Jordan Peterson interview
 

'Channel 4 has been forced to call in “security specialists” after a combative interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist spawned a series of online abuse and threats directed at presenter Cathy Newman.

Ms Newman grilled University of Toronto professor Jordan Peterson, who has attracted a following from the far-right, on gender and equality, including his claims that the pay gap between men and women cannot solely be attributed to gender.

She was the target of a wide range of “vicious” comments and “misogynistic” threats following the exchange, leading to Channel 4 having to call in security specialists, according to the editor, Ben de Pear.'

'Mr De Pear said that the “level of vicious misogynistic abuse, nastiness, and threats” were an “unacceptable response” to the interview.'

Watched the vid and the guy does kind of tie her in knots with the tone of his voice here, I think my answer would be I'm doing my job! He's there to be interviewed on this topic what did he think they were going to discuss, the weather?... This to me was a diversionary tactic to fog the issue, and it worked.

The trolls are no surprise either, rather vicious and reactionary the 'anti PC brigade' it seems.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8169401.html

Thought you were talking about the lefty trolls there. It seems like others have adopted the mantra of ‘if you can’t beat em, join em! Some Lefties really don’t like a taste of their own medicine do they!

Right-wing “isn’t something that just happens ...there were years of injustice, marginalisation and misinformation which led to factions on both sides forming” - isn’t that the ‘justification’ you used for IRA atrocities in another post!

As previously mentioned by several people no extremes are welcome!

Poor victim.

I agree with at least 99% of what he has to say in the video. It's a shame that he's been sort of hijacked by an extreme right wing element looking to make his words combative... Not really his fault, though.

I watched this and Kathy Newman comes across dreadfully. She went into that interview desperate to catch him out somehow. She brought up ****loads of strawmen and appeared to be arguing against stuff she thought/wished he would say rather than what he actually did say all the way through. Someone collated the amount of times she said 'so you are saying'..always followed by something utterly nonsensical. Was actually easily the worst interview I have ever seen. Am surprised c4 let the interview go out unedited tbh. This does not excuse any threats mind, but the interview as an utter car crash.

nothing wrong with jordan peterson, a good guy

Terrible interview on her part but I can't take anything he says seriously either. Men's Rights Activists are ridiculous and anything he has to say is tainted by that association that he apparently hasn't tried to shut down.

God, even bloody Milo Yawhatever steamrolled that woman in a debate. If they wanted to make Peterson look wrong, surely there's someone capable of conducting themselves in a discussion in the C4 building?

As for the trolls, calling in security because someone typed words on a screen is a bit much.

i'm not sure that any kind of committed men's rights activist in online media would so casually call mgtow 'pathetic weasels'

https://youtu.be/5uTMPwFlf9I

Yes, I saw that one too and was shocked by how much she floundered tbh :laugh:

There has to be someone more competent, if c4 are wishing to 'take down' the MRAs (I don't class Peterson as a MRA mind, but I don't really know anything of him besides the pronoun debate and this interview)

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2...teps-interview

He is an intelligent and interesting man.

I watched the interview and Tbf to her.She’s no Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman and they wouldn’t beat Peterson intellectually either.He’s a very clever guy.
C4 should have done more research and maybe pre-planned some responses or something.

I'd only seen Peterson either talk to an audience, or in a non-confrontational interview before. He used to have a habit to over talk, but he seems to have either taught himself not to do that, or realised shorter sentences would be needed for this discussion.

He is a clever guy nobody is disputing that however the simple fact was that he was in an interview and that is why he was there, she wasn't asking him things to offend him and he could articulate himself well enough to not have to exercise the supposed 'pc' defence of suggesting he was 'offended'.

Again though the real issue is the abuse, I don't understand, what did she say that warranted that onslaught? Yes it was a bit rubbish, not her best but not the worst ever. Online abusers should be held accountable just as much as if they would if they made those threats to your face... Keyboard warrior or not they have to be held accountable!

He wasn’t making a PC response.He was making a point.He was’nt saying ‘I’m offended,You’ve hurt my feelings’ he was highlighting her hypocrisy and she didn’t have an answer.

“A cursory Twitter search revealed a series of messages directed at the presenter calling her a “b***h”, “*******” and “*******ing idiot”.

^ that just seems like everyday Twitter crap that everyone in the spotlight gets.Celebs,presenters,politicians etc

wait people are nasty on Twitter?

:shocked:

this is outrageous

I hate this philosophy... It's dangerous and divisive, happiness is not pointless we are not drones we have a fundamental right to happiness, unlike most things it's free and is found in simple pleasures that anyone can enjoy if you choose to look. This opinion from an academic is very troubling to me.
He will be acutely aware of how to influence and manipulate certain mindsets and he's playing those people like a virtuoso!
This is my opinion as a person, not an intellectual a spirit with free will, a conscience, ego, super ego, libido all that good stuff I don't subscribe to this mind ****ery that we are all intrinsically flawed... Yes we may have an inner psycho but there's also th inner altruist the inner god (or goddess) the ying and yang that makes is two halves of a whole.

He is by admittance a 'true liberal' not a liberal democrat, a liberal... as in he believes in conservatism and their ideology is of course laissez faire, they believe everyone is an individual that others should be cut off and sink or swim .. survival of the fittest . There is nothing new , fresh or particularly edgy in this mans view... it's simply your bog standard tory ethos shuzzed up a bit because he's had a taste of the limelight and is thirsty for more by writing a book, not to warn of the extremes of both right and left.... no, just left. He conveniently forgets to mention the issues surrounding another fascist uprising... There are those still alive who haven't forgotten the last and who I suspect would rather off themselves than live through another!

He is an expert on political issues and influencing belief systems, in other words his knowledge is extremely important to those seeking to control the masses... The war is against 'nice people', those who are only hiding there malevolence, it is people like this guy who are tasked with eeking out this malevolence... suppress your inner nice person and let out your inner twunt! that's the message from this guy..milo...hopkins...morgan...

Personally I believe that happiness is all important because it is impossible to be truly happy and subscribe to hate... it goes against human nature.
The scenario of what if someone is a jerk at work.. you manifest some monster of resentment... no you don't! that's a very childlike base way of thinking as an adult you would first rationalise it then use your conflict resolution skills to correct the issue, confront 'the jerk' assertively or take it higher if it is warranted.. there's no need to stew on things so they become all encompassing that's a nonsense.

He claims to be against groupthink and yet hypocritically he suggests the 'west' is right, why? because their collective way of thinking makes the most sense to him.... so, groupthink then?
If he were from anywhere else that would be the norm because socialisation...because conditioning ... because Christianity blah blah.
Why are we ignorant, tiny and flawed?... because that is how the establishment likes the public not because it is inherent.

If there was one thing I could identify with and say it speaks to me on a fundamental level is this..

'No one gets away with anything, ever, so take responsibility for your own life. You conjure your own world, not only metaphorically but also literally and neurologically. These lessons are what the great stories and myths have been telling us since civilisation began.'

It's essentially the law of attraction what you put out... you get back magnified. It's an ancient theory but as true today as ever. willpower is the most powerful tool we have if you want something, will it. Praying is a group of people willing something the more people that will something the stronger the will the more it is attracted from the universe... but that's another story.
You conjour your own world... so why can't you conjour a happy world? a safe world? a nice world?

Maybe he's worried that one day he will have to atone for the negativity and ill will he advocates? That must be a heavy cross to bear? His misunderstanding of 'nice people' is pitiful, you can go through horrific ordeals and come through with your soul intact... nobody can alter that.

So essentially no I don't subscribe to his view of individualism it smacks of divide and conquer, people are easier to manipulate alone. however I do on a spiritual level as channelers of light (as well as dark) energy, I don't think you should ever see yourself as anything less than a powerful being on a psychological level as well as spiritual, protect yourself, ground yourself, you are child of the universe and he is no Salvador Dali!

My first question is... Why is Youtube a male domain?
My second is who is responsible for men not having the skills to 'develop themselves' and as he says it's not only men in which case wouldn't it be better to say 'people' are not developing themselves?
Is tumblr predominantly female...why?

So what you're saying is, Alf is brilliant, is that right Kizzy?

You're right though, there is no need for threatening abuse, however there is need to criticise the way she conducted that interview.

Is this your new Cathy Newman style posting?

Get on Twitter and ask him.Or e-mail him?

To be fair Kizzy I think you're overlooking the fact that he didn't say that being happy is bad... in fact he says it's desireable... but it's also changeable and I personally agree that it's very important to acknowledge that. In the modern world, the message has become confused; the original "pursuit of Happiness" is really talking about the pursuit of contentment, fulfilment, and meaning. There's a common AND VERY DANGEROUS misconception these days that people should be happy all of the time and that something is fundamentally "wrong" if you aren't happy, right now, every moment. But happiness is just one of a whole spectrum of fleeting emotions that comprise human existence... it's NOT a goal, and if you make "happiness" your life goal, you're in for a disappointment... because you'll be happy, then sad, then devastated, then melancholy, then happy again, then devastated, then relieved, then happy, then bored... etc etc. The goal of always being in a permanent state of happiness is unattainable. But people DO seek it, and when it doesn't work out, it causes feeling of failure, depression, anxiety. It causes people to run to the doctor for pills at the first sign of "feeling unhappy" - because there's an idea that normal people "shouldn't feel unhappy" even temporarily.

All he's saying is... seek real meaning elsewhere. Embrace the happy / joyful times when they are there, but accept that life's phases are not always happy ones. You have no idea what's just over the horizon and if you expect it to always be good, happy things then you are screwed... and you also have to accept that you can never have full control over what comes next.


It's also an oversight to suggest that he's "just another individualistic Tory" - as he's a vocal supporter of full Universal Healthcare for all and also in favour of strong benefits systems / large amounts of wealth distribution. Economically speaking he's about as far from Tory as it gets.


The basics of that come into his ideas about accepting the fundamental differences between males and females, too. Like in that video he mentions how, left to their own devices, females are more attracted to healthcare roles than males and males are more attracted to technical roles than women. This is part of creating the overall pay gap, because technical positions are higher paid than healthcare positions. There's a bull**** idea that to address the pay gap, the thing to do is to shuffle everyone up - shift more women into better paid technical roles... that they don't actually want... because then there'll be a smaller wealth gap. Overlooking the fact that men and women just ARE psychologically different and want different careers... and instead of saying "everyone is the same and can do the same jobs"... you can just as easily address the pay gap simply by paying healthcare providers more.

Yeah, a bit of abuse is 'normal' for all people in the public eye surely. Its not right of course, but its par for the course. I doubt she had more abuse than the likes of Dianne Abbot or someone get on a daily basis.

Surely there were actual threats though, for c4 to being in security people. Though, its possible c4 were just trying to take attention away from the absolutely dreadful interview and garner some sympathy for Newman instead of further ridicule...as actual threats would surely warrant the police being called, not 'security specialists'.

:laugh:

I watched it it in full
last week.

Maybe it was a interview
that he got the better hand.............