Jordan Peterson Destroys Cathy Newman of Ch4HD News : Video
 

its 30mins long
Cathy is a Feminist
but that's not a problem for Jordan
its when she get's stuck and says nothing. (at 23mins)

Over 10million views

[Channel 4 News’ full, fiery interview with clinical psychologist and professor Jordan B Peterson,
whose views on gender have amassed great controversy - and a huge online following.
He discusses the pay gap, patriarchy and his new book "12 Rules for Life." ]



Sign Of The Times

What again?

EdIt: Its the old interview from January. *yawn*

If you think its not worthy of its own thread
Fine.

But its in full
In HD
and many on tibb can learn fast
from Jordan.

Its being used all around the World.
Even today

Just pointing out that its not a new interview. Its is good though. :thumbs:

Cheers Girth

I don't get why Channel 4 keep putting Cathy Newman up for any kind of debate. Even bloody Milo made her look stupid.

Well it is a good 30min interview
many learn fast under Jordan.

I think I Can give Cathy
a chance, But I guess
the "gotcha" moment
is what many are amazed by.

Jordan is an evil evil man. Living in the province he taught in I am ashamed he is getting this much publicity and support. Ignorance and discrimination masked as "free speech".

What has he said that's evil?

I remember this interview.Quite amusing.

Cathy:”So what you’re saying is.......”

Jordan:”Er no that’s not what i’m saying”

His is the kind of fuzzy logic that is feeding the incel evolvement, denigrating women is now legitimised by this man.

Bit of a bold statement to not be qualified by... anything at all? What fuzzy logic? And in what way does it do what you claim it does? :think:

It's qualified by me... it's my opinion TS.

Wow you spring into defence mode there is it the subject matter or my opinion you have an issue with?

PERSONALLY I feel his divergent opinions on male and female thinking has TRIGGERED ( yes I said it) a specific tranche of men into believing that the issues they face are due to women. He feeds that narrative and gives credence to some warped views IMO.

Nothing at all, he's a good man who speaks the truth.

haven't watched that, barely heard of the man, but here to express my love for Kathy Newman. Her and Emily Maitlis.

I don't disagree that certain groups have latched onto some of what he has to say and twist it to justify their pre-existing opinions and prejudices... I just don't think that his views do in their raw form actually support those groups, and I know for a fact that they haven't been a major factor in their formation. "Incel" groups and things like TheRedPill (sadly) were around long... LONG... before Jordan Petersen became high profile. They just had less of a spotlight on them, and were hidden away in the darker corners of the internet.

I didn't suggest he spawned them I said he was feeding them... coaxing them out of their dark corners.
If his views don't support that thinking then why is it chiming so resonantly with that movement?

incel evolvement

:shrug:

perhaps you can explain what this is for the group?

(not a cut and paste)

Much as you need educating, it's not my job.

Jordan is a good man. I don't think that he has issues with women. I think he has issues with "modern" feminism and post-modernism. He is fairly concise in why he holds the views that he does, though he can be a bit too wordy about his thoughts at times, that I think it's easy for many to lose track of what he is saying in totality. Though I think anyone who has followed him for an extended amount of time and have heard his thoughts on a variety of issues get the gist of what he is saying even when he is vague. Still, he does well with messaging "his" crowd... so I think analytical types, or those who are very interested in the emotional sides of movements, etc, they are really dialed in to these conversatiuns. I think there is also an intimidation factor there that when he gets to the depth of those opinions and is able to unfold them, then it is very difficult to fully rebut the message before he captures other people's interest... he's not jumping on as many quick & easy bandwagons as some of the "louder" folk who like to antagonize liberals/the opposition... I don't even think that free speech is a huge issue for him, as much as he takes issue with Marxism & fascism in general. So he is very anti- folk who want to control or micro-manage how thoughts are broadcasted and spread. I don't know that he cares too much about all the messaging that is coming out of the right atm, as he seems to be just be focused on his particular issues and examinations... so hard to say what his politics actually are (for me) in reality.

"Jordan is a good man. I don't think that he has issues with women. "


Yes he did a great interview in
our FT weekend paper. A few weeks back,
it was a relaxed interview.

the Ch4HD news
30mins is amazing as he is Polite
but Sharp.

I like the ending
helping Cathy understand
the lobster.

I don't know a lot about him but I pretty much agree with this. And the bit in bold I think is true, he actually shares the same basic viewpoint as radical feminists, doesn't he? Unless I've misunderstood it. His whole 'equal opportunity v equal outcome stuff', that women shouldn't be seeing men as the standard benchmark to live up to, but we should just remove the barriers that restrict women (and men) to begin with and let people go there own way. And if that still means men and women generally go in different directions then so be it. I'm sure I've seen Germaine Greer speak about that. It's 3rd wave liberal feminism he seems to have a problem with.

Yes, he shares some radical feminist viewpoints. And yes, its mainly liberal feminism he has an issue with from what I have seen. There is such a difference between liberal and radical feminism that its wrong to lump both together under feminism I think really...they are basically polar opposites. I have huge issues with so much of 'modern/liberal feminism'

And yeah, he has major issues with post modernism. Which IMO is such a load of crap.

So I tend to agree with him more often than not. Even when I disagree with him on stuff, I never find him ill informed and he can always back up what he says with facts. From what I have seen of him anyway, and I have watched a fair few of his lectures along with a lot of interviews in the past few months

Someone mashed up how many times Cathy said 'so what you're saying is' then launched into something totally different to what he was saying on YT :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68flntBeKoY

Its a tactic I have had thrown at me so many times online..people making out I am saying something totally different to what its clear I am actually saying. I found this 'interview' if you can call it that, ****ing hilarious tbh. She was so out of her depth with him. She thought she could make him out to be the bogeyman or something.

Even now CN's twitter responses are full of "so what you're sayings" followed by a deliberate misunderstanding :D

Don't get me wrong I don't despise the guy, his theories on things like depression are amazing, however I cringe when I see these lectures (below), because he is just so clinical as to why or how women select partners... there is no mention of love, or friendships that develop into partnerships. It's all very base and Freudian, 'women don't want losers' 'there are more male losers than female'... I don't agree with that losing is on a sliding scale with esteem, sometimes you're up and sometimes down. I can't help but feel he has women wrong here. But it's this narrative that feeds certain personalities to think ' hey, it's not me that has to reevaluate my life, it's the women with the issue!'