Cathy Newman stumped by Jordan Peterson

[deadpan]

This twitter post by Sall Grover shows Cathy Newman interview Jordan Peterson on Channel 4 news.
She's challenging him about his views on trans people and asks if he cares about how his right to free speech could offend anyone.
I'm no fan of Peterson but his reply is fantastic and completely stumps Cathy Newman.

https://x.com/salltweets/status/2027540464191287329?s=20

I don’t think he’s misogynistic. As a woman I find him very helpful. He understands women’s issues and he sincerely wants to help.

Jordan Peterson is a psychologist who has found a grift in presenting himself as an expert on subjects far beyond his area of expertise. And he treats all debates like a sixth form pupil in debate club - never solidifying his position and attacking semantics to get a cheap win.
As a biologist, I find his arguments based on evolutionary theory so infuriating in their simplicity and obvious bias. He embodies the literal worst examples of public debate, not willing to listen or learn and believing "winning" can happen by berating his opponent.

I think the quote below is apt....

"In 2009, George Monbiot refused the challenge of a live “debate” on anthropogenic global warming with the geologist Ian Plumer. “It takes 30 seconds to make a misleading scientific statement and 30 minutes to refute it,” Monbiot wrote. He suggested that he and Plimer first have a carefully sourced written exchange, but Plimer refused"

This man is notoriously misogynistic. He holds some seriously awful views on women. Weird that you can all seemingly overlook that because you agree with him on this.
I was hoping that you could respond to my requests to give actual evidence of misogyny in the interview.
But you evidently can't.
Never mind.

He is a psychologist so analyses everything. I enjoy some of his discussions and some I do not and so I stop listening. Much like I do with everyone, I'll listen to all sides and then tune out when I've lost interest.

He was an unknown clinical psychologist who was thrust into the spotlight by the Borg because he refused to submit and because of that, got attention and offered contracts and he has opened his own academy as a result.

That's not grifting, that is taking advantage of an extremely stressful situation.

And everyone has biases. EVERYONE. Why is it you are allowed them and he isn't?

Why is that quote apt? Monbiot cannot debate an actual geologist because he has no valid arguments and that's a good thing? Its just activist rhetoric, No Debate. Which is how Peterson got 'famous' in the first place. Your quote literally makes the opposite point to the one you think you are making.

You have to be made of stone to watch his Chloe Cole interview and not feel anything.

He's right wing. CN is left wing. The fact that a right wing man with deeply sexist views is also GC (shock! Because being GC is such a niche view...) just provides a handy excuse to celebrate him on a board where youd expect otherwise, and crow over him 'running rings around' a woman, because she's left wing.
Unfortunately, feminism takes a back seat on this board with increasing regularity when there's an opportunity to promote the right and have a pop at the left.

just provides a handy excuse to celebrate him on a board where youd expect otherwise, and crow over him 'running rings around' a woman, because she's left wing.
No . CN was incompetent. Even though she's a woman (shock!)
And, for the love of God, can't ANY of you JP haters bring in one thing he's actually said, in context.
As I've said, I don't listen to his later stuff, but, if I can't admire someone who had the guts to stick their head above the parapet, at risk to his career, who can I admire?
Certainly not the so-called feminists and left wingers were and happily going with TWAW,

And, a lot of posters are not 'overlooking' his awful views because he is GC. They are here because they agree with his awful views. The fact he is GC just provides a handy 'in' to platform him on a feminist board.

And, a lot of posters are not 'overlooking' his awful views because he is GC. They are here because they agree with his awful views. The fact he is GC just provides a handy 'in' to platform him on a feminist board.
again, can we have evidence of this?
Or is it just another 'everyone who disagrees with me is thick or Hitler' post?

What awful views?

Nobody can seem to point to these awful views. Just point and scream at women who don't join in with the pointing and screaming at women who are pointing and screaming.

You can admire who you choose. Personally I set my bar a little higher than simply being sex realist. The most heinous mysogynists, the rapists, the murderers of women, all know 'what a woman is', so its a pretty low bar.
I admire sex realist, GC feminists. So many incredibly brave women have also stuck the heads above the parapet on this issue, so its not like we're so short of people to look up to we need to be celebrating men with some very suspect views about women on the feminist board.

Is there a GC medal we can award you with for being so pure?

This is the feminist board. Referring to women you disagree with as 'pointing and screaming' when all you've seen here from those women is polite written text, is not in keeping with the spirit of the board. I was responding to a pp who used the words 'awful views'. The man has views that are not in the interests of women. For example, his belief that women do not achieve in areas such as leadership due to biological differences. He favours traditional sex based roles. He is a sex realist because he wants to seperate roles into men's and women's. This is not typically in the interests of women.

This kind of echos my views. I have watched a number of his university campus and newsroom debates and what was increasingly evident was the bad faith approach by many to distort or deliberately misrepresent his views with Cathy 'so what you are saying' Newman probably being the most egregious example. Many on the left turned against him because of his stance on 'compelled speech' and pushing back against TRA orthodoxy. The approved narrative was that he was a right wing loon whose fanbase was mostly basement dwelling incels. His 12 Rules for Life book was presented disingenuously as some kind of women hating incel handbook by people who had not bothered to actually read it. Like you I eventually got bored of him as he does have a fairly word salad style of delivery and his religious views dont really tally with mine and I moved on.

Why would you award it to me? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about who I admire.
Nothing to do with purity. Lazy insult. I'm talking about deciding whether a person is admirable based on the entirety of their views. Not deciding to admire them simply because like 99% of the world, the good, the bad, they are sex realist.

'Like you I eventually got bored of him as he does have a fairly word salad style of delivery and his religious views dont really tally with mine and I moved on'

This is more or less how I feel about him too. He can be interesting but he's pretty exhausting to listen to. I have a problem with him being a hardcore pronatalist who seems pretty disgusted by anyone, male or female, who decides to be childfree (like me).

At the same time, he has what I think is a very weird attitude to young children - he shared a story in one of his books about working in a nursery as a trainee psychologist and being absolutely HORRIFIED when one of the children climbed into his lap. He saw this as as a sign of the child's disordered attachment and put his own response due to evolution 🙄 he didn't seem to feel any sense of tenderness or protectiveness towards the child. There were a couple of other stories in this vein. Very odd

His daughter is the CEO of the Peterson education academy. Even though she has 2 kids.

When you say 'favours sex based roles' how does the above fit into that? What about being a CEO is not in the interests of women?

That's not what he said at all. He said that in countries like Denmark or Sweden, where women are free to choose whether they'd like to spend more time in the home or dedicate themselves more to a career many are choosing to be at home with the children. He doesn't claim that there is a right or wrong choice and he makes no judgement on what the women choose. He merely states that this is what the evidence shows. He claims are not personal claims but a result of looking at psychological research.
By 'free to choose', I mean that society is set up in Scandanavian countries so that both options (home life/career) are financially viable and equally attainable.

I do feel some people are very quick to make judgements on Jordan Peterson without actually reading or listening to what he's saying. It reminds me of when JK Rowling was dismissed as being an 'anti trans bigot' based on nothing at all.

I'm still interested to hear actual quotes, taken in context, which might back up your assertion that his views are not in the interest of women.

I'm not sure his daughters occupation is particularly relevent given she's an independent woman, not his chattel, and presumably makes decision and achieves things outside of his control?
JP makes no secret of his belief that traditional sex based roles are important for the regulation of society. He also believes in the existence of the 'lady brain' whereby less serotonin results in women having inate traits that make them less suited to leadership.
Perhaps he feels his daughter is an exception. Who knows?
My point is that if the views he promotes become widely accepted, then it will nigh on impossible for women to be seen as the preferred candidate to a man, with his allegedly inate superiority for leadership.

How about we flip that, and you provide some direct quotes taken in context that demonstrate he is a supporter of feminism and women's rights?
Because I'm quite happy to see him as a common or garden sexist who alongside most of the world and its dog, knows that men are men and women are women. In that sprit, I'm happy to agree on that point AND think he's no friend to women.
Yet here we are on the feminist board with people arguing his merit.
So what is his value to feminists (other than he's GC)?

I prefer to treat people as they behave not just read clickbait about other people's interpretations of their words.

It is relevant because if as you say he doesn't think women are less suited to leadership then why would he even entertain his daughter being CEO of the family academy? Why leave his legacy in the hands of a mere female?

I see it with very different lenses. He is apt to challenge whatever it is he is presented with and only the ones that suit the narrative go viral and are seen by people who then think 'that's his views'. He always challenges things no matter what angle the person was coming from. I've followed him since the original pronouns Bill C-16 days and have seen the area where I come from descend into utter derangement and if his course of life hadn't been challenged by the Gender Borg then he would still be an unknown psychology prof trying to help individuals through their problems.

What did you think of the Chloe Cole interview?

I felt that in his interview with Brett Cooper, who beneath the clickbait is a young woman with some interesting things to say, and might have had more interesting things to say if JP hadn't taken up so much of the oxygen with explaining the psychology behind the point she'd just made.

Brett has been less clickbaity since being ousted from Daily Wire. I'd like to see her sit down with an interviewer who has learned the art of drawing out the interviewee.

You're the one saying he doesn't support women. I haven't seen any evidence of that. Why don't you post a video or quote that supports your viewpoint and I'll see if I agree with you?

I dont really see it as a clever "gotcha" because he's talking about 2 completely different situations. She's asked him probing questions and made him feel uncomfortable during the course of a formal interview deliberately designed to discuss controversial topics. That's a completely different context to "misgendering" in daily life.

Yes I get the wider point about the necessity for accurate speech/discomfort/truth but an easy comeback for her would be "but you agreed to doing a (presumably very financially beneficial) interview; probing questions should come as a surprise or be distressing? If they are you're in the wrong job!"

The question she actually asked was why does his freedom of expression trump a trans person's right to not be offended and surely the most direct response would be "there is no legal right to not be offended, whereas freedom of expression is legislated."

Thats why people think he goes around in circles.