At All Costs, Paraphrase

Or, A Demonstration Of Patience.

“You’re saying we should organise our societies along the lines of the lobsters…”

In this largely unedited video, Channel 4’s Cathy Newman interviews Jordan Peterson. 

I use the word interview quite loosely. In fact, I propose a drinking game, in which you take a shot of tequila every time Ms Newman somehow misses the point entirely and interrupts with the words, “You’re saying…” 

What’s interesting, I think, is the contrast in thinking styles, and which party comes across as rather narrow and dogmatic.

Update:

The Guardian’s Zoe Williams weighs in, having misplaced her medication.

Comments

[Clam]

I was just about to send you this. :-)

[David]

I was just about to send you this. :-)

It does get rather surreal. And it is, I think, instructive, though perhaps not in ways that Ms Newman would have wished.

[Tim Newman]

The disparity in intelligence between Newman and Peterson is like a yawning chasm.

#notallnewmans

[David]

The disparity in intelligence between Newman and Peterson is like a yawning chasm.

It’s fascinating to watch. Ms Newman compensates for a lack of nuance in her thinking by repeatedly interrupting with questions that simply ignore previous answers. As illustrated by her struggles, around 20 minutes in, to comprehend some basic principles of free speech. One gets the impression that Ms Newman is barely listening to anything Peterson says and is much too keen to shoehorn in her own, rather simplistic objections to things that haven’t actually been said, or even remotely suggested. This happens repeatedly – it’s practically a default.

And when the conversation turns to the alleged “gender pay gap,” Ms Newman’s theatrical indignation gets the better of her, her voice rising in pitch – one might say shrillness - as she seems uninterested in hearing, and determined to prevent, any explanation for why her own assumptions may be inaccurate and misleading to viewers. Soon, things start to get lively and the wild paraphrasing kicks in. (“You’re saying women aren’t intelligent enough to run these companies…?”) And then, of course, the lobsters.

As a warning to people who are about to be interviewed on mainstream news but who aren’t sufficiently left-leaning, it’s quite instructive.

[Tim Newman]

Something I've noticed is common to a lot of SJWs, particularly feminists. They quite deliberately conflate the terms "some" and "all" in order to dismiss an argument. Cathy Newman does a lot of that in this interview.

[David]

Rather fondles the nub of it.

[Sam]

They'll still be sweeping up all the straw she was throwing around.

[John Square]

If a man had done that interview with a woman, and then thanked her for 'being a good sport'....

[prm]

Went to see JP talk on Saturday, and it was a fascinating experience, and not just because of his talk. Fist of all, he got a standing ovation just by walking on stage (and another when he finished talking, and another once the Q&A was done). And a quite lovely sympathetic round of applause when he referenced the tribulations of the last 15 months and almost cracked up.

It's not the sort of fluffy woo-woo I would usually come out with, but there was a lot of love in the room, a sense that people really appreciated and respected what he was doing, by taking the abuse in the cause of the attempt to speak truth, and by acting as a role model/father figure. I joked to my wife beforehand that he was saving a generation, and hyperbole aside, I think there is something to that. She told me that, in the queue for the book signing after (and it seems practically everyone wanted to meet him, so it lasted ages) all the boys/men would smooth their clothes, tidy their hair and stand up straight.

I guess the main takeaway was twofold, for me.

1. There are people crying out for help, guidance, rules to live by that are lacking in modern society (whether societal norms, peer guidance, parental guidance)

2. We see so much of the clown quarter it's easy to forget that the crazies are a small proportion. There are lots of young people who reject it, and more importantly, want to do something better with themselves.

This was a packed room (the fastest selling event the organisers had ever put on, and so popular they had to rapidly schedule two more), with a lot more women than I expected. It was also the first talk I've ever been to where there was no nutter 'asking' a grandstanding 'question'.

I expect the legacy media/SJW spin that it's a cult, he's a guru, thinks he's the messiah, something something, will start soon, if it hasn't already.

[Hector Drummond, Vile Novelist]

Cathy Newman works for Channel 4 *and* The Telegraph. It's like she's double dumb.

[prm]

Oops, should be Sunday, not Saturday.

[Pogonip]

Hey! I thought this was a classy joint what didn’t allow public nub-fondling!

And furthermore—

[Drowned out by shrieking of girls that they were entirely too drunk to consent to fondling anyone’s nub and that their removing their minimal clothing, dancing naked on top of the bar, and going home with whichever man poured them into an Uber, is in no way to be construed as consent to anything, especially if in the light of day the man proved to be short, fat, poor, and smelly]

[svh]

she seems uninterested in hearing, and determined to prevent, any explanation for why her own assumptions may be inaccurate and misleading to viewers.

That.

[rjmadden]

"I suspect you're not very agreeable".

LOL

[David]

I expect the legacy media/SJW spin that it’s a cult, he’s a guru, thinks he’s the messiah, something something, will start soon, if it hasn’t already.

I’d say Dr Peterson has, albeit unintentionally, already achieved something close to guru status, at least for some. The ironies and hazards of which will not, I think, be lost on him.

[Joan]

her voice rising in pitch – one might say shrillness

:-D

[Pogonip]

David, SJWs here think in terms of groups, not individuals—thus their confusion of “female” with “feminist.” Being gay, do you and Blowtorch Man run into this in England?

(If that’s too personal a question, I apologize and will quietly seat myself in the Booth of Correction and order the bread and water.)

[David]

Being gay, do you and Blowtorch Man run into this in England?

Happily, we don’t generally have to interact with people who think in those terms. But yes, they do exist.

By the way, I think he prefers Captain Blowtorch. Or at a push, The Incinerator.

[Pogonip]

Pardon me, Captain Blowtorch!

When he does get around to incinerating something, we want pictures!

[Farnsworth M Muldoon]

It occurs to me the scold face needed some updating.

[David]

They quite deliberately conflate the terms “some” and “all” in order to dismiss an argument. Cathy Newman does a lot of that in this interview.

Yes, absolutely. Any reference to statistical differences, however cautious and qualified, is met, almost immediately and often before the sentence can be finished, with “So you’re saying [all] women are…”

[Wh00ps]

Jordan Peterson is probably the most important speaker living today. I'll be sitting down comfortably tonight with my freshly minted copy of '12 Rules For Life'

[David]

JP: “Women as a statistical group tend to score more highly on tests of…”

CN [ interrupting ]: “So you’re saying all women should be beaten with sticks on a daily basis until they learn their place…?”

I’m paraphrasing, of course. But only a fraction more than Ms Newman is.

[Alice]

a drinking game, in which you take a shot of tequila every time Ms Newman somehow misses the point entirely and interrupts

Just watched the first 5 mins. Better save the drinking game for Friday night.

[David]

Better save the drinking game for Friday night.

I’d send any kids over to Grandma’s for the weekend and book Monday off work.

[REVNANT DREAM]

She just keeps singing the same song. Never thinks out of the box about Men , she can only think on one track about Women. She's angry , you can tell she is angry at men.

[C_Miner]

Good fill-in, Farnsworth M Muldoon. Current styles seem to say that any colour can be used that, when seen in nature, screams "I'm toxic!"

[David]

She just keeps singing the same song.

Ms Newman leans heavily, and uncritically, on rote feminist talking points, and I don’t think feminists are generally known for their intellectual nimbleness and subtlety of mind.

[Thomas Fuller]

High time somebody took one of those Channel 4 bigots to bits. A joy to behold.

From the YouTube comments:

"The nervous system of the lobster and human beings are so similar that antidepressants work on lobsters"

SO YOU'RE SAYING WOMEN ARE LOBSTERS

:-)

[David]

In case anyone is interested, Ms Newman was educated at Charterhouse and Oxford. And then, presumably, the leftism kicked in, eroding any benefit. Oh, and she used to oversee the Channel 4 News FactCheck site, which seems somewhat ironic, all things considered.

[Sam Duncan]

“One gets the impression that Ms Newman is barely listening to anything Peterson says”

This is actually very likely, regardless of any boneheadedness specific to Ms. Newman (I haven't watched the video yet). Broadcast interviewers have so much else to think about, with the booth yelling in their ears all the time, that actually listening to the interviewee and altering one's line of questioning in response comes pretty low down the list.

I've always said that it doesn't matter how highbrow the subject matter, in terms of content, all TV news is somewhere around the level of a cheap tabloid. It's inherent to the form. They don't call them “shows” for nothing.

“We see so much of the clown quarter it's easy to forget that the crazies are a small proportion. There are lots of young people who reject it, and more importantly, want to do something better with themselves.”

That's why those who represent and stand up for them have to be silenced. The tiny proportion must be “mainstreamed”. It's why that word exists: they know they're nobodies, and have invented a whole set of techniques for appearing to be somebodies.

“Cathy Newman works for Channel 4 *and* The Telegraph. It's like she's double dumb.”

Says a lot about the 21st Century Telegraph, that.

[Daniel Ream]

any colour can be used that, when seen in nature, screams "I'm toxic!"

The term you are looking for is aposematism.

Remember, kids. Bright colours mean stay away.

[Trevor]

... educated at Charterhouse and Oxford. And then, presumably, the leftism kicked in, eroding any benefit.

Oxford deserves some credit - quite a lot, I imagine. For all her deficiencies, Newman wasn't scraped from the left-hand side of the bell curve.

[bilbaoboy]

JBP must be a saint. Saint Job (Catholic upbringing, eh?)

His patience and tolerance are beyond me. How he can remain calm, focussed, especially focussed and unangry in the face of the cr*p that the interviewer (for want of a better word) throws at him is stunning. She is rude beyond belief, doesn't listen and is incapable of understanding.

I would have struggled not to have leapt across the studio and strangled the woman or walked off in a blaze of swearwords.

She is an intellectual pygmy and has had the bad luck to come across one of the most capable male intellectuals and has ended up showing herself up on prime time TV. She totally discredits herself.

And I only skipped through it. I'm saving it for later.

[David]

This is actually very likely, regardless of any boneheadedness specific to Ms. Newman (I haven’t watched the video yet).

Yes, live broadcast interviews, especially short ones, are often terrible for the reasons you suggest. But the above is a half-hour interview recorded off-air for later (heavy) editing and broadcast, so I’m assuming there were fewer distractions. And fewer excuses.

[R. Sherman]

My apologies for the OT, but I'm off to watch the JP video. In the meantime, ponder this, from which we learn that one's melanin level can be an "ideology" and apparently there exists a (purportedly) academic journal styled--I shit you not--Whiteness and Education.

[Lord Bob]

I'm Canadian, and I'm old enough to remember that when Canadians visited the Mother Country they had to be very careful in public debates because the standards of debate in England were so much higher than the flimsy, feels-based hair-splitting Canadians are used to.

I'm not that old.

[[+]]

Statistics is hard. :-)

[David]

Statistics is hard. :-)

Offhand, I can’t think of another interview in which the interviewee has to correct the interviewer so many times, after almost every question.

[Spiny Norman]

R.Sherman,

Hope Kitts, an assistant professor at the University of New Mexico, argues in a recent academic journal article that "valuing emotion as knowledge" is a good strategy for "deconstructing hegemonic white identity" in the classroom.

Hysteria is now something to be cultivated, even celebrated. Stereotypes, what are they?

[PiperPaul]

"man proved to be short, fat, poor, and smelly"

Stop triggering me!

[Jeff]

I'd say she's a dumb blonde, except that would be a cruel insult to dumb blondes the world over.

[Lancastrian Oik]

Rather fondles the nub of it.

Or, maybe, sums up the arse/ass-handing that I just saw.

There's a new sheriff in town and I like him already.

[David]

I’d say she’s a dumb blonde,

Thing is, I don’t think she’s an idiot. You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average. I think it’s more that her political convictions, or political assumptions, have made her both dogmatic and foolish.

[mike fowle]

Funnily enough I had just watched this after a link from another site. There's a facial/body reaction which women tend to do a lot in interviews which expresses more than disagreement more like contempt whereas Jordan does a genuinely amused reaction at how she is getting everything so wrong.

[Eric]

This woman needs to get her ears cleaned. She didn't hear a word Peterson was saying.

[Lancastrian Oik]

22'23''- that.

[Jeff]

[David:] Thing is, I don’t think she’s an idiot. You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average.

The Oscar for this years' most convincing portrayal of an idiot goes to ...

I get your point. Of course she is not literally an idiot, but her repeated missing of obvious and fundamental points -- never mind nearly criminally mis-representing most of what JBP said -- left me torn between amazement and vicarious embarrassment.

One prejudice she did very effectively manage to reinforce is that women are generally incapable of analytical thought, and are particularly immune to statistical concepts.

[Farnsworth M Muldoon]

...there exists a (purportedly) academic journal styled--I shit you not--Whiteness and Education.

Purportedly indeed.

As Campus Reform has reported, many of the journal’s articles have been accepted for publication within two or three days of submission, leading academic experts to speculate over whether the journal has a faulty or even non-existent peer-review process.

Both Gillborn and Rollock have failed to respond to inquiries on whether the journal actually has a peer review process, and all 21 members of the editorial board have declined to comment to Campus Reform, as well.

If that isn't academic rigor, I don't know what is.

You will no doubt be surprised to learn that the authoress of the article in question is both a graduate of the infamous The New School, and herself suffering from Whiteness™.

[MONGO!]

I dunno what she is getting paid, but it's too much.

[David]

her repeated missing of obvious and fundamental points -- never mind nearly criminally mis-representing most of what JBP said -- left me torn between amazement and vicarious embarrassment.

Well, as I hope I’ve illustrated here over the years, leftism tends to be quite corrosive to realism. It blunts the senses and makes otherwise clever people say remarkably dumb or dishonest things, often while admiring themselves.

[Horace Dunn]

I think it’s more that her political convictions, or political assumptions, have made her both dogmatic and foolish.

It's more than that, though. Your average mainstream journalist believes unquestioningly that anyone who challenges leftist positions or other on-trend assumptions is either bigoted, stupid or both. It would never occur to them that they might need to think on their feet when interviewing someone from "the right". They would simply need to let the odious chauvinist condemn himself out of his own mouth with his silly, unfounded opinions.

Take the gender pay gay, as one of the main topics they discuss. Someone like Newman is incapable of thinking outside the established consensus on this matter: the pay gap exists because men oppress women. It is a monstrous historical injustice that prevails because governments are not willing to punish men for it. Simple.

But when confronted with someone who has studied the matter and has seen that there are multiple variables at play that suggest the established view is at the very least faulty, Newman has to fall back on "so you're saying..."

I think you'll find that she genuinely didn't expect to engage with facts and reason. She was forced to fall back on signalling to the viewer that this man's facts and reason should be ignored on account of his being a bullying, hate-filled man.

That, of course didn't work out very well for her, but somehow I don't think she'll learn...

[David]

But when confronted with someone who has studied the matter and has seen that there are multiple variables at play that suggest the established view is at the very least faulty, Newman has to fall back on “so you’re saying...”

There’s also the bit where Ms Newman hears some, to me, unremarkable statement, about the authoritarian connotations of thinking solely in terms of victimhood and identity groups, and she seems momentarily dumbfounded, before insisting that Peterson must be some kind of contrarian provocateur, a troll. Which, if nothing else, suggests a remarkable narrowness of worldview. As if the only reason a person might disagree with left-of-centre conceits - and specifically, identity politics - is to be an annoyance.

[PiperPaul]

"Leftism tends to be quite corrosive to realism. It blunts the senses and makes otherwise clever people say remarkably dumb or dishonest things, often while admiring themselves."

That's a keeper!

[Sam Duncan]

“22'23''- that.”

Yes. Was it just after that where she had to pause to collect her thoughts, making it quite obvious that she's never actually thought about it before? It almost looked like an epiphany, except that within seconds she's back to the, “So you're saying...” stuff.

“It's more than that, though. Your average mainstream journalist believes unquestioningly that anyone who challenges leftist positions or other on-trend assumptions is either bigoted, stupid or both. It would never occur to them that they might need to think on their feet when interviewing someone from "the right". They would simply need to let the odious chauvinist condemn himself out of his own mouth with his silly, unfounded opinions.”

Exactly. That moment I'm talking about illustrates the point perfectly. But what's fascinating for me about this interview is that the usual technique didn't just fail, it did so spectacularly and obviously. It's hard to imagine that anyone but the most hardline Leftist could watch it and still assume that Dr. Peterson is an ignorant, hateful, bigot.

[David]

Re my previous, I was reminded of Matt Frei’s incredulous, poorly-researched interview with Thomas Sowell for the BBC. Oddly enough, or not oddly at all, Mr Frei airs precisely the kinds of vanities that Sowell criticises, which may explain his difficulty in comprehending Sowell’s points.

[R. Sherman]

It would never occur to them that they might need to think on their feet when interviewing someone from "the right".

The average Leftist views all interactions with people on the Right, (wherein "right" is defined as "anyone who disagrees with me"), as a sort of kibuki theater. There are established roles and plots which can never, ever be altered in any way. Or, as someone mentioned in the comments a few days ago, it is a Neo-Scholasticism. They have received the wisdom and there need be no new inquiry or investigation.

[Jonathan]

Ms Newman probably believed all the feminist-media BS about Professor Peterson. She should have done her homework better. Embarrassing!

[Mags]

"By 11 minutes in she is saying ‘I think I take issue with (that)’, before demonstrating that she can’t. Soon she is reduced to dropping the bombshell observation that ‘all women are different’. By 16.45 there is a palpable win, as Peterson points out that Newman has exactly the disagreeable and aggressive qualities that allow certain types of people to succeed."

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/watch-cathy-newmans-catastrophic-interview-with-jordan-peterson/

[pst314]

If I were trying to discuss this issue with Cathy Newman, I would have lost my temper and started telling her that she was either a stupid bint or a dishonest left-wing SFB.

[pst314]

This woman needs to get her ears cleaned. She didn't hear a word Peterson was saying.

Her mind needs cleaning. A power wash to remove the leftist dogma that prevent her synapses from functioning.

[Paul in Marbella]

Holy cow, that was hilarious. Talk about having your arse handed to you. Ms 'So you're saying' could not have embarrassed herself more. I especially liked when he so flummoxed her at around 22:30 that she was literally lost for words. I have never seen a TV interviewer so caught off guard, and you just gotta love JP's 'Gotcha!'. The way he simply laughed off her non-stop attacks was an absolute inspiration to watch. I wish I had his ability to treat such attacks with his good humour and good grace.

I've been a big fan of JP since he burst on the scene just over a year ago, but this ranks up there with one of his best.

OK, I'm off to tidy my room now ;-)

[Horace Dunn]

The average Leftist views all interactions with people on the Right [...] as a sort of kibuki theater.

Yes, but also: leftists always assume themselves to be more intelligent, educated and better informed that those who disagree with them. They're incapable of thinking otherwise. And you just know that Newman isn't going to come away from the interview thinking "he made some interesting points there, perhaps I should look up some of the research that he was drawing on for his answers to see whether there's something in it".

It's almost as though they don't want to understand the reasons behind the pay differentials they find so distressing.

[Pogonip]

“Stop triggering me!”

And, reader, I was SO drunk I married him.

And it’s everyone’s fault but mine.

[Ben]

leftists always assume themselves to be more intelligent, educated and better informed that those who disagree with them

Living, as I do, in bluest Massachusetts, I am all too familiar with that aspect. A sneering superiority over non-believers is a defining characteristic of many on the left. They are often otherwise decent people (or seem to be), but then some ugly, condescending aside will come out of their mouths. People who disagree with them are evidently evil and selfish, not just incorrect.

[Squires]

Or at a push, The Incinerator.

As portrayed by Robert Ginty?

https://youtu.be/cnDJa_HZVP0

[fnord]

Thing is, I don’t think she’s an idiot. You don’t get a first from Oxford, even in English literature, unless you’ve an IQ comfortably above average. I think it’s more that her political convictions, or political assumptions, have made her both dogmatic and foolish.

=======
wisdom> intelligence> education> schooling

the only thing she can produce proof of is a certification of her schooling. The fact that is from Oxford says more about Oxford, most of it bad, than it does about her.

[PiperPaul]

"They have received the wisdom"

"How dare you disagree with me?! Just look at all those books (or perhaps climate alarmist studies) on my shelf over there!"

[Ian]

Great to see Peterson looking so relaxed and comfortable in his chair whilst fending off these straw men with consummate good humour and even cheerfulness. The word "magisterial" springs to mind. And there's an obvious contrast to the Canadian TV interviews he did in late 2016, in which he was evidently seething with righteous indignation and sitting up straight. This is lobster expert level.

I wasn't able to make it to any of his talks in London, but I gather he'll be doing a tour of the country at some point. Could we get him and Rees-Mogg on the same stage, do you think, or would that cross some cosmic negentropy limit?

[Darleen]

Just finished watching the video ...

I don't think I could have been that polite & good humored with a harridan engaging in such bad faith haranguing.

[Jamie MacMaster]

She got spanked. Wet her boxers.

[Nikw211]

It does get rather surreal. And it is, I think, instructive, though perhaps not in ways that Ms Newman would have wished.

Seen in the light of the Newman-Peterson interview, this cartoon now seems particularly ironic.

[David]

Heh.

[David]

I don’t think I could have been that polite & good humored with a harridan engaging in such bad faith haranguing.

Perhaps the idea, the tactic, is to be erratic, obtuse and needlessly belligerent, in the hope of leaving the victim flustered. Though it’s possible I’m giving Ms Newman too much credit.

[Pogonip]

I actually know something about interviewing, which puts me one up on that fool woman. She’s breaking all the rules. You do not interrupt your respondent. You do not argue with him. You do not tell him what YOU think, because it’s likely to “contaminate” his responses; most people want to be agreeable and to go along, so if you state your opinion he’ll probably agree. Granted I don’t think that would be a problem with this particular respondent. You also do not tell him what you think because you aren’t being paid for that; you’re being paid to find out what HE thinks. She did at least 75% of the talking; it couldn’t have been more obvious that she didn’t care what he had to say. She jumped all over, I could not tell what the topic was supposed to be—his book, maybe. You don’t do that. You stick with the topic and you “probe.” You say “ And can you tell me a little more about how the value of flidgets reflects the fluctuations of the world economy,” or whatever the topic is; this will often prompt a response lie, “ Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention that flidget value blah blah blah.” Only after the respondent is all probed out on topic #1 do you go to topic #2, if there is one.

Why is the BBC paying her to interview people?

[Pogonip]

Er, I meant “...a response like,” though if you are interviewing a politician, I suppose “ a response lie” fits too.😊

[Bigland]

Why is the BBC paying her to interview people?
They aren't - it's Channel 4. Still, two cheeks of the same arse.

[Wh00ps]

I don't think I could have been that polite & good humored with a harridan engaging in such bad faith haranguing.

That's Peterson all over. Seen the video with the trans activists heckling him? He's totally in control at all times.

[Sam Duncan]

“You also do not tell him what you think because you aren’t being paid for that; you’re being paid to find out what HE thinks.”

I find myself yelling that at the TV all the time. Hell, in the UK, it's kind of supposed to be the law. (It's a bloody absurd law, in my opinion, but there it is.)

[champ]

Gad Saad's take on this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YetzM2_SKKY

[R. Sherman]

@Nik

Beware Burge's Law and New Yorker comics.

[pst314]

"Your average mainstream journalist believes unquestioningly that anyone who challenges leftist positions or other on-trend assumptions is either bigoted, stupid or both."

And the left in general, from the general public to the professors at prestigious universities.
An example: Very few on the left can accept that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is religious doctrine. Their minds are so saturated with secular progressive dogma that they cannot believe that such violence could have any but secular causes, especially classic Marxist ones such as poverty.

[Rafi]

It’s fascinating to watch. Ms Newman compensates for a lack of nuance in her thinking by repeatedly interrupting with questions that simply ignore previous answers.

Short version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgKE6Voe__k

[David]

Short version.

Heh. It makes no sense - and therefore captures, quite vividly, the flavour of the exchange. As when Peterson points out the authoritarian aspects of thinking solely in terms of identity groups, which somehow results in the accusation, “You’re saying that trans activists could lead to the deaths of millions of people.”

It’s like watching an episode of Brass Eye.

[David]

I see the memes have begun.

[NielsR]

Fascinating to watch. She clearly came in with a brief/strategy to trap Dr Peterson in a sexist/denialist position, and couldn't find a new approach when he reasonably, calmly parried or reversed everything she threw at him. I was particularly touched when he politely pointed out how her confrontational approach hadn't been easy for him. His expression suggests it really hasn't, but he maintains his composure and even a good. Humour like an absolute boss.

Sagacious, is the word I'd choose.

[David]

I was particularly touched when he politely pointed out how her confrontational approach hadn’t been easy for him.

Well, I’d imagine it’s unpleasant to appear on national TV news and immediately find yourself being smeared by association and then, for the next half hour, being wilfully misconstrued in the most obtuse and bizarre terms, and realising that almost every question is an attempt at a trap, an attempt to publicly humiliate. And it’s telling that Ms Newman struggles with the notion of rights and reciprocity. I suspect it tells us something, not only about her, but about her political constituency.

[Nikw211]

It’s like watching an episode of Brass Eye.

That.

Also this, which occurs within the first four minutes.

Peterson has just finished outlining his reasons behind the statement that (western) men need to "grow the hell up" which Newman quoted to him in her opening question. She then goes on:

Newman: What’s in it for the women, though?

Peterson: Well, what sort of partner do you want? Do you want an overgrown child? Or do you want someone to contend with that’s going to help you?

Newman: So you’re saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?

This is not simply a strawman as many others have (rightly) pointed out - it is also arguably an attempt to dominate Peterson though emotional blackmail.

It is the kind of response an abusive partner (or a partner in an abusive frame of mind) might make when out of the blue they suddenly explode: "Why did you leave your running shoes in the hall when you know I want them left by the kitchen door!?!?" despite the fact that the intimate other so accused has for many years left their running shoes in the hall with neither comment nor complaint. The accused partner must concede the fault or risk losing the respect, goodwill and love of the accuser

The content of the accusation itself is therefore mostly if not wholly irrelevant - it is the import of the emotional outburst that counts.

Given the superficial content of much of Newman's questions it seems particularly ironic that this is the approach she should have taken.

That she should also have taken this approach with someone who for decades now has made his living as a clinical psychologist (including a stint at Harvard) was ill-judged to a really quite spectacular degree, as the video shows.

[David]

The content of the accusation itself is therefore mostly if not wholly irrelevant - it is the import of the emotional outburst that counts.

Ms Newman obviously felt entitled to frame Peterson as some kind of misogynist “alt right” villain, and to react as if he were one, regardless of reality and regardless of anything he actually said; but in the attempt, her own obnoxiousness and belligerent idiocy were hard to miss.

[Burnsie]

Newman: So you’re saying women have some sort of duty to sort of help fix the crisis of masculinity?

This is not simply a strawman as many others have (rightly) pointed out - it is also arguably an attempt to dominate Peterson though emotional blackmail.

Yeah. This exchange also reminds me of the irrational "Oh, so it's MY fault now?" response to an simple statement of fact, or even a collective mea culpa like Peterson's.

Which, of course, is the predictable escalation in your example too, should the accused say,"But I've always left them in the hall."

To see this kind of dysfunction played out on a national level and cheered on by the left is...well, disturbing to say the least.

[Farnsworth M Muldoon]

It’s like watching an episode of Brass Eye.

Not knowing what that was, other than a show, I had to look it up and watch a couple episodes, from the one on drugs:

The effects of a heroin overdose are lethal, yes, in the short term, but there's been absolutely no research into the long term effects.

Now I get your point, and thanks for giving something else to waste time with, hilarious though the episodes are - "To maintain the anonymity of the 15 year olds, we replaced them with five year olds...", now we know where the Useless Studies ninnies got their "research" techniques.

[TomJ]

Just say No to Cake. Remember, it's a made-up drug.

[David]

“To maintain the anonymity of the 15 year olds, we replaced them with five year olds...”

Ah, the Nineties.

[Farnsworth M Muldoon]

Just say No to Cake. Remember, it's a made-up drug.

Worst of all, it activates the part of the brain known as Shatner's Bassoon.

[pst314]

This is not simply a strawman as many others have (rightly) pointed out - it is also arguably an attempt to dominate Peterson though emotional blackmail.

Leftists (and American liberals) do that a lot. And then, when their targets dispute their accusations, and even turn the tables and point out how authoritarian or even totalitarian they are, they accuse their targets of "being angry people".

[Lancastrian Oik]

Here's the man himself in The Spectator's "Life" supplement, September 2017:

‘The humanities in the universities have become almost incomprehensibly shallow and corrupt in multiple ways,’ he says. ‘They don’t rely on science because they are not scientifically educated. This is true particularly in sociology, where they mask their complete ignorance of science by claiming that science is just another mode of knowing and that it’s only privileged within the structure of the oppressive Eurocentric patriarchy. It’s appalling. We’re not having an intelligent conversation, we are having an ideological conversation.

‘Students, instead of being ennobled or inculcated into the proper culture, the last vestiges of structure are stripped from them by post-modernism and neo-Marxism, which defines everything in terms of relativism and power.’

[Tom]

Just say No to Cake. Remember, it's a made-up drug.

I beg your pardon?

Cake? A made-up drug?

I've been fighting an addiction, and losing, for decades now! Black Forest Gateaux, Victoria Sponge, Lemon Drizzle, I'm addicted to all of them! And there are dealers everywhere.

Everywhere I tell you!

Ahem.

[R. Sherman]

And then, when their targets dispute their accusations, and even turn the tables and point out how authoritarian or even totalitarian they are, they accuse their targets of "being angry people".

Not to mention the "Kafka Trap," where disputing an accusation constitutes proof of the truth of the accusation, i.e. denying and refuting the feminist trope of the Gender Pay Gap demonstrates the need for more feminism and the internal misogyny of the Denier.

[David]

they accuse their targets of “being angry people”

And if you object to being slandered as a racist, daily, based on nothing, then you’re exhibiting “white fragility,” which is construed, rather conveniently, as proof of your racism.

This is the educated left in the twenty-first century.

[R. Sherman]

David, every time you cite one of your prior posts as evidence in some current debate, I imagine you--resplendent in your velour blogging thong--thinking, "See, I told you wankers this years ago."