Jordan Peterson interview on C4

markodaly · 21-01-2018 1:41pm #1

Seems to be a bit of kerfuffle about this interview, mostly on how Jordan Peterson schooled Cathy Newman on almost every point and her own personal philosophy about feminism and the patriarchy. There is a 5 second WTF silence in the middle of it when she releases, that she is losing, losing badly and tries to rescue her efforts anyway but how.

Now, the news is not about the disgraceful and unprofessional way the interview was handled but about mean people on the internet acting up and being dicks.

I suppose after such a car crash, they have to change the narrative. Will 2018 be the beginning of the end of these sacred feminist myths?

SSr0 · 21-01-2018 1:44pm

I was astounded by how she was constantly trying to twist JP's words in to generic women bashing nonsense?

suicide_circus · 21-01-2018 1:45pm

A very petulant interviewing style

The Backwards Man · 21-01-2018 1:47pm

The snooker is on at 1.30.

B0jangles · 21-01-2018 1:50pm

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

SSr0 · 21-01-2018 1:52pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

Listen to the interview, you'll be pleasantly disappointed.

markodaly · 21-01-2018 2:01pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

No. Did you watch the video? Guess not.

silverharp · 21-01-2018 2:01pm

at a minimum she was lazy and didnt prepare properly for it.

kneemos · 21-01-2018 2:08pm

Is yer wan special needs or something?

B0jangles · 21-01-2018 2:10pm

markodaly wrote: »

No. Did you watch the video? Guess not.

Did I say his opinion of how to address transgender people came up in that video?

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=92

He makes his position quite clear in this one. He thinks his personal principals are more important than treating other people with basic respect and good manners.

21Savage · 21-01-2018 2:12pm

She got schooled. Schooled badly. Hard to watch.

Max Prophet · 21-01-2018 2:13pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Did I say his opinion of how to address transgender people came up in that video?

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=92

He makes his position quite clear in this one. He thinks his personal principals are more important than treating other people with basic respect and good manners.

Nope wrong again. He is against legislation that forces people to use made up language like "Zer" and "Zim". It is absurd.

Will I Am Not · 21-01-2018 2:14pm

So you’re saying... no I’m not.
So you think... no I don’t.
What I’m hearing is... you’re not listening.

Retire lady.

B0jangles · 21-01-2018 2:15pm

Max Prophet wrote: »

Nope wrong again. He is against legislation that forces people to use made up language like "Zer" and "Zim". It is absurd.

The legislation in question did not force anyone to use any particular pronouns.

The changes to Canadian law will mean that gender identity and gender expression will be added to the already-lengthy list of protected classes — which includes "color, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental or physical disability."

That change will strictly forbid discrimination against trans workers in federally-regulated sectors — including the military, airlines, the telecommunications sector, and elsewhere — but also beef up hate crime protections for victims of violence, or targets of hate speech.

https://news.vice.com/article/it-could-protect-us-canada-moves-to-adopt-new-trans-rights-as-quickly-as-possible

Wibbs · 21-01-2018 2:16pm

SSr0 wrote: »

I was astounded by how she was constantly trying to twist JP's words in to generic women bashing nonsense?

That's a narrative in current western society. Women victims, men bad. That and gender doesn't really exist and we're all blank slates that culture influences into what we think "men" and "women" are.

The interview went badly for her for a few reasons. She's obviously intelligent, but he's more intelligent and speaking on a subject he is an expert in, whereas she has to quickly swot up on the subject of whomever she's interviewing next.

kneemos · 21-01-2018 2:20pm

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a narrative in current western society. Women victims, men bad. That and gender doesn't really exist and we're all blank slates that culture influences into what we think "men" and "women" are.

The interview went badly for her for a few reasons. She's obviously intelligent, but he's more intelligent and speaking on a subject he is an expert in, whereas she has to quickly swot up on the subject of whomever she's interviewing next.

Think he summed it up when he said people don't listen just project what they think.

21-01-2018 2:24pm

kneemos wrote: »

Think he summed it up when he said people don't listen just project what they think.

Dont know why its happening these days but some need to be told feelings are not facts

Wibbs · 21-01-2018 2:26pm

kneemos wrote: »

Think he summed it up when he said people don't listen just project what they think.

Oh certainly. That's one of the most consistent human traits that exists and across the range of human experience. We're projectors more than receivers I would argue. We observe reality and subjectify it and project that back as an overlay onto reality. An extremely simple example might be the difference between a pessimist and an optimist. The glass and the liquid it contains remain the same, but for one it's half empty, for another it's half full.

buried · 21-01-2018 2:27pm

"So you're saying..." "So you're saying..." "So you're saying...". When you keep hearing that from someone, they don't want to listen or even debate, they want a fight. The interviewer lost that fight big time after the 21st minute

markodaly · 21-01-2018 2:29pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Did I say his opinion of how to address transgender people came up in that video?

https://youtu.be/SiijS_9hPkM?t=92

He makes his position quite clear in this one. He thinks his personal principals are more important than treating other people with basic respect and good manners.

On one hand...

On the other hand, his position is actually about mutual respect, respect has to be earned and he has never had an issue with a student in his class, never. He is on record that if a student wanted to be called by a certain pronoun he will oblige as its about mutual respect, teacher - student. His root objection is the use of legislation to mandate this type of language and the very troubling precedent.

The whole pronoun thing which kicked all this off is ridiculous. Equating the use of he/she to describe someone as a hate crime akin to Holocaust denial or advocating genocide. This moment was always going to happen, when people stood up and yelled stop to this tyrannical policing of language.

TLDR: He is not the monster who you think he is and even if you do and your offended, who cares, that is your problem.

Arne_Saknussem · 21-01-2018 2:29pm

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a narrative in current western society. Women victims, men bad. That and gender doesn't really exist and we're all blank slates that culture influences into what we think "men" and "women" are.

The interview went badly for her for a few reasons. She's obviously intelligent, but he's more intelligent and speaking on a subject he is an expert in, whereas she has to quickly swot up on the subject of whomever she's interviewing next.

Seemed to me that she didn't really have any interest is swotting up on anything.

Her aim from the start was to lay traps for him to walk into so he'd say something that she could then use to discredit him and attack him personally.

Backfired spectacularly, not only did it give him a chance to tear to shreds a lot of her ideological non-arguments but it also left her looking quite spiteful for the way she continually tried to attack his character, and also left her looking a little dim.

"So you're saying we should organize our societies along the lines of the lobsters...?"

Celticfire · 21-01-2018 2:30pm

Lukker- · 21-01-2018 2:32pm

Schooled by philosophical Kermit the frog

LuckyLloyd · 21-01-2018 2:36pm

Jordan Peterson is very impressive, and quite battle hardened following his stand on gender pronouns. She wasn't a match for him - and it's unfortunately correct to use such terminology given her intent was so obviously adversarial.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 21-01-2018 2:38pm

That interviewer is quite possibly the most hysterical, appalling, irrational, shrill harpie I have ever had the misfortune to watch. To think that she has somehow conned C4 into paying her a six figure sum is one of the great tragedies of the modern age. It was like watching a drunk first year sociology student 'debating' in the smoking area of a nightclub at 1:45 am. Just utterly, utterly dreadful. Cringe-worthy isn't the word.

Unfortunately, she seems to represent the train wreck that is third wave feminism. She doesn't see opponents that need to be politically engaged or challenged; instead she sees enemies that need to be destroyed at all costs. To say Peterson annihilated her intellectually is an understatement. To give a rough comparison, imagine the Doncaster Rovers B team taking on the Brazilian national soccer squad circa 1970. It was that bad. And possibly worse. What an utter failure she was. All I could do was shake my head in pity more than disbelief. On more than one occasion I found myself thinking "is....is she actually the full shilling here?" It reminded me of Brendan Kilkenny going on X-factor to make an utter fool of himself in front of an entire nation.

She actually makes Ryan Tubridy look competent. I think I'd better lie down for a while after just typing that...

Ulysses Gaze · 21-01-2018 2:40pm

She did not even listen to what he was saying and heard only what she thought she heard. Also looks like she just read a couple of quotes from his book put together by researchers as well. She has no deep understanding of what he is saying. And she resorted to emotion rather than logic and facts.

She was completely destroyed on all facets of her arguments and counter arguments although I am sure she thinks she "won" the debate.

And lumping him in to the Alt-Right was disgraceful and intellectually dishonest. A complete ad-hominem side-swipe.

She really should watch the TED talk by Cassie Jaye where Jaye admitted that when she was conducting interviews with MRAs that she would be hearing them talk but would not be listening to what they were saying and "making up" what they really meant.

s7ryf3925pivug · 21-01-2018 2:53pm

She was painful so I turned it off after 10 min. Don't know this guy at all. I see he's clearly a better debater than the woman interviewing him.

One thing that stood out was when he talked about some women wanting a relationship where they are dominant and how that is suboptimal. But the reverse is also true - some men want to be dominant and have a weaker/weakened partner, and that is also suboptimal. It's not a gender issue at all since. It happens both ways, and presumably in homosexual relationships too. But even though it is not a gender issue per se, it is a singularly compelling argument for feminism.

Feminism is defined as belief in the equality of the sexes. Chauvinism is exaggerated patriotism or belief in male dominance. Maybe the terms are unfortunate, since subcontextually they link men with sexism, and liberalism with women. I'm sure it affects some people's views of the ideologies and the genders.

Your Face · 21-01-2018 3:01pm

Munster game is postponed.

Celticfire · 21-01-2018 3:06pm

Your Face wrote: »

Munster game is postponed.

You could watch the snooker with Backwards Man. :pac:

Your Face · 21-01-2018 3:08pm

Celticfire wrote: »

You could watch the snooker with Backwards Man. :pac:

Ah no.

No.

Pelvis · 21-01-2018 3:08pm

Very enjoyable interview that was!

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 21-01-2018 3:08pm

Your Face wrote: »

Munster game is postponed.

"so....so you're saying Jordan Peterson wants to kill all women is it?"

Wibbs · 21-01-2018 3:09pm

Titan Wailing Backward wrote: »

Dont know why its happening these days but some need to be told feelings are not facts

I would say that's down to very broadly two camps of thought more mainstream these days. On the one hand you have Bro Science™(that would be the red pill/PUA eejits) on the Other Chick Think™(Tumblr feminists, but also far more mainstream than Bro Science). The latter are have the feelings not facts thing in full flow. There's also a more generalised infantilisation going on too, so from many "sides" we see an adolescent style of reaction within debates.

Royce Stocky Stage wrote: »

Feminism is defined as belief in the equality of the sexes.

Partially. It's better defined as advocacy for women's rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes. The clue is in the name. And that's fine, but increasingly it has been a cherry picking of "rights" over responsibilities. And of course the increasing demonisation of the male and men.

Your Face · 21-01-2018 3:13pm

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

"so....so you're saying Jordan Peterson wants to kill all women is it?"

Only if they interrupt the men watching the rugger.

Grayditch · 21-01-2018 3:41pm

I'm no fan of Peterson, but that was a terrible way to conduct an interview.

However this video could be a fantastic drinking game ; Take a shot whenever Newman says "So you're saying..."

alan partridge aha · 21-01-2018 3:48pm

Her AR5E handed to her on a plate, I love the way her voice got louder as she was losing the debate.

xtal191 · 21-01-2018 3:48pm

Open the tweet and have a read through

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/954773827812315136

markodaly · 21-01-2018 3:54pm

I have to laugh at the title underneath that.

"And people wonder why there are not more women at the top"

Yes, because successful people really give a **** about what some trolls in their basements think about them.

In other news.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jan/21/no-excuse-for-online-abuse-says-professor-in-tv-misogyny-row

when he (Peterson) became aware of the abuse allegations he “immediately tweeted ‘if you’re one of those people doing that, back off’, there’s no excuse for that, no utility’.”

He said the experience had left him trying to put himself in Newman’s position. “There is no doubt that Cathy has been subjected to a withering barrage of criticism online. One of the things I’ve been trying to do is to try to imagine what I’d do if I found myself in her situation and how I would react to it and understand how it was happening. But they’ve provided no evidence that the criticisms constituted threats. There are some nasty cracks online but the idea that this is somehow reflective of a fundamental misogyny and that’s what’s driving this is ridiculous.”

Grayditch · 21-01-2018 3:56pm

Why do bloggers on the right always have to use terms like CRUSHED and DESTROYED!!!!'???

It's a bit embarrassing.

silverharp · 21-01-2018 3:59pm

xtal191 wrote: »

Open the tweet and have a read through

https://twitter.com/CheekiScrump/status/954773827812315136

while I 100% detest anyone that makes threats on social media she doesnt exactly look all cut up about it. Seems like a deflection attempt

Potatoeman · 21-01-2018 3:59pm

Being an aggressive and interviewer can be a good thing when dealing with evasive people but she completely misrepresented what he was saying and he wasn’t being evasive. It’s clear she brought he own agenda and preconceptions into the interview.

goose2005 · 21-01-2018 4:00pm

buried wrote: »

"So you're saying..." "So you're saying..." "So you're saying...". When you keep hearing that from someone, they don't want to listen or even debate, they want a fight. The interviewer lost that fight big time after the 21st minute

So you're saying you hate women?

silverharp · 21-01-2018 4:03pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

Being an aggressive and interviewer can be a good thing when dealing with evasive people but she completely misrepresented what he was saying and he wasn’t being evasive. It’s clear she brought he own agenda and preconceptions into the interview.

true, it might work with a slippery politician , but if you are dealing with someone talking about a book they have written they have nothing to hide. Instead of " so you are saying..." should have been replaced with "thats interesting can you expand on that..." and let their grown up audience decide

tritium · 21-01-2018 4:03pm

B0jangles wrote: »

Isn't he the guy who thinks being asked to use a transgender person's preferred pronouns is oppression and a sign of the impending collapse of modern society?

Nice ad hominem! Interestingly he actually deals with this exact point in the interview- the interviewer tried the exact same as hominem! Who would have thought.....

alan partridge aha · 21-01-2018 4:03pm

An important part of her job is to listen to what someone is saying whether you agree with them or not. She either wasn't listening or else was trying to deliberately twist his words.

Ulysses Gaze · 21-01-2018 4:10pm

Potatoeman wrote: »

Being an aggressive and interviewer can be a good thing when dealing with evasive people but she completely misrepresented what he was saying and he wasn’t being evasive. It’s clear she brought he own agenda and preconceptions into the interview.

Perhaps C4 thought they were getting an Alt-Right idiotic shill like Richard Spencer who they could shout down rather than someone with actual intellectual capacity like Jordan Peterson.

brevity · 21-01-2018 4:13pm

She was way too...tabloidish which was a bit disappointing but I think this could have been deliberate. She asked the questions that other people would have been thinking and in a way showed up how silly some of the arguments are.

21-01-2018 4:17pm

Grayditch wrote: »

Why do bloggers on the right always have to use terms like CRUSHED and DESTROYED!!!!'???

It's a bit embarrassing.

Same as the left using slayed-owned

Potatoeman · 21-01-2018 4:18pm

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Perhaps C4 thought they were getting an Alt-Right idiotic shill like Richard Spencer who they could shout down rather than someone with actual intellectual capacity like Jordan Peterson.

This is the problem with labeling people incorrectly. She had an idea of him which was completely false and she carried it into the interview. People are using these labels to invalidate other people’s opinions that they don’t like but can’t debate.

markodaly · 21-01-2018 4:22pm

Channel 4 interview technique brought to you by Brass Eye.

kneemos · 21-01-2018 4:23pm

brevity wrote: »

She was way too...tabloidish which was a bit disappointing but I think this could have been deliberate. She asked the questions that other people would have been thinking and in a way showed up how silly some of the arguments are.

Nobody with three functioning brain cells was thinking those questions.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments