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. And I’m struggling to think of another interview in which the interviewee has to correct the interviewer so many times, on matters of fact and basic logic, after almost every question.
Update:
The Guardian’s Zoe Williams weighs in, having misplaced her medication.
I imagine you–resplendent in your velour blogging thong–thinking, “See, I told you wankers this years ago.”
I do throw back my head and laugh maniacally. I have my own reverb unit.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is delicious and moist!
That’s just your slight concussion talking.
“thanks for giving something else to waste time with”
If you can find it, the original radio version, On The Hour, is arguably even better. (And you can listen to it in the car.) Stumbling across it in the early ’90s, without all the OTT visual cues and recognisable comedy faces, it was extremely easy to mistake for a real news show.
it was extremely easy to mistake for a real news show.
There was also the late Nineties radio parody of ‘quality’ papers and their various colour supplements, The Sunday Format, which I stumbled across by accident and was pleasingly bewildered by.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GibzbTY9V8
“Marmite Buttocks, page 60”
Heh. Cake for that man.
Sargon on Peterson Vs Newman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXJeghw-cRk
I remember a couple of years ago when Michael Fabricant said that he found Yasmin Alibhai-Brown so annoying he could have punched her in the throat. Cue fabricated outrage, and Cathy and Yasmin “interviewed” James Delingpole with typical hectoring, ganging up etc. Can’t find it now but I do remember it.
This is actually very likely, regardless of any boneheadedness specific to Ms. Newman (I haven’t watched the video yet).
And yet William f Buckley did some good interviews, and Peter Robinson is superb.
It’s not just that they do/did long interviews, they actually read what their subjects had written.
The video’s going to hit a million views.
Debating a feminist is like talking to a lobster.
I think we need a crab bucket comment reference now.
Crab bucket
And lobster pot? 😀
Peterson uses authoritarian a few times therein. I’m perpetually struck – once I get past this foolish interviewer holding her entire presumptive non-argument six inches from his nose and being treated entirely too civilly for it – by how the underpinning of progressivism is in fact force. (And how rightists ignore this when they should be ignoring the left itself because of it).
Anyway, it is all force with proggs, just like it’s religious, this progressivism. She presumes that fairness, as she puts it, pays benefits … in a world where her own scientific Darwin would dismiss the notion completely. But there’s no evidence that fairness, even if it existed, does anything of the sort, a point of argument Peterson could have relished in but was too gentlemanly about.
What exactly is the fruit of this fairness, my dear? Hmmm? A counter-evolutionary, anti-scientific warping of things in pursuit of an ideal you’ve never itemized or elaborated upon?
She danced right into half a dozen such scenarios where, her gender being less capable of sheer blood-and-guts, in-the-streets survival, she presumed that present progressive social structure now must force this “fairness” into play when it’s already redistributed myriad terms and conditions in one gender’s favor all over the map of civilization. None of these scenarios was questioned, however; each was just presumed to be a normal, necessary flow of life and a natural, self-evident preference and condition. Such an argument is as faulty as the interview was snotty.
So force is the thing that remains. And all the Petersons of the world should eventually nail that fundamental, elemental, underlying, back-stopping, essential component of progressivism to the progressive church door over and over again: Progressivism is fundamentally the philosophy of force, the antithesis of tolerance and compassion and equality and fairness and all that. Fairness hasn’t actually a damn thing to do with it, lady.
Progressivism is the irrational, arrogant vehicle of unbridled aggression and nothing more. This is ironic for the “democrat” institution and too for what had been the fairer sex, the one that up until it took up such activism and presumption already wielded it all anyway, just more behind the scenes and to considerably greater effect…
From Wikipedia:
“Newman graduated with a first from Oxford University, where she read English at Lady Margaret Hall.”
It’s nice that she can read, but did she read with comprehension? 🙂
Silly jokes aside, I would like to know: What are English departments like at Oxford? In America they are often staffed with leftists. I have heard of colleges where every English professor is a radical feminist. Is it possible that Newman only learned how to apply leftist theory to the reading of literature?
As the Bible says, It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling lobster in a wide house
OTOH, A lobster is just a lobster, but a good cigar is a smoke!
Lobster has received his daily serotonin ration:
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.
Somewhat relevant, I think.
Debating a feminist is like talking to a lobster.
True, but you could eat the lobster…
Angry feminist says “eat me!”
but a good cigar is a smoke!
Are you quoting Kipling or Walt Kelly’s Pogo?
So force is the thing that remains.
” You are a Good Person for Believing I, who tell you so; now make the unbeliever suffer until there is no fitna.”
The hidden catch, of course, is that the “believers” themselves are set up to suffer, living in denial of realities that will always have consequences. The trick is harnessing the energies generated by that unbalanced equation back into doubling down on approved dogma, and the “permitted actions” it recommends.
Are you quoting Kipling or Walt Kelly’s Pogo?
Can’t vouch for a lobster’s acumen, though one’s presence on my dinner plate might be a tell. Come to think of it…feminist acumen….nah.
Angry feminist says “eat me!”
And now my appetite is ruined. Both kinds.
Though I might add, the way to fight a lobster is with your hat. Grab it and run.
Velour? Who said it was velour? That’s so 80s
What color is The Blogging Thong of Wisdom?
Newman’s problem: she’s going for a political style ‘gotcha’ interview but quickly realises that this is much harder with a thoughtful and honest academic who has been working in his field for years and who has been refining the consistency and depth of his arguments, than with the type of ideologue or political hack who normally appears on such programs.
Assuming you can access the BBC iPlayer, finding it is a simple matter of following this elegant and finely crafted link.
The Guardian’s Zoe Williams insists that Ms Newman did very well, brilliantly, in fact, and that Dr Peterson is obviously “thin-skinned.”
Ms Williams’ previous contributions to human knowledge can be found here.
And this seems apposite:
Uri Harris, here.
Re: Zoe Williams. SJWs always project…
Re: Zoe Williams. SJWs always project…
I’m never quite sure whether Ms Williams just lies through her teeth or actually hallucinates a parallel reality.
I think this is a version of Scott Adams point about TDS – it does make sense to say that she hallucinates to a point. She is so convinced of her ideology that there is no framework as it were to understand what JP is actually saying. In her framework opposing SJWs et al can only be because you are a nazi bigot racist etc. So that’s what she ‘hears’ and ‘sees’.
I’ve no doubt that she is also lying to an extent to preserve her cognitive framework. She has to, as the consequences of admitting she’s wrong about everything would be psychologically traumatic.
And lets not rule out the fact that she may also be simply not very clever.
She is so convinced of her ideology that there is no framework as it were to understand what JP is actually saying.
I think of Ms Williams, like her comrade Laurie Penny, as a warning of just how psychologically damaging leftism can be. It seems to generate, and give license to, an awful lot of spite. And so, when not wishing injury on people who are giving large sums to charity, sweet little Zoe amuses herself by thinking of ways to humiliate children whose parents can no longer afford private education: “As for vindictive, ha! Good.”
Because she cares, you see.
It was so refreshing – hearing someone calmly, politely & authoritavely debate the facts. Newman’s blinkers are that she cannot comprehend why those facts, delivered by an expert in his field, somehow trump her unevidenced opinions.
The real jaw-drop moment was her querying why his freedom of speech should trump someone’s right not to be offended. Yes, a journalist really did say that- astounding!
Anyhoo, I am uplifted – I perceive the pendulum which has swung so far in favour of PC may just be returning to its natural position.
I’ve no doubt that she is also lying to an extent to preserve her cognitive framework. She has to, as the consequences of admitting she’s wrong about everything would be psychologically traumatic.
Similar could be said about many conservative NeverTrumpers on this side of the pond.
Similar could be said about many conservative NeverTrumpers on this side of the pond.
If you mean mere right wing rather than conservative, then similar is said about right wing NeverTrumpers…
Channel 4 News has turned into Buzzfeed.
“The Guardian’s Zoe Williams insists”
It’s almost like the Fairness Doctrine in America was overturned, but then secretly reinstated worldwide in order to encourage stupid people.
“Trump kept commenting on issues instead of reciting ideology”
The key here was that all the usual (media) suspects were forced to cover his speeches due to the run for president, and what he was saying resonated with people who would otherwise not have heard him.
Clinton and Sanders followed the conservative lesson provided by the conservative Obama. Therefore, with echoes of the Obama campaigns, the Democrat supporters got to sort out which conservative would be the official Democrat candidate.
Please, Hal. This insistence that just because C, S, & O fail to out themselves as full-on communists, they are therefore “conservative” got tiresome months (years?) ago. Putting on my most favorable rose-colored glasses, I can possibly see that argument made for C. Maybe. On a good day. If I stand on my head, close one eye, and squint real hard. On a foggy day. Did I mention the rose-colored glasses? Ah, yes I did. S & O are playing the realpolitik game of moving the needle incrementally to the left. The only reason I can even remotely consider separating C from S & O on this is that C is so obsessed with filling that empty hole in her cold, dark heart, that I doubt that her brain has the cycles available to process an ideology in any effective manner.
WTP, here’s a relevant quote from Jordan Peterson himself:
http://reformedperspective.ca/dr-jordan-peterson-on/
Yes, Piper. Exactly. And I know I’ve said this before and I know it sounds arrogant as hell, but I thank Dr. Peterson for describing exactly what I saw happening 20-30 years ago. When we were only back a foot or so and not the current three miles. When it was suggested that I might possibly need to have my head examined for letting such things concern me. Yes, I know I wasn’t alone in thinking such but I also wasn’t totally cowed from saying so somewhat openly. it wasn’t easy to be “that guy” and to be fair, the way I state this implies I was more “that guy” than I actually was. I had some common sense. Plenty actually. I just reached a point where I simply couldn’t take the absurdities anymore. It was being singled out in a Jane Elliot (or wtf her name is) style “diversity” seminar that finally did me in.
That was exhausting!
This:
And then you’ll go ‘Oh, how did I get here?’ And the answer was, ‘Well, I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone…and you agreed!’
One thin thread of hope that I cling to is that this incrementalism has been accelerating, and I believe that we may be getting to the point where the water is heating up fast enough that the frogs come to realize they’re being boiled. I just saw a bit where young people were horrified by the sins of the characters in Friends, which was a top sitcom not very long ago. The accelerating pace of change, coupled with the ease with which we can show (through YouTube or similar) what was “normal” in the recent past may give us the opportunity to show our peers and our children just how far and how fast they’re being dragged on the way to Dystopia.
Call me a Pollyanna, but it’s little threads like these that get me through the day. That and whisky, of course.
And the answer was, ‘Well, I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone…and you agreed! And so then I pushed you a little farther than you should have gone again…and you agreed!”
This perfectly describes the tactics of leftists vs ‘conservatives’ over the last 50 years. ‘Conservatives’ have conserved nothing.
Thing is, imagine turning the clock 30 years. At that point there had never been a time, and it was not imagined there would be a time when:
-white people would be excluded from some job applications (see beeb recruiting today)
-men would marry men, women would marry women
-children could ‘change gender’ and their parents and teachers would be prohibited from discouraging them
-the state would have taken over the family to the extent of there being a need for ‘Minister for Loneliness’
-people could be jailed for being nasty on the internet
-wolf-whistling or patting a knee would be deemed ‘sexual harrassment’
-sharing a bottle or two of wine and having sex with one’s significant other could be deemed rape.
-having one’s hair cornrowed a la Bo Derek would be deemed ‘cultural appropriation’
-confessing to voting in the same way as the majority (ie Brexit 2016; Tories 2015) would be social suicide
-Gazza joking about not seeing a black person in the dark would give him a criminal record
I could go on…….
We ARE a democracy. We have somehow inexplicably elected people who have made the above happen.
…..oh, and our celebrated novels/films, loved over generations are now taboo because the fictional protoganists are not sufficiently politically correct.
Remember the furore when it transpired Harper Lee’s fictional Atticus had once attended a KKK meeting?
“Assuming you can access the BBC iPlayer”
Assuming.
(But yeah, I didn’t know it was on there.)
“And lets not rule out the fact that she may also be simply not very clever.”
Yep. We over-think these things sometimes. Occam’s razor.
One other thing which occurred to me with the lobster comment.
Scott Adams has mentioned that certain statements can be ‘tells’ then show you the person is undergoing a cognitive strain (related to my psychological trauma comment earlier), at which point the mind, attempting to grab back some semblance of sense and intellectual credence or dominance in the conversation, throws up some ridiculous interpretation of what’s being said.
You see this in relation to Trump, in an extreme version of the ‘literally but not seriously’ comment, where he says e.g. that Hillary bleached her computer (presumably having heard of bleach bit) and the legacy media pretends he meant actual bleach and fact-checks it as fake, or he talks about having a bigger button than the NKs, and they pretend he meant an actual button and call it fake because he doesn’t actually have a big red button on his desk.
Maybe that’s what was going on here. She was being handed her intellectual arse on a plate and was scrabbling around to somehow say something telling and superior. And ended up with lobsters.
Newman’s problem: she’s going for a political style ‘gotcha’ interview but quickly realises that this is much harder with a thoughtful and honest academic who has been working in his field for years and who has been refining the consistency and depth of his arguments, than with the type of ideologue or political hack who normally appears on such programs.
yes, I’m sure she was expecting the usual sub-standard drone who desperately tries to flesh out the broadcast time with a monologue of nonsense. Instead she got someone cleverer than her who hasn’t spent the past decade in a sound-proofed bubble of conformity.
The real jaw-drop moment was her querying why his freedom of speech should trump someone’s right not to be offended. Yes, a journalist really did say that- astounding!
It is impossible to hold that opinion and think at the same time. A moment’s actual thought would realise how absurd such a society would be which allowed the “right to be offended” to trump free expression. So they don’t think, just believe.
prm,
She was being handed her intellectual arse on a plate and was scrabbling around to somehow say something telling and superior. And ended up with lobsters.
Lobsters. (>_<) I fully expect Ms Newman's intellectual discomfort to be the subject of a South Park episode in the very near future.
Color banded for your protection
You see this in relation to Trump, in an extreme version of the ‘literally but not seriously’ comment, where he says e.g. that Hillary bleached her computer (presumably having heard of bleach bit) and the legacy media pretends he meant actual bleach and fact-checks it as fake, or he talks about having a bigger button than the NKs, and they pretend he meant an actual button and call it fake because he doesn’t actually have a big red button on his desk.
OMG. That. And not just in relation to Trump. Often stuns me, even though I kind of expect it, that journalists (and other supposed grown-ups) do this often in the context of “putting on their big-boy pants” kind of pieces. It’s the Gotcha-game on steroids.
The most absurd and surrealistic example of this was when, at a campaign rally, Trump sarcastically and jokingly “asked” if Russia would be able to find Hillary’s missing emails.
And the moron media later astonishingly used this event as “yet more” evidence of Russian collusion (and of course now it looks like there was collusion, but guess what!).
It is simply gob-smackingly WTF-ery.
At least lobster woman is vacuously transparent.
“So you’re saying…” No. Clearly that’s not what he’s saying, and we know that because we just heard what he said. But in your mind that’s what you need to pretend he said in order to persist in your worldview.
See also, motte-and-bailey.
This insistence that just because . . . .
Erm????? Oh, good luck with that . . . As is noted here, you are being so convinced of your ideology that there is no framework as it were to understand what current events and other forms of reality are actually saying. . . .
The basic situational reality is the complete lack of some binary, two side only, right wing OR left wing, the complete fail when wishing that there can only be the two groups. Doesn’t matter whether the demand for one OR the other comes from the right or the left, that claim will continue to fail.
As the paper points out for the UK,
For the US, among the quite established reminders of how the world works are;
Blue Dog Democrats
Main Street Partnership
The New Democrat Coalition
The Tuesday Group
—They’re all conservative, so listed in alphabetical order . . . and according to that fantasy that there can be only right OR left, none of those groups actually exist . . . good luck telling them that . . . And, of course, the left and right wings extremists flank the conservatives.
I’m seeing vehement complaints that Duh Right is being overrun by Duh Left—and of course as keeps getting noted, Duh Left says the same of Duh Right . . . Weeellll, aside from frantically overlooking the actual conservatives who are bookended by those extremes, what might help is to spell out in detail what exactly Duh Right really means.
Some while back I did ask that question here—Just now did a bit of digging about, not seeing when it was. Again someone was yammering about the abject failure of Duh Right to stand up for . . . um . . . err . . . Y’know that Stuff Duh Right Duz . . .
So at that point I asked whoever that was at that time What does Right Wing mean??? Spell It Out To Us. Tell us In Detail what The Big Deal is actually all about. The reply I got back was a textual variety of mumble amounting to Um, ah, I’m not going to say because people will yell at me.
—If someone wants to go hunting, it was about three, four years back Or So, occurring more or less as described, I’m currently paraphrasing from memory.
As far as I’ve been able to sort out, with commentary here providing excellent examples and polishing, with the left wing, the issue is The Correct Identity. We don’t care what you believe in or what you do, we demand that you must have the correct identity or correct opposition to some particular identity. Therefore an ongoing howl of my identity, my way, me me me me!!!!!
And of course the conservative response is Well, isn’t that nice.
As far as I’ve been able to sort out, with commentary here providing excellent examples and polishing, with the right wing, the issue is The Correct Group Faith. We don’t care who you are or what you do, we demand that you must have the correct faith or correct opposition to some particular faith. Therefore an ongoing howl of our faith, our way, us us us us!!!!!
And of course the conservative response is Well, isn’t that nice.
As far as oppositional infighting, the siblings fight more viciously than the neighbors, thus the evangelicals vs Daesh for being the wrong faith and the socialist workers vs the white supremacists for being the wrong identity.
Conservatives get a headache with the verbal tennis match.
So of the particular individuals, like it or not, Trump, Sanders, Obama, and Clinton are conservative more than right or left wing . . . Again, as all of them are conservative, reverse alphabetical order this time . . .
As is noted here, you are being so convinced of your ideology that there is no framework as it were to understand what current events and other forms of reality are actually saying
Back atcha bro. As for the rest, as usual with your postings, TL;DR. No, no, no…No need to respond with 115 paragraphs about how I just proved your point by exposing my ideological blindspots. Really. Don’t want to cause a fuss.
Still not quite getting it.
Non-stop distortion and dogmatism from Ms Newman. But Peterson is the “controversial” one.
The word controversial – which is presumably intended to frame Dr Peterson as disreputable – seems somewhat inapt, given just how much of the interview consists of Peterson explaining the basics of logical methodology and the need for precision, in the vain hope that Ms Newman might take some of it to heart. And conversely, how much of the interview was taken up by Ms Newman begging questions, leaping to perverse conclusions, continually shifting terms, doing the old motte and bailey, and generally being erratic, adamant and woolly.
In terms of clarity, honesty and recognising limits on what one can claim, I’d say any controversy lies closer to Ms Newman’s shoes.
Chapter 9 of 12 Rules is ‘Assume the person you are listening to might know something you don’t’
So clearly Newman didn’t read the book before interviewing him.
Really. Don’t want to cause a fuss.
Delightful.
Nice glasses, btw. And yes, should we wind up in the same volleyball league, you are definitely going to be in the front row on my team.
Really. Don’t want to cause a fuss.
Delightful.
I’m so glad you’ve made up. I’ve run a nice warm bath for the two of you.
What?
Heh, Scott Adams has a video with a bit about the video. He talks about what we’ve said here, including the hallucination/pretending/cognitive dissonance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igqRWx0asTA
He starts off with Trumps fake news awards, the JP discussion starts around 14:30
Nice glasses, btw. And yes, should we wind up in the same volleyball league, you are definitely going to be in the front row on my team.
Why isn’t that special. Thank you, Hal. They’re Brooks Brothers. While I’m quite sure that I would be an intimidating presence on your front row, I believe my volleyball days, even more so than my basketball days, have faded away. Fascinating that you should mention it.
“The video’s going to hit a million views.”
Closing in on two million now. It just overtook their Noam Chomsky interview from a year ago. Heh.
“Still not quite getting it.”
I rather like this response to that. Bonus points for citing James Damore.
I’ve run a nice warm bath for the two of you.
Heh. Missed that…yeah….heh…
They quite deliberately conflate the terms “some” and “all” in order to dismiss an argument.
It may not be deliberate. One of the earliest things drilled into us in PHIL 101 (Intentional Logic and Critical Thinking) is that given a general statement like “Hungarians are [whatever]”, you must assume that unless All is specified, the speaker means Some. However, the average person not trained in critical thinking will tend to assume All is meant and react accordingly.
It may not be deliberate… the average person… will tend to assume All is meant and react accordingly.
The distinction is fairly easy to comprehend, though, if one were willing to allow it, and the point is clarified several times, albeit in vain. I’d say Ms Newman’s apparent and baffling inability to register this basic distinction, or her refusal to, is what gives the interview much of its cartoonish quality.
It’s interesting how the interview has gone viral (two million views and counting) and become somewhat symbolic of wider issues, including the shared conceits of our media class. I suppose it serves as an illustration of a common phenomenon, one probably familiar to many readers here, in which any significant attempt to push back against feminist assumptions, and “social justice” posturing generally, is likely to be met with tactics like those above. Theatrical outrage, perverse construals, and a determination to be personally insulting and to frame any such discussion as not only needless and illegitimate, but a danger, a gateway to wickedness. And in which one’s opponents will not play fair, and possibly become ridiculous, while feeling awfully self-satisfied.
And in entirely unrelated news.
As usual, a Channel 4 editor has tweeted about the “misogyny” and “threats” (I saw neither) in the comments on the Youtube video. He says they will “not hesitate to call the police if necessary”
Meanwhile much (relatively mild) criticism – of Ms Newman’s interruptions and deliberate obfuscations – seems to have been deleted from said comments (the channel moderators will be C4 staff, I guess)
Channel 4 have inadvertently created something interesting that people are watching. But they’re not happy because people aren’t learning the lesson these idiot journalists intended.
And Cathy Newman has reportedly announced that the interview was “a victory for feminism”. It’s a mad world..
And in entirely unrelated news.
” Come friendly bombs and fall on Channel 4.”
As I’m sure Sir John Betjeman would have said.
Also nice to see someone quoting the inestimable Reviewbrah in the comments.
When memes collide.
And in entirely unrelated news.
That didn’t really happen on air did it? On a news show? Or was that some light stuff morning kind of thing she did previously?
That didn’t really happen on air did it?
No idea. I try not to watch Channel 4 News. Being a generous, kind-hearted soul, I’m assuming it was done for charity, and not the result of some kind of seizure.
“See also, motte-and-bailey”
This looks like a good discussion on the tactic, but it’s a long read:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/
Since postmodernism implies that there is no true objectivity (except maybe in mathematics, and of course those studies need an SJW injection, obviously), then there can be unlimited versions of reality. And if there are many, many versions of reality, then which one should be used in order to make decisions to solve problems?*
I think I might have forgotten a sarc tag up there somewhere.
* And indeed, how are problems identified? I may be misusing the term ‘self-licking ice cream cone’ as a description for many so-called social justice causes.
“And in entirely unrelated news.”
Blimey. She’s no Angela Rippon, is she?
(I tried to find a YouTube link for that Morecambe and Wise sketch, but BBC Worldwide has apparently blocked it from my country – Britain – “for copyright reasons”. It would be a piece of the purest, clearest, piss to work around it, but fuck ’em. Miserable sods.)
I try not to watch Channel 4 News.
Can see why…
https://twitter.com/EnglishPagan/status/954101351285493760
Related:
Fear not the darkness, Brave Albion, your Miss Newman stands as a beacon alongside our own Dowd.
… those of us in the world who try to speak the truth and act from a place of love and compassion will stand out like never before.
Not so long ago (well, within living memory of most of us here) pretension this ripe would have been met with ridicule, and possibly laughter and pointing. Those anti-bullying (really anti-socialisation) campaigns have a lot to answer for.
I’m assuming it was done for charity…….
Thing is David, it was probably done with the expectation that their usual viewers would crack their fingers and cackle with glee about how Ms Newman socked it to that misogynist Canadian bloke. And to be fair, they (that tiny minority of bored SJWs with nothing better to do at 7pm) probably did.
What they did not bank on was that just a few retweets would make it go viral amongst normal people, including normal women who love their husbands and sons and want them to stop being needlessly attacked and denigrated for the sin of having XY chromosomes. The comments and criticism have been nigh universal and I imagine C4 have never been more astounded. Whether they will learn from it remains to be seen.
“Can see why…”
Utterly shameless. This is why you never do broadcast interviews unless you have a cast-iron guarantee that the whole thing will be published unedited.
I might as well mention that if my life had gone as planned 30 years ago (yikes!), I could have ended up as one of Ms. Newman’s colleagues at ITN. Lucky escape, eh?
Somewhat related:
Because cultivating pretentious and exploitable guilt is now the priority.
We laugh, and yes, it’s absurd. But the rot is ongoing and will be hard to repair, if possible at all.
More signs of C4’s complete blinkerdness:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5292915/amp/Cathy-Newman-rocked-death-threats.html?__twitter_impression=true
There have been hundreds of thousands of comments on virtually all media. I would hazard around 95% of the many I’ve read make reasoned support of Peterson, some are sarcastic towards Newman.
Out of that phenomenal response, of course it’s entirely possible that some Neanderthals have been abusive, although I suspect we’re talking fractions of a percent, but:
-isn’t even this being misconstrued? Eg “RIP Cathy Newman” may refer to her career
-wasn’t some of Newnan’s behaviour: the false assertions, the misrepresentation and her sarcastic tweeting afterwards, also somewhat offensive, in the context of her being a professional and a journalist? Greenhouses and glass stones come to mind.
The truth is that C4 never expected the wholesale criticism of Newman and respect for Peterson’s views. And they are now doing what all leftists do when when wishing to staunch the flow of logic and overwhelming public opinion: swift deployment of the victim card.
isn’t even this being misconstrued? Eg “RIP Cathy Newman” may refer to her career
Channel 4 is a leftward-tilted broadcaster, staffed overwhelmingly by lefties, so I doubt Ms Newman’s standing is susceptible to charges of incompetence or unprofessional conduct, despite widely-seen evidence to that effect. And yes, the rush to victimhood has been both sly and wholehearted. Invoking unspecified “threats” and construing vulgar mockery as “abuse” is a handy diversion from the substance of the interview, and from what Ms Newman’s behaviour suggested about her own politics, and the politics of her wider constituency.
Clearly distraught.
… a handy diversion from the substance of the interview …
Reading this astonishing take on the interview feels like crossing the threshold into a parallel dimension …
While C4/Newman complain about twitter abuse, perhaps now is the moment to remind people how Cathy Neman tweeted some offensive lies about her local mosque, lies which lead to them receiving abuse. Another example of her deployment of female victim card, she was forced into an apology when CCTV confirmed she had been untruthful:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/12/mosque-deeply-disappointed-by-cathy-newmans-reaction
From twitter, more exposure of C4 News’ hypocrisy when it comes to twitter abuse:
TalkVille
@TockVille
Replying to @jordanbpeterson and @cathynewman
Ch 4’s senior reporter led a chant of f*** the tories at Glastonbury and Ben de paer, the man apparently disgusted by modern discourse, last week liked a tweet calling Boris Johnson a c***. They don’t even try to hide their hypocrisy any more
Reading this astonishing take on the interview feels like crossing the threshold into a parallel dimension…
It would be astonishing if it wasn’t so predictable and straight out of the playbook whereby any criticism of any leftist non- blindingly white, anything other than heterosexual male (or one who “identifies” as such) is automatically sexist, racist, xenophobic, ______________ phobic, or any combination thereof.
Clearly distraught.
Now deleted. #TotalCoincidence
Now deleted. #TotalCoincidence
I’m sure it was traumatic laughing.
“British journalist targeted with threats after interview with U of T prof”
I am going to be cynical and point out that we live in a world where completely anonymous communications are possible and the SJWs have demonstrated multiple times that they are willing to stage false flag events in order to smear their opposition.
Then again, with their tactics and behavior, it’s inevitable that they would provoke the more excitable members of the groups they antagonize – it’s a major part of their overall strategy.
I don’t think I could have been that polite & good humored with a harridan engaging in such bad faith haranguing.
The bad faith haranguing was clear evidence to him that he was winning, so he could relax.
I imagine you–resplendent in your velour blogging thong–thinking, “See, I told you wankers this years ago.”
I do throw back my head and laugh maniacally. I have my own reverb unit.
Okay, I’m late, but I thought I’d link an appropriate music track.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofkzvM7Skxg
The very short version of the talk…
#soyouresaying
https://mobile.twitter.com/98rosjon/status/954720249689067520/video/1