Jordan B Peterson Channel 4 Interview
shortfall
Posts: 3,288
0
Comments
-
Cathy Newman should be embarrassed about that one. He tore her apart.0
-
He absolutely tore her apart. I'd not heard of him before this into caused such a furore but I found him to be a compelling interviewee. The arguments he put forward to explain the reasons behind the gender pay gap and other related issues were fascinating and clearly well researched whatever your politics are on the subject.0
-
I felt she was beguiled by him, he obviously works on this as an interview technique, its a pity they didnt put Krishna up instead.
He was also completely wrong about the number the male nurses in Sweden, its 1 in 10 not 1 in 20 and having lived in Sweden, there is still plenty of male bias over there, just less than in many countries, so not that well researched.
Saying that women dont get pay rises because they are more agreeable was rubbish, being able to ask for pay rises is something only people higher up the food chain can do, for most people, male or female, this isnt possible, i mean singling out a woman in an office for a 5% pay rise is just going p1ss off all the other workers, male or female and ime leads to comments along the lines of "what did she have to do for that?"
But i did stop watching when he compared transgender activists with left wing dictators like Mao (who killed millions) but were nothing like a right wing killers like Pinochet, that just showed his bias..... he is apparently a big hit with the alt right....cant think why.
My GF just said he was another man without a clue about the problems women face in the work place, not least the sexual harassment stuff, a woman who tells her boss to fcuk off at the xmas party, aint going to get a pay rise.
i d add that the sort of women he coaches are not going to be on min wage.0 -
Not watched the interview, but I've seen him referred to as "the stupid man's smart person". Possibly a few months of Internet fame and some fanboys have gone to his head.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
mamba80 wrote:I felt she was beguiled by him, he obviously works on this as an interview technique, its a pity they didnt put Krishna up instead.
He was also completely wrong about the number the male nurses in Sweden, its 1 in 10 not 1 in 20 and having lived in Sweden, there is still plenty of male bias over there, just less than in many countries, so not that well researched.
Saying that women dont get pay rises because they are more agreeable was rubbish, being able to ask for pay rises is something only people higher up the food chain can do, for most people, male or female, this isnt possible, i mean singling out a woman in an office for a 5% pay rise is just going p1ss off all the other workers, male or female and ime leads to comments along the lines of "what did she have to do for that?"
But i did stop watching when he compared transgender activists with left wing dictators like Mao (who killed millions) but were nothing like a right wing killers like Pinochet, that just showed his bias..... he is apparently a big hit with the alt right....cant think why.
My GF just said he was another man without a clue about the problems women face in the work place, not least the sexual harassment stuff, a woman who tells her boss to fcuk off at the xmas party, aint going to get a pay rise.
i d add that the sort of women he coaches are not going to be on min wage.
I think you've been a bit harsh on him there. He did specifically say that he wasn't sure if the numbers in Sweden were correct and that maybe it wasn't as extreme as he was stating. He also didn't say Scandinavian countries were without male bias rather that they had done more than any other countries to eliminate it.
With regards to the agreeableness factor, my wife agreed with that and, to be fair, to him he did say that it was one of many factors. And the women he coaches are not likely to be on minimum wage but are minimum wage jobs where the pay gap is at? I think even Cathy Newman state that it was higher positions that were skewing the data.
I actually think you've misunderstood the comparison with Mao and trans activists. Pinochet was not really someone you'd identify with identity politics. Though, also think it was a clumsy comparison.
His video lectures are actually very good (most of which are actually just videos from his university courses) and he's not the man he's being painted to be by newspapers like the Guardian and Independent
And, by the way, has anyone noticed that 'he's popular with the alt-right' seems to be the new 'he's a bigot'? He's been heavily critical of both the far left and far right.0 -
rjsterry wrote:Not watched the interview, but I've seen him referred to as "the stupid man's smart person". Possibly a few months of Internet fame and some fanboys have gone to his head.
That was the title of one article that was a bit if a hit piece. Certainly has some valid points, though.0 -
nickice wrote:mamba80 wrote:I felt she was beguiled by him, he obviously works on this as an interview technique, its a pity they didnt put Krishna up instead.
He was also completely wrong about the number the male nurses in Sweden, its 1 in 10 not 1 in 20 and having lived in Sweden, there is still plenty of male bias over there, just less than in many countries, so not that well researched.
Saying that women dont get pay rises because they are more agreeable was rubbish, being able to ask for pay rises is something only people higher up the food chain can do, for most people, male or female, this isnt possible, i mean singling out a woman in an office for a 5% pay rise is just going p1ss off all the other workers, male or female and ime leads to comments along the lines of "what did she have to do for that?"
But i did stop watching when he compared transgender activists with left wing dictators like Mao (who killed millions) but were nothing like a right wing killers like Pinochet, that just showed his bias..... he is apparently a big hit with the alt right....cant think why.
My GF just said he was another man without a clue about the problems women face in the work place, not least the sexual harassment stuff, a woman who tells her boss to fcuk off at the xmas party, aint going to get a pay rise.
i d add that the sort of women he coaches are not going to be on min wage.
I think you've been a bit harsh on him there. He did specifically say that he wasn't sure if the numbers in Sweden were correct and that maybe it wasn't as extreme as he was stating. He also didn't say Scandinavian countries were without male bias rather that they had done more than any other countries to eliminate it.
With regards to the agreeableness factor, my wife agreed with that and, to be fair, to him he did say that it was one of many factors. And the women he coaches are not likely to be on minimum wage but are minimum wage jobs where the pay gap is at? I think even Cathy Newman state that it was higher positions that were skewing the data.
I actually think you've misunderstood the comparison with Mao and trans activists. Pinochet was not really someone you'd identify with identity politics. Though, also think it was a clumsy comparison.
His video lectures are actually very good (most of which are actually just videos from his university courses) and he's not the man he's being painted to be by newspapers like the Guardian and Independent
And, by the way, has anyone noticed that 'he's popular with the alt-right' seems to be the new 'he's a bigot'? He's been heavily critical of both the far left and far right.
Me? harsh? lol!
I just think as much as he has controversial views on various subjects, his main act is to be very personable, he may be critical of the far right but the far right obv like what he says.
this is perhaps better stats than the ones he uses? interestingly is that the pay gaps are there even before most women have career breaks for children.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics ... statistics0 -
If the far right like what he has to say (and do they by the way? I often think this argument is used to discredit someone) it depends what they like. They also aren't obviously listening very much as he's not anti-semitic (he's talked a lot about the evils of the holocaust) which is a hallmark of the far right. I've certainly never heard him say anything racist or bigoted (if anyone has any evidence of this I'd be happy to see it and change my mind)
Regarding the pay gap, he said there were a multitude of factors (i.e. not just personality traits and having children) and that prejudice accounted for much less than what was generally claimed. Quite honestly, I'm not an expert on the pay gap but, then again, nor is Cathy Newman.0 -
Shortfall wrote:I thought that accolade went to Stephen Fry.
I was going to add a qualification to that sentence, but thought I'd see if it got any bites
There are some valid observations on the proximity between right wing authoritarianism and things like no-platforming, but for someone so keen on free speech he seems to be awfully upset that his interview hasn't been met with universal acclaim.
There's an irony in the kind of people who go around dishing it out, calling people snowflakes and claiming it's all part of free speech, but getting all whiny and butt-hurt when we get called out on it.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You mean the kind of people who dish out words like bigot, racist an xenophobe without backing it up then have a cry when someone does it to them? Because I've seen that on here.
I don't think Jordan Peterson is actually like that, though. He certainly can take criticism (unlike Gad Saad for example) and you said yourself that you don't really know much about him. I think he may be justifiably a bit miffed that Cathy Newman seems to have been made into a victim but that's a separate issue and isn't in anyone's interests.0 -
Shortfall wrote:
Definitely one of the better TV news interviews.
The only problem is that with some points Cathy Newman was not listening to his answers but hearing her own interpretation.
He obviously knew what was being attempted so was very careful with his answers.
It was good to hear an interview that stayed with the facts rather being led by emotion.0 -
Coopster the 1st wrote:Shortfall wrote:
Definitely one of the better TV news interviews.
The only problem is that with some points Cathy Newman was not listening to his answers but hearing her own interpretation.
He obviously knew what was being attempted so was very careful with his answers.
It was good to hear an interview that stayed with the facts rather being led by emotion.
Absolutely. Whatever your opinion of Peterson's politics and world view, he forensically took apart the dreadful Newman who was reduced to making up strawmen and putting words into his mouth. Fair play to Channel 4 News for giving him a full half hour to air his views.0 -
nickice wrote:You mean the kind of people who dish out words like bigot, racist an xenophobe without backing it up then have a cry when someone does it to them? Because I've seen that on here.
I don't think Jordan Peterson is actually like that, though. He certainly can take criticism (unlike Gad Saad for example) and you said yourself that you don't really know much about him. I think he may be justifiably a bit miffed that Cathy Newman seems to have been made into a victim but that's a separate issue and isn't in anyone's interests.
That's not quite what I meant, no. Looking at his Twitter feed, he seems to be trying to claim that all the fanboys, who (probably incorrectly) hold him up as some sort of high-brow Milo Yiannopoulos and see his ideas as a justification for acting like a bit of a d*** on the Internet, are absolutely nothing to do with him. That may be so, but unfortunately without their adoration he'd be just another academic nobody outside his field had heard of.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:You mean the kind of people who dish out words like bigot, racist an xenophobe without backing it up then have a cry when someone does it to them? Because I've seen that on here.
I don't think Jordan Peterson is actually like that, though. He certainly can take criticism (unlike Gad Saad for example) and you said yourself that you don't really know much about him. I think he may be justifiably a bit miffed that Cathy Newman seems to have been made into a victim but that's a separate issue and isn't in anyone's interests.
That's not quite what I meant, no. Looking at his Twitter feed, he seems to be trying to claim that all the fanboys, who (probably incorrectly) hold him up as some sort of high-brow Milo Yiannopoulos and see his ideas as a justification for acting like a bit of a d*** on the Internet, are absolutely nothing to do with him. That may be so, but unfortunately without their adoration he'd be just another academic nobody outside his field had heard of.
Again, like you said, you don't really know his work so I think there is a bit of prejudice on your part. I've been watching his videos on and off for a while and I've never really had the impression that he's had a big right-wing following. He tends to ramble sometimes but he openly speaks out against the far right. He certainly has a big following among normal people. A lof of the stuff is about matters like addiction and is actually fairly interesting.
Jordan Peterson did tell his fans not to do it but I don't think I've ever seen a youtube thread that doesn't contain multiple insults directed at people appearing in the video and other commenters (That's why it's not worth commenting on youtube). In any event, insulting someone on youtube is not the same as sending them a message on twitter. It's a similar situation on twitter (though not as bad). Basically she was mainly called stupid (she's a public figure and it seems to go with the territory) a b*tch a couple of times and I did see one c*nt. I mean if this is the standard for calling in security, I should start a security agency as business will be booming. It's blatant deflection from Channel 4 and an attempt to paint her as a victim which she is not. That's what he's annoyed at though it doesn't seem to have done the book sales any harm!0 -
I think "b****" was counted 500 times. A small proportion of the total comments but a lot more than a couple.
Interesting that you and Shortfall think he 'won' the interview when he doesn't think so himself. As I said I think he has some valid points. I think that if I were in his situation - with a large number of people apparently misunderstanding my work and using it as a justification to act like a d*** - I'd want to do more to distance myself from that. He seems fairly clear that those people have got him wrong; why let that stand?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry wrote:I think "b****" was counted 500 times. A small proportion of the total comments but a lot more than a couple.
Interesting that you and Shortfall think he 'won' the interview when he doesn't think so himself. As I said I think he has some valid points. I think that if I were in his situation - with a large number of people apparently misunderstanding my work and using it as a justification to act like a d*** - I'd want to do more to distance myself from that. He seems fairly clear that those people have got him wrong; why let that stand?
I'd done a twitter search. I think the 500 was from YouTube ( there was something like upwards of 30000 comments) which is not direct abuse and, unfortunately, par for the course on youtube. I'm not entirely convinced of the 500 number but I'll take it at face value.
If winning an interview is possible then he won (have you watched it?). Seems to be the opinion from 99% of BTL commenters in the Guardian and Independent. Other than his twitter feed (where he was very critical of Channel 4) I haven't really seen him comment on it. I'm not really sure how people calling Cathy Newman bad names is a misunderstanding of his work. It's more her interview style and constant strawmanning that seemed to annoy people. The only misinterpretation I saw was Cathy Newman's. Not really sure what else he can do and, like I said, YouTube is full of insults.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:I think "b****" was counted 500 times. A small proportion of the total comments but a lot more than a couple.
Interesting that you and Shortfall think he 'won' the interview when he doesn't think so himself. As I said I think he has some valid points. I think that if I were in his situation - with a large number of people apparently misunderstanding my work and using it as a justification to act like a d*** - I'd want to do more to distance myself from that. He seems fairly clear that those people have got him wrong; why let that stand?
I'd done a twitter search. I think the 500 was from YouTube ( there was something like upwards of 30000 comments) which is not direct abuse and, unfortunately, par for the course on youtube. I'm not entirely convinced of the 500 number but I'll take it at face value.
If winning an interview is possible then he won (have you watched it?). Seems to be the opinion from 99% of BTL commenters in the Guardian and Independent. Other than his twitter feed (where he was very critical of Channel 4) I haven't really seen him comment on it. I'm not really sure how people calling Cathy Newman bad names is a misunderstanding of his work. It's more her interview style and constant strawmanning that seemed to annoy people. The only misinterpretation I saw was Cathy Newman's. Not really sure what else he can do and, like I said, YouTube is full of insults.
Doesnt make it right though does it? and gives a glimpse into the mindset of his supporters.
imho its not possible to "win" against someone like him, he has gained significant knowledge into human psychology, he is nothing more than a very convincing salesman, similar to various cult leaders who convince people of the integrity of their arguments, like you did, defending his stats on Swedish male nurses, he was out by 100%.
CN did what he knew she d do, he played her like a fish on a line.
against more "normal" opposition, she is a fantastic interviewee0 -
It doesn't make it right but it happens to everyone on YouTube so the only insight it gives us is what happens when people can post anonymously on the internet. It says nothing about his 'supporters'. We don't even know if the people commenting had heard of him before watching the video. I repeat, she was heavily criticised for straw manning and putting words into his mouth rather than effectively countering Hus arguments. And a brilliant interviewer does not ask, ' why should your right to freedom of speech trump someone's right not to be offended'. She was made to look bad because she was unprepared and dishonest.
As for the 1/20 and 1/10 point, you've completely missed his point. Yes, he made a mistake (and admitted he may be wrong) but the point that women drastically outnumber men in Swedish nursing still stands. That's why it wasn't particularly important to me.0 -
I rarely watch anything on Youtube that doesnt interest me, so i d imagine only JP fans are going to bother watching a Psychologist on CH4 being interviewed?
Ch4 would nt be hiring in security experts for some criticism, it appears to be a little more than you r a cr@p interviewer! maybe look at Emily Matlise and her stalker (come to that the number of women who are stalked and subsequently attacked)
I agree CN made some serious errors but as i said, he is an expert on human psychology, in my OP i said she seemed beguiled by him, i ve watched ch 4 news for some time now and she is a great interviewer, has torn apart more than a few men and women with hr technique.
The point with the male nurses is that stating its a ratio of 20-1 then adding it may be slightly less, gives the viewer the imprssion its a totally failed policy and only 5% of nurses are male, in fact its closer to 14% (latest studies) similar to the UK.... but of course Sweden hasnt a nurse shortage, maybe he should look at the up take of parental leave by males instead.
He is a clever guy and know exactly how to use english to effect his POV.
But i do agree it was a interesting interview, what ever your opinions on him.0 -
nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:I think "b****" was counted 500 times. A small proportion of the total comments but a lot more than a couple.
Interesting that you and Shortfall think he 'won' the interview when he doesn't think so himself. As I said I think he has some valid points. I think that if I were in his situation - with a large number of people apparently misunderstanding my work and using it as a justification to act like a d*** - I'd want to do more to distance myself from that. He seems fairly clear that those people have got him wrong; why let that stand?
I'd done a twitter search. I think the 500 was from YouTube ( there was something like upwards of 30000 comments) which is not direct abuse and, unfortunately, par for the course on youtube. I'm not entirely convinced of the 500 number but I'll take it at face value.
If winning an interview is possible then he won (have you watched it?). Seems to be the opinion from 99% of BTL commenters in the Guardian and Independent. Other than his twitter feed (where he was very critical of Channel 4) I haven't really seen him comment on it. I'm not really sure how people calling Cathy Newman bad names is a misunderstanding of his work. It's more her interview style and constant strawmanning that seemed to annoy people. The only misinterpretation I saw was Cathy Newman's. Not really sure what else he can do and, like I said, YouTube is full of insults.
I'd agree that Youtube and other social media does seem to bring out the absolute worst in some people. I've watched videos on carpentry techniques where the comments are full of idiots flinging abuse at each other and the guy who's made the video. Of course that kind of behaviour is not solely aimed at C4 journalists; I think it deserves more than a shrug, though. What the f*** is wrong with people that they can't just leave it at, "It didn't seem like she'd prepared for that interview very well" or "I think that's not the right way to cut a dovetail"?
Having read a bit more about Peterson's ideas, I just find it even more baffling a) how the alt-right have turned him into some sort of "free speech" poster boy (because of that thing about not using gender neutral pronouns? An odd hill to die on), and b) he's not shouting from the rooftops that they've all got it wrong.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Funny business altogether. Channel 4 news seems still to be top of the TV news heap... but the medium is less and less suited to the presentation of news.
They show an admirable desire to be lofty and cerebral, but are hoist by the petard of needing ratings. This sort of interview is the result.
Both were prepared, but the academic was more completely prepared than the journo.
That happens sometimes and it is entertaining when it does. She is an effective broadcaster with a good track record. It is nice to see a real conversation, but she rather fell back on the "Mao was a mass murderer" line and seemed to be trivializing the lobster connection. He knew where he was and what he was there for.0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:You mean the kind of people who dish out words like bigot, racist an xenophobe without backing it up then have a cry when someone does it to them? Because I've seen that on here.
I don't think Jordan Peterson is actually like that, though. He certainly can take criticism (unlike Gad Saad for example) and you said yourself that you don't really know much about him. I think he may be justifiably a bit miffed that Cathy Newman seems to have been made into a victim but that's a separate issue and isn't in anyone's interests.
That's not quite what I meant, no. Looking at his Twitter feed, he seems to be trying to claim that all the fanboys, who (probably incorrectly) hold him up as some sort of high-brow Milo Yiannopoulos and see his ideas as a justification for acting like a bit of a d*** on the Internet, are absolutely nothing to do with him. That may be so, but unfortunately without their adoration he'd be just another academic nobody outside his field had heard of.
I don't think Peterson is an intentional provocateur, which is Milo's MO. I do think he makes some points that are relatively easily twisted / misrepresented to be useful to e.g. alt-right, but that's not his fault.0 -
So broadly, I think the guy has identified a genuine issue, which revolves around masculine identity, and the challenges that pose. The trope for infantile adult men is one of the symptoms of that.
Arguing the toss about the pay gap as a solution misses the point.
Pointing the finger at post-modern studies (gender, race, blah blah), isn’t the solution either.
Banging on about assertiveness also misses the point.0 -
Though, rather ironically, if he studied some of the post-modern arguments regarding gender, he'd have a lot of his arguments debunked.0
-
nickice wrote:Cathy Newman should be embarrassed about that one. He tore her apart.
I can’t really see that.
He has a lot of assumptions that he throws out as fact.
A lot of those are, ironically, illustrative of the things post-modern thinking suggests are at the root of the problem.
He comes across as a male fantasist who rates clichéd male traits more highly than women’s.0 -
mamba80 wrote:I rarely watch anything on Youtube that doesnt interest me, so i d imagine only JP fans are going to bother watching a Psychologist on CH4 being interviewed?
Ch4 would nt be hiring in security experts for some criticism, it appears to be a little more than you r a cr@p interviewer! maybe look at Emily Matlise and her stalker (come to that the number of women who are stalked and subsequently attacked)
I agree CN made some serious errors but as i said, he is an expert on human psychology, in my OP i said she seemed beguiled by him, i ve watched ch 4 news for some time now and she is a great interviewer, has torn apart more than a few men and women with hr technique.
The point with the male nurses is that stating its a ratio of 20-1 then adding it may be slightly less, gives the viewer the imprssion its a totally failed policy and only 5% of nurses are male, in fact its closer to 14% (latest studies) similar to the UK.... but of course Sweden hasnt a nurse shortage, maybe he should look at the up take of parental leave by males instead.
He is a clever guy and know exactly how to use english to effect his POV.
But i do agree it was a interesting interview, what ever your opinions on him.
In fact there would be a very good reason for Channel 4 to have claimed to have called in security experts: it makes Cathy Newman into a victim even if there is no credible threat and THAT becomes the story. It's probably be more believable if her colleague hadn't posted a picture of her laughing at social media comments and if Cathy Newman didn't have form for lying (remember the mosque incident) Emily Matlise's stalker was a former friend who claimed to be in love with her. Not really relevant here.
The way I see it is that Cathy Newman is actually a bit of a bully (like Paxman and Piers Morgan). That might work on politicians who can almost never say what they think but it won't work on other people. She'd probably never even been exposed to other viewpoints and just accepted the pay gap as being solely the result of gender. A politician wouldn't risk his/her career by suggesting other reasons. If she's a tough journalist she should be able to handle people calling her a bitch on youtube especially as she they weren't talking directly to her.. It's not something I'd do but I've been insulted and threatened on Facebook by followers of Gad Saad and I didn't make a big deal out of it because I know it's rare it's ever serious. I wonder what the reaction would be if Katie Hopkins complained about receiving abuse...
He didn't talk about men taking parental leave because it's not really relevant. The point was that no matter how much you encourage men and women to make the same choices, they'll end up making different ones because men and women are not the same. He has claimed (I don't have any data on this) that in Scandinavia there are actually more differences in choices between men and women and used this as evidence to say that it's not just social conditioning that causes it.
I don't think he was particularly beguiling in this interview. He is charismatic but not so much here. She set the agenda (he was probably expecting questions about his book) and kept trying to trip him up. I'd have a lot more respect for her if she said she got this one wrong rather than taking the victim angle. I've seen him challenged by Bret Weinstein before (he's certainly not infallible) but she did an awful job.0 -
rjsterry wrote:nickice wrote:rjsterry wrote:I think "b****" was counted 500 times. A small proportion of the total comments but a lot more than a couple.
Interesting that you and Shortfall think he 'won' the interview when he doesn't think so himself. As I said I think he has some valid points. I think that if I were in his situation - with a large number of people apparently misunderstanding my work and using it as a justification to act like a d*** - I'd want to do more to distance myself from that. He seems fairly clear that those people have got him wrong; why let that stand?
I'd done a twitter search. I think the 500 was from YouTube ( there was something like upwards of 30000 comments) which is not direct abuse and, unfortunately, par for the course on youtube. I'm not entirely convinced of the 500 number but I'll take it at face value.
If winning an interview is possible then he won (have you watched it?). Seems to be the opinion from 99% of BTL commenters in the Guardian and Independent. Other than his twitter feed (where he was very critical of Channel 4) I haven't really seen him comment on it. I'm not really sure how people calling Cathy Newman bad names is a misunderstanding of his work. It's more her interview style and constant strawmanning that seemed to annoy people. The only misinterpretation I saw was Cathy Newman's. Not really sure what else he can do and, like I said, YouTube is full of insults.
I'd agree that Youtube and other social media does seem to bring out the absolute worst in some people. I've watched videos on carpentry techniques where the comments are full of idiots flinging abuse at each other and the guy who's made the video. Of course that kind of behaviour is not solely aimed at C4 journalists; I think it deserves more than a shrug, though. What the f*** is wrong with people that they can't just leave it at, "It didn't seem like she'd prepared for that interview very well" or "I think that's not the right way to cut a dovetail"?
Having read a bit more about Peterson's ideas, I just find it even more baffling a) how the alt-right have turned him into some sort of "free speech" poster boy (because of that thing about not using gender neutral pronouns? An odd hill to die on), and b) he's not shouting from the rooftops that they've all got it wrong.
I think the only answer is to have proper moderation (like on the Guardian) or to disable comments. I doubt the former would be feasible.0 -
Shortfall wrote:
I need to do some reading on this chap - not heard much of him, to be honest - but he took Cathy Newman to the cleaners in this interview.
He was prepared to nth degree; she appeared to be the opposite.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Ben6899 wrote:Shortfall wrote:
I need to do some reading on this chap - not heard much of him, to be honest - but he took Cathy Newman to the cleaners in this interview.
He was prepared to nth degree; she appeared to be the opposite.
For real? With such made up zingers as "80% of spending decisions are made by women"?0
