Cathy Newman and Jordan Petersen on C4 News

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Just on. He was saying that people are different due to ' agreeableness, women being more likely to be so; men less so, hence the gender gap

It's the first time I have ever seen Cathy Newman angry. And he was spluttering a bit, first time for him too, for me, I think.

Watch it on + 1

I agree with some of Petersen's views but he didn't come off at all well here

Don’t link to neo Nazis talking about “kikes” if you don’t want to be called an anti-Semite. Don’t link to Daily fucking Caller articles about “black rioters” if you don’t want to be called racist. And don’t say journalists who disagree with you are flirting with you and lying about harassment if you don’t want to be called a sexist piece of shit

If the rioters are black then theyre black surely? I live in a place prone to riots and the press would say 'Catholic rioters' or whatever. Of course they do, they're reporting facts. What is wrong with that? It's just proven my point. It's meaningless.

Well going by our country's media handling of him this week that Marxist conspiracy against him is doing a shite job.

I did look at those links and while not pleasant (especially the fb link) His reaction to censorship (venues cancelling, name calling and protests against him) is pretty similar to the reaction we've all had on here to our right to free speech being threatened, with the behaviour of TRA's, violent angry protest, venues cancelling, online threats etc. I've seen posts on here with links to FB, twitter etc. Is it fair game? It appears to be the case...if it's not then what does that make us? It at least makes us as bad as him.

Holdme how do you feel about his stance on compelled speech versus preferred pronouns.

For me he has really focused the issue. He is prepared to fight and lose his career over this. He has spoken to trans men and women many of whom agree with him and are on his side. He has taken extensive legal advice and has also gained support from lawyers who fear they will be for to use compelled speech or face losing their license to practise.

It seems to me that he is almost a comedy hero for Terfs in some ways.

And there's a bit of a cheek talking about bigotry on a thread about Newman considering her past issue with Muslims.

The kike comment is just fine, of course. Calling BLM protests “black rioters” is just descriptive. And no, the press does not routinely describe sectarian violence in NI as “Catholic” (you’re not the only Irish person here, Eamo, so I’d watch out before trying that shite on).

The kike comment is just fine, of course. Calling BLM protests “black rioters” is just descriptive. And no, the press does not routinely describe sectarian violence in NI as “Catholic” (you’re not the only Irish person here, Eamo, so I’d watch out before trying that shite on)

Aye they do. Catholic/Nationalist/Republican. Pick a label. They web will be full of examples.

Tell me what's wrong with labelling black people rioting as black rioters?

Look the trans issue is not the be all and the end all and it can’t be separated from the rest of gender politics. I mean Mike fucking Pence is on the same side as TERFs but making common cause with him on this issue would be an outright disaster for feminists. I’d point out that Eamo’s previous posts on feminism on MN are wholly hostile.

You are being conned if you think that Peterson and his ilk can be useful on a single issue then dropped when it’s convenient.

Catholic/Nationalist/Republican are NOT SYNONYMOUS.

^ folks please see the above exchange for a brief but pleasing clear example of why “engaging” and “debating” these topics is so frequently pointless. Point out that JP retweeted an anti-Semite this morning? Why, let’s bring up Northern Ireland. Point out the NI point is inaccurate? Pretend you said something else.

I don’t want to talk about the press treatment of NI sectarianism. It’s not relevant. It’s been brought up because this is how JP and his supporters “debate” - not through engaging on issues but on gish galloping, reframing, and distracting.

Thanks for the lesson, Eamo. That’s enough for now.

folks please see the above exchange for a brief but pleasing clear example of why “engaging” and “debating” these topics is so frequently pointless

Pointless for who?

Are you both flirting with me?

Are you both flirting with me?

Misogynist racist knuckledragger!

And how quickly we're back to identity politics....

As I said earlier up the thread, I haven't been aware of the rest of his stuff. I don't know what else he has to say about race, ultra nationalism and a bunch of other things. I'll listen to some stuff and see.

But I do know that I enjoyed hearing him question the question, carefully define what he was talking about, seek evidence and refutation and then lay out what that means we can or can't be sure about.

I do not enjoy listening to 'discussions' between people who identify with a particular grouping, ascribe negative motivations to those who disagree with them and therefore go to play the person, not debate the content.

I am not impressed with some of his tweets today. I do understand his frustration with the narrative being imposed on the interview retrospectively. I see he has sort of invited a further interview, although his tone is fairly ungracious IMO. I would have respected him more if he had repeatedly reiterated his original call for courtesy and debate from those who seem to think they're going into bat for him. But I'm not looking for a hero I can worship. I am interested in hearing some different ideas, intelligently debated and moving away from the idea that there is a single socio-political view that forms a universal consensus for 'right thinking people'. Because whatever else, I look at our political landscape in the UK (not just the government) and think there has to be more than this.

I'm not buying the argument that Peterson is super smart (he's clearly very smart) but when it comes to interactions with CN he's so baffled with the woman-ness of CN he's accidentally stirring up his followers against her.

Just because Peterson goes up against people who are wrong doesn't make him right.

Where did I say I didn't want to debate? I've brought up that today, Jordan Peterson endorsed the views of one of Twitter's notorious anti-Semites outlining a Marxist mainstream media conspiracy against him. He also said that Newman was "flirting" with him and is lying about receiving harassment.

Nobody has any refutation of these points, only pablum about "freedom of speech". The point is that today Jordan Peterson used his freedom of speech to spout lies, anti-Semitism, and misogyny.

Posters can't seem to get over the fact that I'm worried about the alt-right online radicalisation of young men. I've shown the sort of young male following Peterson has attracted, and been told I'm being "unpleasant". I will repeat my initial argument which for all the insistence that "everything should be debated!", was ignored:

If your 17 year old son reads this tweet and does not see it for the pathetic sexism that it is, we have a major problem: twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/953385332367486976

Where has he accused CN of lying about the harassment? I've seen him point out that there isn't any proof made public and that criticism is not the same as threat.

Otherwise it's back to 'so you're saying I'm lying...'

About critical scientific refutation of Peterson's opinions. This might have gotten lost as I've shared a lot of links to him being sexist/ridiculous, but this tweet about Harvard professor Mahzarin Banaji needs to be unpacked:
twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/946860541422714880

Banaji, a scientist who has many times more citations than Peterson, and as primary author too, works mostly on "implicit bias", in other words, the tendency of people to view black people as more criminal, or women as softer etc etc. Her work is well respected and undermines a great deal of Peterson's "theories".

It is, of course, pure coincidence that Peterson is so incensed by her success (not just in gaining tenure at Harvard) while she's not white, not Western, and a woman.

Agree with HoldMeDown. While trans-activism may be highly problematic, it seems there is an inexplicable obsession on this forum with the issue that is out of all proportion to both other far more important feminist issue and the degree to which it effects women, or people generally, in the offline world. I've hardly known anyone mention it outside of internet fora. More worryingly, this is leading feminists into alliances with some very, very, very dodgy people.

It's pure sophistry to say that saying "there's no proof of threats" is not accusing C4/Newman of lying.

He is very clearly accusing her of dishonesty.

Another great and accessible book that undermines plenty of evo-psych nonsense about gender is Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender", which also exposes very dodgy practices even from such distinguished scientists and academics as Pinker at Stanford and Baron-Cohen at Cambridge.

I mean, I'm very much on board with the MN Feminism line on trans issues (albeit I do wish we gave as much attention to other important topics - sometimes looking down the topic list is a bit disheartening). But this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking is SO shortsighted. We do not need to make common cause with sexists - in fact doing so is only going to undermine our legitimate problems with trans issues by making us look bad.

That whole neo-empiricist crowd of Sam Harris, Stefan Molyneux, Pinker and Petersen are on a continuum with the ethno-nationalists and eugenicists. They're trying to give credence to racial difference in IQ. Utter shit-bags.

I got the flirting comment as a wry tongue in cheek one...and he did ask people to be respectful in their comments .."just words people , these were just words" ..

Banaji, a scientist who has many times more citations than Peterson, and as primary author too, works mostly on "implicit bias", in other words, the tendency of people to view black people as more criminal, or women as softer etc etc. Her work is well respected and undermines a great deal of Peterson's "theories".

I looked at that one. It seems to me that while her work is well respected the reason she has been criticised is that using implicit bias is biased in itself and undermines the whole idea of her research. If that's the case then I agree with the criticism

Does he refuse to take responsibility for the actions of his followers, as he rejects the in group identity they have formed with him?

Sure, repeatedly from one side of his mouth he insists he has no idea why all these alt-right types love him and he certainly isn't alt-right himself. But then on the other side, he explicitly endorses a prominent follower (the "gas the kikes" charmer) who is describing a Marxist conspiracy against him. He is feeding the alt-righters, because they are the ones who have given him his YouTube $$$ over the past couple of years.

This isn't accidental (like it isn't accidental when Trump or Trump Jr repeatedly retweet white supremacists). That account has thousands of followers and the "gas the kikes" post was made just a couple of hours before the pro-Peterson comment.