Possible Jordan Peterson webchat on MN

[GeordieGenes]

If you go over to site stuff, MN are asking posters if they would like a webchat with Jordan Peterson! The thread is pretty negative, but I think it would be great to ask him about gender critical issues. He's one of the only Canadian voices we have!

If you think this would be good, please go and say so on the thread!

Geordie I think we're all agreed that Peterson will outperform Penny Mordaunt (who only answered about 1 question in 4, and answered those ones badly), or the NSPCC, who decided the issue of trying to square their "ask no questions" policy on trans issues and their claim to be the champions of safeguarding was just too difficult for them, and didn't even show up!

The webchat format is always going to be played by players.

Answer a selection of questions you like the look of, ignore the rest, talk about your book, yada yada, say something controversial, ignore follow-ups if want, leave.

he isn't afraid of being honest

Yeah he's really honest about the reason society is male dominated - it's because men are better than women! So refreshing, a man who's not afraid to just call it like he sees it.

I don't care if he comes on the website btw.

I'm of no mind if he does or doesn't but if (general) we take the line:

I don't see why any women needs to debate their existence as a valid human with someone who thinks that. (women are chaos)

Then we can't really complain when a TRA refuses to share a platform with someone GC because:

My existence is not up for debate (TWAW) which seems (at least for the BBC) to work well for them #nodebate

It'll only happen if enough people want the conversation, and no one has to listen. Isn't it all sunshine though?

Did you hear her giving evidence to the committee considering the C16 Bill? She was embarrassingly awful.

Yes I did and no she wasn't.

Meh. Not keen on him being on here. He is pretty misogynist as far as I can tell from the interviews / talks I've seen. He seems to endorse the idea that women aren't leading in society as expected because we 'choose' caregiving roles and are biologically programmed to seek out high earning successful males, which then necessitates us putting our own ambition second to the 'alpha males' we so desire.

It's biological determinism in the service of misogyny. Not the kind of person we need on the side of gc feminism. Mostly because JP is not a feminist.

Not that I would agree with silencing or no-platforming him either because I believe in free speech. I just wouldn't be interested in the web chat particularly and I don't see him as an ally for feminists at all.

Not interested in Peterson or his whacky MRA claims.

I don't see why any women needs to debate their existence as a valid human with someone who thinks that. (women are chaos)*

Have you listened to, or read, in full, his explanation for why he thinks women represent chaos and men. represent order?

I baulked when I first read the chaos thing as well. Then I continued to read his explanation for it, and listened to lectures where it is covered also. Now I understand.

To make the assumption that chaos is 'bad' and order is 'good' is inaccurate and too simplistic. Don't take it too literally.

If you still don't see anything in it then fine, but it annoys me when people see or read heavily edited soundbites of JBP, or passages taken out of context and think they have the measure of him. They don't.

To make the assumption that chaos is 'bad' and order is 'good' is inaccurate and too simplistic. Don't take it too literally.

It is not about a value judgement of chaos and order, though. It is about the tone-deafness of people who peddle this nonsense. If they open their eyes and free their minds they will realize that these stereotypes are not specific to one sex or another. I know as many men that clearly represent chaos, as I know of the 'order' type. Same with women. It is an arbitrary classification.

Generally, I am always for people going for a debate, if they want to debate. Whoever they want to debate.

That said, being somewhat familiar with Peterson's debate style, it will be a predictable easy win for Peterson, as he tends to fudge answers in an intellectually lazy manner, as soon as he is in a bind. It would need a skilled debater, one on one, who is up to his tricks, to nail the jelly that he is to the wall. And a MN chat is not a format for that, so he will be free to pull his tricks.

But if you don't mind that, go for it.

I'm happy with him coming

That said, being somewhat familiar with Peterson's debate style, it will be a predictable easy win for Peterson, as he tends to fudge answers in an intellectually lazy manner, as soon as he is in a bind. It would need a skilled debater, one on one, who is up to his tricks, to nail the jelly that he is to the wall. And a MN chat is not a format for that, so he will be free to pull his tricks.

You do it then.

I think it would be great I think he is misjudged.

I'd like to see him on a webchat

You do it then.

I am not at all a good debater, particularly not in English (not my native language). I would need time to dissect his arguments in writing and make sure he responds and does not evade or move on.

I once hear him say that free speech is important, because it allows you to air all that comes to your mind, a lot may be bullshit, but in dialogue with others you weed out the crap and develop your argument. I like what he said then, but I have never seen it in his debates. It is all about winning, shutting down the other side via straw-men, without even hearing what the other side has to say.

Obviously an MN debate is flawed in that he can choose which questions to answer, and it is limited in its scope by time and space on the thread. He has a tendency to give VERY LONGWINDED answers that sometimes take him a while to formulate. Fair enough - he's talking about some very complex stuff. And he thinks on his feet. Quite literally.

He gets there in the end, but having seen him respond to questions (he hasn't heard in advance and planned answers to) during his lectures, I admit it's not something that will convert terribly well to an MN web chat format. If he's given fifty questions he'll plan to answer 10 and actually answer 4. At length.

Perhaps he should be allowed more time than usual. Or perhaps we should accept that if he ignores most questions it's not because he doesn't have an answer, just that he can't answer it properly in the time he has. Or perhaps he will pick his questions in advance which will give him a slight advantage, but it's necessary due to the nature and limitations of the web chat.

If people can make allowances for this in advance and not have unrealistic expectations of what can be achieved then it will be interesting.

It really isn't the same as transwomen are women, no debate" because that is currently not accepted thinking. Abortion, voting, property, woman's rights. Yes we did fight for those things and #yeetherewasadebate

He has quite ridiculous views and frankly we dont have to engage with them because he is no different from any other man on the street and they don't really have widespread acceptance outside whiny men's rights activism.

Whatever happens in the thread it will be cherry picked by his followers and youtube videos saying "mn got pwned!!!1!" Will get made. And then we will just have more of them on MN... and they are so very very boring.

Can I demand MN bring us Trudeau? Id quite like to have words with him....

Im weak though so I probably would engage. God help me I cant avoid a good troll fight.

The only thing you'd accomplish by hosting that webchat is giving him free advertisement for his book. Let him buy ads like ever other asshole pushing a right-wing anti-woman agenda.

This is not about no-platforming, this is about not shilling for a man who clearly hates us.

I've heard of him, but don't really know why! I'm assuming he's like a shock jock academic. But then he's from Canada isn't he? If he's so controversial he must make the woke cry a lot over there.

Free speech is a endless debate. Look how the Athenians did for Socrates over it. I guess the line is hate. And what society/ the law defines as hate. I'm almost certain that TRAs think everything we write is hate. But we know it's not.

This guy isn't a hate preacher, although I've a feeling he's probably a knob. Let him speak, I would be interested in the debate.

"He's just your average mediocre white male"

Wow, what a comment.
You have no idea how much you have in common with the TRA's, because that is a common phrase/statement which they make on their twitter threads.

ferdina

He has quite ridiculous views and frankly we dont have to engage with them because he is no different from any other man on the street and they don't really have widespread acceptance outside whiny men's rights activism.

Wow, that's a horribly rude, dismissive and contemptuous view of him and of all men in general. You don't sound terribly well balanced.