MNHQ here: How would you feel about a Jordan Peterson webchat?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We've been offered a webchat with Jordan Peterson (his new book has a chapter on parenting, although the publishers (Penguin) recognise a webchat is likely to be more wide-ranging than that). We know he's very controversial, to put it mildly, but also as you know we believe in the value of open debate. So we thought we'd ask you what you think: would you like the chance to put questions to him and debate him on-site or would you rather not?

That's a big 'fuck no' from me please

Stripey can I respectfully suggest (again) that if any background reading is required, it should be reading Peterson's material itself in order to form an opinion on him, rather than merely reading other people's opinions of him?

I am surprised that I have to point this out really. Then again - am I? On reflection maybe not.

@Ellenborough - absolutely. And any material needs to be evaluated in the wider context of its critical and scholarly reception. That Vox article is an interview with someone who has read and reviewed Peterson's book for the TLS. www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/jordan-peterson-12-rules-kate-manne-review/amp/

I was focusing on critical pieces as many on the thread seem to be familiar with Peterson's work but not with critiques of that work.

When you read it, it's not well evidenced and I think it should be open to challenge on that basis.

Do you mean the picture of him standing next to someone in that t shirt? So not wearing it. I am not aware of any picture but am happy to be corrected. Sorry but this all feels really uncomfortable to me. It does feel like people giving a knee jerk reaction in the same way that people are labelled terf before anyone has heard what they say.

@birdsdestiny - quite right. I misremembered the University of Cambridge furore and should have checked it first. He had his arm around the man wearing the shirt.
Peterson has positively quoted the following: “Islamophobia: a word created by fascists and used by cowards to manipulate morons" (attributed, possibly erroneously, to Christopher Hitchens)

Why is it always women who have to accommodate views they find reprehensible????

Why do you think you are speaking for all women? Aren’t we entitled to our individual opinions?

Besides, TRAs aren’t just men. There’s a lot of women trying to deplatform and shut down conversation. (I think this is what you are referring to when you mention women having to accommodate different views)

I imagine there is an interesting and forthright female person with a book out about something relevant? Could they do a joint webchat sort of panel thing? Both answering the same questions and even, perchance, debating each other?

I think the point re KKK is well made. A forum for BAME people would not I think be expected to accommodate a speaker spouting poorly evidenced race hatred. JP spouts poorly evidenced, poorly argued propaganda against women. He has enough nous to convince the gullible that’s not what he’s doing. But he is, and he knows he is. I don’t think he should be invited here any more than I’d expect my nearest synagogue to host a reading of mein kampf.

I've never heard of him. might he be controversial and if so why bother?

@PineapplePower- you know who does act like he can speak for all women: Jordan Peterson. m.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ca6qNF5yE

As I understand it one of his central beliefs is that patriarchy is the natural order of things, that women, by refusing to submit to patriarchy and by refusing to form monogamous partnerships with men, are subverting the natural and right order of things

Or in a nutshell lie back and think of England or the incells will kill us all, women should take the hit otherwise men will get violent and you'll all be sorry

Nearly 15m views

The strawmen she puts up are what made this go viral. And I can see the same behaviour by many on this thread.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Would we get a preview the Parenting chapter of his new book beforehand?

I am more frightened by people who say we shouldn't listen to people because of who they stand next to than I am of Jordan Peterson.

I think it’s a no from me for several reasons but principally because of the format. Web chats are really frustrating because they never are a “frank and robust debate”. They are severely time-limited, we rarely get to follow up on our questions and the guests always ignore the ones they don’t want to answer anyway. Given that the quality of discussion on this website is so high generally, it’s something that I find quite disappointing.

Why offer the bonehead the opportunity to sneer at and patronise several million women? He has plenty of other outlets. Let him wank himself off about how he’s part of the superior 50% elsewhere. I’ve seen his kind plenty, they bore me.

Yes definitely in his mind he is the superior and everything he hears is filtered through this, if we engage with him we will just be helping him to pleasure himself

I’m sure there is a notice on the MNHQ whiteboard about that sort of thing in an open plan office, hearhere

@birdsdestiny - Just to clarify, at no point did I say we should be banned from listening to Peterson because of who he stands next to. There are lots and lots and lots of places you can hear him talk and read his material. But this is a conversation about whether Mumsnet should add itself to that list of places where people can access that material and indeed whether it should be active in promoting that material, since this is about selling his new book.

Also, it is fine, it really is, to hear what someone has to say, decide you disagree with them - even that you find their views abhorrent - and to not want a group you are involved in to promote those views. As long as you have properly engaged with the material and are open to the possibility that some new evidence could come to light that could change your mind, it's fine. It doesn't make you an enemy of free speech. Jordan Peterson has more than enough opportunities to be heard. How about we hear from someone else?

Jordan Peterson has more than enough opportunities to be heard. How about we hear from someone else?

It’s not just hearing from him, it’s the opportunity to engage with him that’s of value. I know you don’t seem to value it, but there’s those of us who do.

Why deny us the opportunity? Just say you don’t want to participate and move on, and ignore the webchat for the day.

Jordan Peterson has more than enough opportunities to be heard. How about we hear from someone else?

Why not both? It’s not like there’s some sort of cap on who can participate in these, do we? (At least, not to my knowledge). MNHQ would probably love to hear your suggestions.

I am talking about MN stripey, not about other places where he can be heard. Personally I think mentioning that t shirt as a reason why he shouldn't be heard on here is unnerving. It is also fine for me to say that.

You will not get an oppotunity to engage with him. He will simply dance around the questions he doesn't like and only directly answer those that are in line with his world view. He always does.

And if you manage to back him in a corner somehow, he'll simply lose his temper and start throwing accusations around such as calling all athiests murderers, like he did with Matt Dillahunty, whose Youtube channel I can recommend, although he has yet to hit peak trans.

Those who think that a webchat is somewhere they will be able to "engage in debate" with him instead of him cherrypicking only what he wishes to answer (just like any other webchat guests do!) are living in fantasyland.

Please do not do this MN. The risk of drawing in his following - which absolutely includes plenty of alt-right, MRA types is extremely high.

Opening questions only to existing users won't stop that. It'll just spill them into other threads.

You do not need to give him any more publicity/legitimacy. There is absolutely nothing that MN will gain from this.

Posters mentioning the “I am an islamaphobe” t shirt really don’t do their research, as has been pointed out many times on this thread.

It is an ironic statement, much like I am a TERF because it is seem as islamaphobic to criticise anything to do with Islam

If I said I think Islam treats women appallingly and is a misogynistic religion with really bad ideas, I would be deemed as an Islamaphobe

Exactly the same concept as TERFs and saying men aren’t women.

This is one thing JP most definitely has right - identity politics is sending us all mad!

I wouldn't want to participate

but I'm interested to know what MN feel they would get from it

different traffic - there is a demographic out there who love him so I suppose that drives different revenue streams, even if not paid directly.

tbh I find him very hard to listen to - takes him ages to get to the point. So I'm sorry if this is wrong, but I'm under the impression he thinks women are for having babies, and therefore a childfree woman like myself is some kind of horror for him!