At All Costs, Paraphrase

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 delicious and moist!
That’s just your slight concussion talking.

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.

Heh. Cake for that man.

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.

The video’s going to hit a million views.

I think we need a crab bucket comment reference now.

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…

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!

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.

Angry feminist says “eat me!”

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.

Velour? Who said it was velour? That’s so 80s

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.

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.

Re: Zoe Williams. SJWs always project…

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.

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.

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…

A safe early prediction for the 2016 campaign was Hillary and the seven to fourteen dwarves, with a win by Clinton. Then along came the effectively entirely self financed Donald Trump, and the quite independent and successful Bernie Sanders. As the campaigns developed and continued, Scott Adams, yes, as in Dilbert, provided very interesting observations of political persuasion calculus at his blog. Quite particularly, Adams predicted a win by Trump starting in August of 2015, even as he also made it clear that he doesn’t even like Trump, he’s just focusing on the communication aspects. A particular comment from Adams was that;
“According to a Fox poll, Trump leads nationally with Republican men, women, every age group, every income group, and among those with a college degree and those without.
“So, if somehow the GOP nominates a candidate other than Trump, the only Republicans who will be angry about it are . . . men, women, every age group, every income group, and among those with a college degree and those without.”
Trump kept commenting on issues instead of reciting ideology, following the conservative axiom of When the facts change, I change my mind. Political reporter and historian Gwynne Dyer noted the tactical details of the Trump campaign, particularly; . . . he even opposes the traditional Republican policies that have contributed to their marginalization and impoverishment: free trade, low taxes for the rich, deep cuts in welfare programs. And he gets away with it, although no other Republican candidate would.
Keeping in mind the left wing region of the political spectrum and any political activity that ostensibly would be related to that, a website called The Political Compass shows Clinton over towards the right wing with the Republican candidates, where Sanders is emphatically ranked as being more conservative than left wing. Regardless of what the left wing liberal ideology demands, 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.
For the 2016 election, only the blind and the desperate still attempted to claim that right wing and left wing are the only choices, and that right wing means conservative. The most evident proof was having three conservatives fighting for the two presidential nomination seats of the Democrats and the Republicans. Very little came out of the left wing liberal gutter, and from the right wing liberal gutter, the right wing liberal candidates were reduced to hoping for a VP slot and assessing how to pay off campaign debts.
A mid electoral campaign editorial note about that last paragraph, above: The first edition of this paper was finished and emailed as a magazine submission on 2016/4/24. While the particular magazine had no response to the submission, the submitting email does confirm the date. Three days later, Ted Cruz announced that Carly Fiorina would be his VP.

“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.

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.

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.

This:

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.

…..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?