposed to deny the blatantly obvious because it's what the alt right want to hear?

I heard the Alt-Right are drinking water and breathing air these days too.