[Closed] Jordan Peterson interviewed by Cathy Newman on C4 News

Why would people hate this?

I agree with your description of what happened between Peterson and Newman, yet I can't help but wonder at the unwillingness some people have for being challenged.

Peterson first came to light because he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns with his university classes. But he wasn't just knee-jerking in response. He offered a number of academic/sociological/psychological/historical reasons for his approach.

Those who can contend with his position on an equal, point-by-point basis probably should. But it's not like this guy is some populist wingnut. He's a long-standing, serious, rigorous professor of psychology.

SaxonRider - Member

Why would people hate this?

I agree with your description of what happened between Peterson and Newman, yet I can't help but wonder at the unwillingness some people have for being challenged.

Peterson first came to light because he refused to use gender-neutral pronouns with his university classes. But he wasn't just knee-jerking in response. He offered a number of academic/sociological/psychological/historical reasons for his approach.

Those who can contend with his position on an equal, point-by-point basis probably should. But it's not like this guy is some populist wingnut. He's a long-standing, serious, rigorous professor of psychology.

/Thread.

Jimjam +1

It has been described as "train wreck" etc on Twitter, not sure I agree. I do think Newman spent a lot of time trying to put words in his mouth and there was clearly one "winner".

Sam Harris has interviewed him twice on his podcast. The first got a bit derrailed as they disagreed on "truth" both interesting though.

I think JP has some interesting things to say to men: toughen up, speak their truth, all sound advice.

But the barely concealed misogyny is too obvious (I've heard him in YouTube videos complaining that he cannot hit women, or threaten to use violence against women) and calling on women to "call off the crazed harpy sisters" (a phrase he's particularly fond of) and says this threatens the "masculinity of culture" (another sound bite he uses a lot), is preposterous guff really.

the pronoun thing he's famous for is an obvious logic fail, He tries to rail against "compelled speech" I wonder how he'd object if people started calling him "bitch" or "it" or "her"...There are loads of ways we're bound by compelled speech, that he doesn't seem to object to generally, but being polite to some-one by calling them by a preferred name isn't one of them? It's just weird.

She did train wreck, completely.

'So, what you're saying is x'
'No, what I said is y'
'So, what you're then saying is x'
'No, not at all, what I'm saying is y'
'So, what you're actually saying is x'
'No, I didn't say that, I said y'
'So, what you're in fact saying is x'
'No, what I said is y'

😆

Fact over feelings always wins, which is why he's labelled all the common nasty words by the 'enlightened' and 'progressive' left.

They just don't like it up 'em. 😀

"compelled speech" I wonder how he'd object if people started calling him "bitch" or "it" or "her"...There are loads of ways we're bound by compelled speech, that he doesn't seem to object to generally, but being polite to some-one by calling them by a preferred name isn't one of them? It's just weird.

Thats a bad comparison for several reasons. Peterson is objecting to being forced to use language through legislation.

But it's not like this guy is some populist wingnut

I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words "zhe" and "zher." These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.[57]

IMHO referring to someone how they want is just simple manners I dont see it as some marxist plan and I think anyone who does is the very definition of a wingnut

IMHO referring to someone how they want is just simple manners

And if you dont have those "manners" then you can be arrested. Being well mannered is a good thing but having bad manners doesnt make you a criminal. Your post is just ad hominem

You're assuming using the 'correct' pronoun would remain optional and courteous, whereas SJW's and their ilk want to legislate and impose their BS on society, and punish those who object to enforced cultural marxism.

Junkyard - lazarus

IMHO referring to someone how they want is just simple manners

Your opinion is wrong and you miss the point entirely. Peterson's stance, aside from cultural is also practical. The legislation Peterson objects to could see employers and educational bodies sued for violating a persons human rights if any employee or staff member deliberately or accidentally mis-gendered someone, even when that person's gender, gender pronoun and name is completely fluid and can change at any time at any moment of their choosing.

If you work beside Bob, and Bob decided on his lunch break that he's Jane this evening and you call him Bob unaware of his gender fluidity today you have commited a crime and Bob can sue his employer. Peterson isn't objecting to Bob asking you nicely to refer to him by his or her preferred term or pronoun, he's objecting to the full power of the law being brought to bare on someone who doesn't comply or someone who makes a mistake.

Most men transitioning to females want to be called her, most women transitioning to be men want to be referred to as he, and addressed with male pronouns. This is a divisive piece of word play that harms transgender people who want to get on with their transitions and their lives as normally as they can as opposed to being used as a political football or a tool of oppression.

I dont see it as some marxist plan and I think anyone who does is the very definition of a wingnut

And yet Peterson does a beautiful job of describing the relationship between forcing people to speak how the state mandates, suppression of free speech, left wing authoritarianism and radical feminism. I should probably just copy and past this when you post the above for the fifth time 😉

IMHO referring to someone how they want is just simple manners

Seems a no brainier to me.

And if you dont have those "manners" then you can be arrested

Who has been arrested for using the wrong pronoun?

you call him Bob unaware of his gender fluidity today you have commited a crime

What crime, in which country? Point me to the law please.

This could well be the thread that makes me give up on this forum completely.

This could well be the thread that makes me give up on [s]this forum[/s] reality completely.

I identify as an 86yr old retired female philipino school teacher.

This could well be the thread that makes me give up on this forum completely

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

I identify as an 86yr old retired female philipino school teacher.

You and me both [s]brother[/s] sister.

Excellent post Jimjam 😛

Don't assume my gender!

Apologies, it was the attack helicopter in me coming out

IMHO referring to someone how they want is just simple manners

surfer - Member

Excellent post Jimjam

It's Lady Chief Sir Supermanwoman now if you don't mind. And I object to having the term "member" next to my name as misgenders me it propagates the patriarchal stereotype of the conceptual penis.

What crime, in which country? Point me to the law please.

The GRA 2004 is up for review right now in the Scottish Parliment. It's pretty controversial for many people what is being considered. The abuse and persecution dished out by activists to anyone who dares question it is a perfect example of the authoritarianism mentioned in this and other videos.

They've done "something like that" - well, that's clear.
You'll find that NYC has also done "something like that".

Being arrested for accidentally using the wrong pronoun, or calling someone "Bob", is make believe.

@Kelvin if your interested, do your own research

Nope, point me at the law that means you are committing a criminal offence, and can be arrested, for accidental use of the wrong pronoun, or firstname.

I doubt it does and as the Canadian law is only a couple of hundred words long it won't take anyone that long to check. Don't know if there are circumstances where it could lead to an offence - there's usually someone who can work out a really contrived situation.

The legislation Peterson objects to could see employers and educational bodies sued for violating a persons human rights if any employee or staff member deliberately or accidentally mis-gendered someone

You are as wrong as JP in your assumptions about this piece of legislation, and like him; clearly haven't actually understood the Ontario [u]civil[/u] Law in question.

Don't believe everything JP says in his videos, he is above all else, a propagandist. As I said, he has some important things to say. Gendered pronoun misuse however, isn't one of them.

This could well be the thread that makes me give up on this forum completely.

Wow. That really is lame.

For all that those who are religious have bee challenged on here (and I am not complaining about that), and for all people get flamed for their positions on one thing or another, you're going to throw your toys out of the pram?

That is like my neighbour who - in spite of the fact that we agree on a great deal - because I expressed some tentative reservations about Jeremy Corbyn, blocked me on facebook.

What has discourse come to if this is how people react? 😯 and 🙁

That is like my neighbour who - in spite of the fact that we agree on a great deal - because I expressed some tentative reservations about Jeremy Corbyn, blocked me on facebook.

JC our saviour has arisen and yet you doubt him ?

Judas!

😉

And if you dont have those "manners" then you can be arrested.

Being well mannered is a good thing but having bad manners doesnt make you a criminal

Your post is just ad hominem

Good interview...demonstrates perfectly how some try to debate with entrenched emotion and 'feelings' based arguments while others stay calm and prefer facts...sadly these kind of conversations are becoming rarer because views like those espoused by JP are incorrectly labeled far-right and media outlets are then under pressure to no-platform them.

Douglas Murray is another good one to listen to, hugely intelligent, wonderful speaker...worth finding his YouTube stuff, also writes for the Spectator...another one the mainstream media incorrectly labels as far-right because they don't agree with him...easier to do that than try to engage with him.

nickc - Member

You are as wrong as JP in your assumptions about this piece of legislation, and like him; clearly haven't actually understood the Ontario civil Law in question.

IIRC it's the openness of the legislation and how it could potentially be applied that is the issue. The bill has made it illegal to discriminate against someone's chosen gender expression.

Now to be clear I think people can and should do whatever they want with whomever they want and they should, straight, gay, trans bi whatever. The point of debate was that anything could be construed as a form of gender expression (including being referred to by your preferred pronoun). This is law now and you are potentially stepping on Bob's human rights by not calling him Jane if that is his chosen form of gender expression.

Anyway, there's a lot more to Petterson than bill C-16 and gender pronouns but some people can't past the idea that the bad professor must be a Nazi because he won't use made up words. I'm not going to debate it any further because Petterson himself does a much better job and there are hundreds of hours of him online for anyone who actually has an open mind.

Ok, you're factually wrong on C-16, but as you quite rightly point out, it's probably a minor point. You're also right that there are hours of JP on line (boy, that man loves to talk), and most of it is guff. I won't call him a Nazi, but I do think he's as equally bad as the "Crazed Harpy Sisters" that he clearly hates.

I think the world need less propaganda, and as you suggest, there's enough Peterson on line for people to make their own minds up about him and what he stands for.

views like those espoused by JP are incorrectly labeled far-right

He may be bright, he may have research but lets not try and pretend he is not a right wing polemicist as well.

some people can't past the idea that the bad professor must be a Nazi because he won't use made up words

nickc - Member

Ok, you're factually wrong on C-16,

http://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-16/first-reading

[i]
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to add gender identity and gender expression to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination.
[/i]

you're going to throw your toys out of the pram?

Nope, just considering wasting less time here, because of who else wastes their time here. Less about throwing my toys, and more about closing the lid on a box of angry little trolls, and letting them enjoy their nonsense without my futile interjections.

Good tv, he certainly marshals his arguments very well, too well for Cathy Newman that is for sure, he seems to have lots of interesting stuff to say. Certainly can't see how anyone could have got into trouble for showing a clip of one of his debates because of his "unacceptable" views.

I think the world need less propaganda, and as you suggest, there's enough Peterson on line for people to make their own minds up about him and what he stands for.

The last thing that JBP is, is a propogandist. That's his whole point; he bases his position on evidence and data and tries to draw conclusions based on that. Now of course, in the drawing of conclusions there will be some bias introduced; it's impossible for that not to happen in the derivation of any conclusion, but Peterson does a pretty good job of staying as focused on what the data tells us as anyone I've ever met.

The reason people think him polemical or a propogandist is because his conclusions, particularly around gender, are so far from received wisdom and popular/political opinion (and in this way also truely abhorent to a lot of people) as to be only explainable to those people as such. The thought process is 'how can anyone think such a thing? They MUST be a Facist'.

And if you dont have those "manners" then you can be arrested.
PRoof please
Being well mannered is a good thing but having bad manners doesnt make you a criminal
Depends how bad they are so just not true.
Your post is just ad hominem
I understand why you want to attack me rather than defend that so lets here your defence of it being a marxist plot.

Usual straw men and ad hominem from the usual suspects 😀

And a major flounce and the thread isnt even 2 pages long 😀

1. I thought you weren't going to debate anymore, scared you won't get the last word in?

2, the scenario you propose about some-one falling foul of C16 isn't possible under Canadian legislation, it's as fake as JP reading of the same act (which, btw, he noted in his original speech about the act, that he hadn't done, and it's clear you haven't either) The bill doesn't mention gender pronouns at all. It's a boilerplate anti discrimination act, and aligns Ontario civil law with existing Federal law, it doesn't (as JP tried to suggest) promote "genocide" Go watch his lecture on it if you don't believe he said this.

In order to fall foul of the law you have to be guilty of a breach of the peace, (in other words, violence). It is, quite obviously, a high burden of proof for any accuser to bear. also, it puts you and JP in a rather uncomfortable conceptual problem. In order to prove that C16 risks the kinds of censorship you describe, you have to prove that the refusal to use particular personal pronouns carries a risk of physical violence against trans people and the gender-nonconformist; then, in order to defend the position you began with, you need to demonstrate that this violence is preferable to the curtailing of free pronoun-use, which the bill doesn't ask you to do anyway...

3. He is a propagandist, for all the reasons above. This is the same sort of nonsense that Trump and Farage indulge in, claim something means one thing, when it clearly does nothing of the sort. In his speech about this bill he derides "radical leftist social justice warriors" and complains that the (at the time) premiere is a "Lesbian in her [u]current[/u] (my emphasis) sexual preference" and that it's well known that the LBGT movement has a “very sophisticated radical fringe” and he “can’t help but see the hand of that” in the portions of the "radial" bill that he didn't read, remember?

4. Lastly; here's the way in which Canadian law defines gender expression.

"Gender expression is the way in which people publicly present their gender. It is the presentation of gender through such aspect as dress, hair, make-up, body language and voice".

This is the relevant piece of legislation that C-16 aligns itself with. You'll note no doubt, the lack of gender specific pro-nouns.

JP has some things to say, one of which is "don't be afraid to speak the truth". He got this wrong, badly wrong, and it's one of the reasons he's so keen to move on from it now, and doesn't want to give it airtime, and was very nearly sacked for. If you have got an "open mind" as you claim, then you'll be happy that you now know the actuality instead of one man's attempt to hog the limelight to make a propaganda point about leftie social lib-tards, and "current" lesbians in his home state.

I'm done here.

Usual straw men and ad hominem from the usual suspects

too well for Cathy Newman that is for sure

That falls into the category of "damning with faint praise" considering you are talking about Tory Girl Newman.

That falls into the category of "damning with faint praise" considering you are talking about Tory Girl Newman.

I always thought Cathy Newman's politics were if anything more left than right but the only thing I would say with any certainty about her own political views is that she's a Feminist. I watch Channel 4 News regularly and she's never struck me as being biased towards either the left or the right though.

I'm done here.

That's was a good read Nick, well written enough to make me think perhaps I haven't understood the C-16 bill and the resistance against it as well as I thought.

So, based on your explanation here, are you saying that if a transgender individual at a university asked a tutor to use 'x' personal pronouns and they refused to do so, but were polite and considerate in every other way, that wouldn't constitute a crime? Because this is how I had understood it; that the law ostensibly compelled you to do so. If i've misunderstood that then honestly and sincerely I think you have a point and thank you for making it.

It's an interesting debate and one that I'm fortunate enough to have someone who is transgender to discuss with. FWIW, she thinks the idea of compelling poeple by law to use 'x' personal pronouns for any reason other than good manners and respect for that person's humanity, is abhorent and wrong (and JBP himself has always said that he has no problem using the preferred pronouns when it's his choice).

Of course, he haven't touched on the issues of gender so far in this thread, which is the larger part of his debate with Ms. Newman.

Some people aren't capable good manners and respect for a person's humanity and will harass, bully, intimidate and belittle people that's why we have laws.

So, based on your explanation here, are you saying that if a transgender individual at a university asked a tutor to use 'x' personal pronouns and they refused to do so, but were polite and considerate in every other way, that wouldn't constitute a crime?

You'd be, as that student, entitled to think your professor of clinical psychology was an asshole, but no, neither of those people in that scenario is committing a crime. But likewise, JP doesn't have the moral authority to decide on what he gets to call trans-people either. Or for that matter lesbians or black or Asian people, despite his claims that it's "intellectual genocide" to do so, and no matter how sincere or deeply felt his philosophical view of the matter.

like I said, it's weird unless you realise that he's using it for propaganda, which of course, was the purpose of his outburst on C16 originally.

thought experiment for you.

Suppose I am a professor of some scientifically dubious field like, say, clinical psychology. Suppose it is my radical, counter-cultural view that black people are not truly human. I’ve read books that seem to show that black people are more stupid than white people.

Now, there is a student in my class who is black. I am not disrepectful to this student. I don’t treat the student any differently than I do the others. However, the student insists on having me refer to it as “Michael.” It also takes offence when I refer to it as “it,” even though this is the pronoun I use when I encounter animals in other circumstances. I find it silly to imagine that an animal should be able to choose its name and pronoun. Instead, I call it Barnabas

So every class, this student comes and sits in my lecture and I wave and say, “Hello Barnabas!” And when Barnabas complains and says, “My name is Michael,” I say to it: “It is my sincere, reasoned, philosophical belief that you are not capable of determining your own name. I do not accept that your name is Michael. To me you are, and will always be, Barnabas. I will continue to call you Barnabas, as is my preference, and I resent your attempts to correct me.

what would you make of that professor? should he remain in post?

You'd be, as that student, entitled to think your professor of clinical psychology was an ass-hole, but no, neither of those people in that scenario is committing a crime.

OK I understand better now, thank you for explaining. I think it's likely that his protests are less about the intentions of the Bill and more about what he perceives to be the intentions of the lobby groups behind it. That's where his arguments do transcend empirical data and move into the political arena. I don't think he makes any secret of that fact though.

But likewise, JP doesn't have the moral authority to decide on what he gets to call trans-people either.

That's a really interesting statement (and I don't mean that in either a patronising or challenging way!) I think it's said with sincerity and good intention, but I also think that it's a hugely complex statement, so much so, that while I want to agree with you, I realise I can't unless we pick apart the nuance it contains.

I think the tricky part is where you equate 'moral authority' with 'individual choice', or perhaps where you link those two concepts. You could for example argue, that 'moral authority' is irrelevant in deciding how you choose to behave when that choice doesn't break any laws. Of course, it will have consequences, as everything does and you as an individual have to bear those consequences. But the concept of 'moral authority' itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong [u]and [/u] tehre exists a power to enact sanction that overides all others by virtue of the authority position from which it was made.

In essence, I am questioning the very existence of 'moral authority'; there is certainly quite broad agreement on what we see as being positive morals and that agreement extends to this being the preferred way of behaving. If that agreement constitutes authority, then I agree it (moral authority) can exist, I'm just not sure it does.

I would be happier concluding that JBP or indeed anyone else has the right to be an asshole if they wish and we have the right to not like them as a result.

But the concept of 'moral authority' itself suggests that there is both an absolute right and wrong

IMHO you over think things My experience of teaching philosophy is there is no issue or point that one can apply reductionist points and/or either ask why
Sometimes you just have to accept you get what they mean whilst accepting you can define it perfectly. intelligence is one example - we all know* what we mean though we cannot scientifically define it
* may be fallacy if equivocation here but lets overlook that please.

I think you would benefit from reading the wiki page as you have slighty misconstrued what it means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_authority

Suppose I am a professor of some scientifically dubious field like, say, clinical psychology.

I think the tricky part is where you equate 'moral authority' with 'individual choice',

I haven't done that, You have, and I used "Moral authority" specifically, understanding it's meaning, as opposed to "personal choice" as these concepts are not equivalents. JP argues that to use a personal pronoun chosen by some-one he doesn't recognise as allowed that pronoun is "intellectual genocide", to him it's precisely NOT a personal choice, it an imperative that he must adhere to because of his philosophical views.

by all means let's have a debate. Don't however, put words in my mouth or insert meanings in my posts where there is none.

That just looked like every other journalistic attempt to get an expert to say something they didn't really mean, but he was too clever and precise to be trapped.

you should not sexually assault someone being one, its always bad to be a sexist, its bad to be a racist

Hang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant.

I read the wiki page on 'moral authority'. It clearly states:

As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth.

So I think I understood it perfectly well. The problem is we cannot all agree on what is 'truth', which was the point I was making.

IMHO you over think things

Yes possibly. In my opinion you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects. But I don't think these observations are helpful or conducive to our understanding of things.

I think there are two separate laws, the relatively new Federal law C18 and the more long standing state law Ontario Human Rights Code and the original issue arose under the latter. It is also clear that whatever the rights or wrongs in law, that some people including Ontario Human Rights Commissioner believe that using the wrong pronouns can give rise to fines under the law.

Refusing to address a trans person by their chosen name and a personal pronoun that matches their gender identity, or purposely misgendering, is discrimination when it takes place in a social area covered by the Code (employment, housing, and services like education).

See [url= https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yes-xer-acts-of-misgendering-considered-discrimination-in-ontario ]here[/url]

Hang on, one of those things is illegal and the other two are just repugnant

you tend to be very weak at remaining objective in discussion about politically sensitive subjects

Junky, interesting example, I think we could agree on that one, but of course what constitutes “consent” has been remarkably flexible (eg. marital rape only being outlawed in 1991)

Slept in this morning. Sat down to pee rather than turning the toilet light on.
Have I slipped in a gender neutral zone ?

Good to see that Ninfan, enfht etc support logical, rational discourse from "experts" when it supports their own worldview. It makes a change from some of them accusing experts of being part of the "liberal elite", eg scientists, economists, lawyers and just about anyone who disagrees with them.