Hustlers Gonna Hustle
“You’re a mean, mad, white man.”
In the video below, Jordan Peterson, Stephen Fry, Michelle Goldberg and Michael Dyson debate political correctness and “white privilege.”
Note that when asked to estimate the degree to which Peterson has benefitted from his alleged “white privilege,” and to suggest specific measures of correction, Ms Goldberg carefully ignores the question, and Dr Dyson, a professor of sociology, proudly makes the six-word assertion quoted above, and which he later repeats as a supposedly triumphal mic-drop. After some rhetorical meandering, Dr Dyson also informs the audience that “white privilege doesn’t act according to quantifiable segments,” and that to ask for specifics, actual points that might be discussed and tested, is itself a sign of “white privilege,” especially when such questions are asked with “lethal intensity.”
Apparently, one must simply defer, indefinitely, without quite knowing the reason why.
A longer, two-hour video of the discussion can be found here, along with an audience poll on whether political correctness is indeed the measure of progress.
Update:
In the comments, Joan shares this short but telling clip illustrating the lofty standard of debate offered by Ms Goldberg, one of the New York Times’ finest. Readers are invited to watch the clip and then join me in devising possible excuses. For instance,
“I, a professional journalist with a degree in journalism from Berkeley, didn’t actually bother to watch the interview that I referred to repeatedly during a public debate and which I cited with great enthusiasm, and in which both the interviewer and interviewee make clear, pointedly and repeatedly – at least three times – that Peterson didn’t say what I, a professional journalist and self-styled upholder of good manners, claimed that he said.”
Of course the acid test of Ms Goldberg’s integrity, such as it may be, is how she responds to the dozens of people who’ve tweeted her with proof of this, shall we say, error. Will there be a retraction, an admission of ineptness, an apology to Peterson?
Four days in and nothing so far.
Dyson also informs the audience that “white privilege doesn’t act according to quantifiable segments,” and that to ask for specifics, actual points that might be discussed and tested, is itself a sign of “white privilege,” especially when such questions are asked with “lethal intensity.”
Kafkatrap!
I saw this clip last night. Slavery as permanent trump card, no matter how many generations have passed since it was abolished. Reminds me of an online argument I once had with a dissident Irish republican. Every grievance he brought up, I pointed out had been done away with decades ago. Finally, he says “what about the 800 years of occupation and oppression?” What, you’re going to keep fighting until those 800 years never happened?
Kafkatrap!
Well, quite. As so often, if you pay attention to the various participants’ tendency to evasion, misconstrual, repeated interruption and other bad faith tactics, you may well notice a difference in how either side of the debate feels happy to behave. And what’s remarkable is just how blatant and shameless these tactics can be. For instance, in the clip above, when Ms Goldberg is asked a specific question – one that she would presumably struggle to answer – she announces that she will first address some other, unrelated point, after which the actual question is ignored, as if it had never been asked. This happens more than once.
But this is who they are. This is what they’re accustomed to getting away with.
How do you ask a question with “lethal intensity”?
How do you ask a question with “lethal intensity”?
Heh. I think the message being sent is something like, “If you ask me to be specific and substantiate my claims I will imply that your line of questioning encourages violence against minorities.”
The audience poll is encouraging.
It’s faintly surreal, watching hustlers denouncing the “privilege” and “entitlement” of people who dare to ask what exactly it is they’re being accused of. Because accusing others of some collective, racial sin that is never-quite-defined but which nonetheless invalidates any argument the accused might present, isn’t in any way a privilege or sign of entitlement.
I quite like the closing summary by Stephen Fry, a self-described “soft lefty,” who refers to the “huckstering, snail-oil pulpit talk” of, shall we say, certain participants.
Peterson’s a “mean white man” because he refuses to accept the unearned guilt that the SJWs are trying to impose on him and because he won’t play their stupid games (which always
seem togo only one way).How about a post on the gaslighting going on regarding Trump’s “animals” comment?
How about a post on the gaslighting going on regarding Trump’s “animals” comment?
I don’t have much to add to what’s already been said by others.
https://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-religion-of-racism.html
through twisted reasoning and emotional abuse,
The second of those bears repeating. It also, I think, explains much of the appeal for devotees.
Dr. Dyson seems to have shown up for the wrong debate, and Ms. Goldberg is as addled on the stage as she is at the NYT.
I’m surprised at how far from the alleged topic the proceedings went, in part because the host never set out exactly what PC means. It isn’t substituting a less direct word in the interests of people’s feelings (e.g., mentally challenged vs. retard); rather it is the putting — always by progressives — of certain topics beyond the realm of allowed discourse. Attendant with that, of course, is a great deal of circular logic and arrogance: progressive opinions are correct because progressives think them, and therefore anyone who disagrees is ignorant, stupid, or evil.
The perfect example is the James Damore schlamozzle. Voice an opinion contrary to what progressives allow. First comes the mob, as ignorant as it is censorious, then, poof, job gone. First demonize, then ostracize. That is PC, and how it is enforced.
Whether Damore’s viewpoint was valid (which it was, in spades) is utterly beside the point. Orthodoxy must be obeyed.
Why neither Peterson nor Fry put it that plainly is a bit of a mystery to me.
Does the West’s special forces community know about manifesting our privilege with lethal intensity? How many billions have we wasted on guns and tanks and planes and ships and bombs, when we could be smiting our enemies by simply asking questions with lethal intensity?!?!
I can’t help but to sometimes wonder if some of the more obviously intelligent race-baiters like Dyson are secretly trying to undermine the agenda of the Left: certainly they are preaching to their choir, but they are absolutely alienating everyone else with the inanity of their “arguments.”
Dr Dyson also informs the audience that “white privilege doesn’t act according to quantifiable segments,” and that to ask for specifics, actual points that might be discussed and tested, is itself a sign of “white privilege,”
Assertions are made, and are claimed to be incontrovertibly true, but any demand for evidence is dismissed and condemned.
Where have I heard that before? 🙂
It isn’t substituting a less direct word in the interests of people’s feelings (e.g., mentally challenged vs. retard); rather it is the putting — always by progressives — of certain topics beyond the realm of allowed discourse…
Very much related…
what PC means
Leftists (and liberal Useful Idiots) still assert that Political Correctness is not a real thing but instead is an invention of the paranoid Right. The boldness of such lies is amazing.
I’m surprised at how far from the alleged topic the proceedings went
I’m not. These debates happen in my neck of the woods, and frankly I don’t know how they’re allowed to continue. Any time they get a remotely contentious topic like this, the progressive side gets absolutely destroyed by the traditionalist side. Not because the traditionalists are right (although as a traditionalist myself, of course I think they are) but because the traditionalists actually show up prepared with facts and references and to debate the issue. The progressives just sit back and utter smug inanities like they’re winning. Mark Steyn absolutely devastated his opposition in the Munk Debate on immigration, and won the after-debate audience poll by a landslide. In Canada.
It isn’t substituting a less direct word in the interests of people’s feelings (e.g., mentally challenged vs. retard)
Which never works. The problem is that progressives actually believe the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. “Mentally challenged”, “Special education”, “Differently abled” eventually come to mean the same thing as “retard” because it’s not the word that’s bad, it’s the disability it describes, and everyone knows that.
“Slavery as permanent trump card, no matter how many generations have passed since it was abolished.”
Well, okay then. If that’s how they want to play it…
It could be argued that it was the desire to destroy this practice at its root – the slave trade within Africa – which led ultimately to the end of the Atlantic trade. The fact that the Barbary pirates were finally subdued around the late 18th/early 19th Centuries, just as abolitionism began to gain traction in the British Empire, is surely too neat to be coincidental.
But that would spoil the narrative of European original sin. And this is the really important point: it’s not simply that Britain saw the error of its ways, abolishing the slave trade out of some kind of guilty conscience (and in the end managed to convince America); the British Empire was the first civilization to recognise that slavery is wrong in the first place, not just for its own people, but in principle. That’s our idea, and without it there would be no guilt, just as the Berbers, the Ottomans, the Arabs, and the West Africans felt no guilt in taking slaves for themselves.
Talk about cultural appropriation…
Ms. Goldberg and Dr. Dyson seemed to think the debate topic was whether or not Dr. Peterson is “a mean, white man” since they repeatedly turned to personal attacks on his character.
Usually when I watch debates like this, I end up with more respect for all the participants. Even when I vehemently disagree. I remember a debate with Sally Kohn where, though her ideas were idiotic, she came across as a person I wouldn’t mind having lunch with. This one made me despise both members of the pro-PC side. I’m sure Dr. Dyson would argue that makes me a mean, white man.
This is what they’re accustomed to getting away with.
That.
…and that to ask for specifics, actual points that might be discussed and tested, is itself a sign of “white privilege”
Ah yes, another one of those immutable laws that liberals love inventing, right up there with “minorities can never be guilty of racism.”
That.
And remember, Dr Dyson is an educator, a professor of sociology. His is the standard of debate that, for students, will be deemed good enough.
Pst314: “…any demand for evidence is dismissed and condemned.”
Generally with the label “denial”.
Daniel: yes, in Canada. Don’t fall for the Authorized Version of Canada peddled by the Ceeb and the Toronto Star. Remember instead this exchange from the Italian campaign:
German officer: “Surrender, brave English gentlemen! You are surrounded and will only die.”
H&PER private: “We ain’t English. We ain’t gentlemen. And we’ll be damned if we’ll surrender!”
“We ain’t English. We ain’t gentlemen. And we’ll be damned if we’ll surrender!”
Sounds like fun!
Details?
I must admit while watching that “debate” the bile was rising in my throat.
At what point do people just call out these scumbags for what they are?
To see Dr J., a man of genuine integrity, having to deal with a mendacious moron with such a lack of humanity and humility, is frustrating.
Dyson isn’t worthy to lick Dr J.s shoes.
Everything you need to know about political correctness is contained in the difference between:
“I disagree with you and here’s why”
“I disagree with you and you shouldn’t be allowed to say that”
Also the debate was of very poor quality, even from the side I agree with.
What a laughable fraud. And what’s worse than jumped up word vomiter Dyson and the 85 IQ Goldberg’s spontaneous claptrap? In these prestigious “Monk Debates”?
That this insanity constitutes debate from the right.
This is why Peterson is going to flame out: he’s furthering the right’s co-dependence with this manic bullshit he’s putting up with and he’s helping his and the right’s endless, subsequent defeat thereby. He’s one man in the functional passive self-victimization that defines the entire modern right.
There’s one pertinent reply for these cretins – Peterson has precisely one recourse. Rhetorically slam them against the well for their baldfaced, projected, childish envy (with apologies to children) and never them back on their feet. Are they proving anything less than that? Isn’t that the core of this “argument” they’ve been granted by some perversion of normality? Is Peterson going to reason with these professional freaks by some other means than identifying what’s really going on here?
Then why do they have a voice anywhere near civilized, rational, ethical humanity?
No wonder he’s pissed. He’s let them into the tent.
ok, that clip is enough I don’t know if I could watch the whole debate and have my computer intact at the end.
Peterson is a better person than I, I would have gone WF Buckley on him by telling him if he ever repeated that line again I would knock his teeth down his throat.
Peterson’s opponents are simply incoherent. They try to use bafflegab and bumper-sticker slogans as arguments which plainly they are not. Since they have nothing coherent to say they use what is essentially a knock-over-the-chessboard tactic to render the playing field so confused that they don’t have to defend any substantive position. When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the subject.
Hal:
Late 1944, I believe, at Santa Maria de Scacciano. Hastings & Prince Edward Regiment, from eastern Ontario. It’s in their war diary.
It took one Canadian to show a nation to the south how its normie boomer class of “conservatives” lost a nation through sloth and reaction. Those Peterson ticket sales? Those polls of audiences coming out overwhelmingly pro-Jordan? Not normie boomer rightists.
Not even normie rightist’s kids. That’s another generation entirely that also elected the Accidental President, who, as the ideologically impure, former Democrat, New Yawk secprogg, not-Ted-Cruz embarrassment actually defunded the abortion mills and dismantled the corruption and deregulated Leviathan and made a border and whose justice exposed some of the swamp and who appointed a somewhat constitutional Justice and who at least addressed the symptoms of the trade impact of paper money.
The normie boomer right didn’t do that. Not in its entire lifetime and that of its Congresses the regular right didn’t do that. It was too busy lifestyle-signalling at the left’s electric cars and vegans until one day a rather weak sauce Lone Canadian, love him that I do, came along and got paid a lot of money on the Internet by a whole ‘nother class of desperate and deracinated class that simply recognized unmitigated bullshit for what it was instead of always reacting to it and doing nothing.
And the biggest hit? Could be that when Petersen wrongly suggests that individualism is the answer – and is accidentally but correctly dinged for it by the execrable Dyson to then spend much of this travesty of a “debate” looking at the floor – he’s citing more rightism, rightism that believes in equality and diversity and soft borders and dumb slogans on liberty statues in harbors.
That same right stood by while its largest American state was taken over by foreigners. It stood by while for decades its schools, media, welfare systems, medicine, and retirement funds were socialized.
Much of it still believes in the great restorative powers of pure Congresses filled with all its one-hit miracles like Little Marco and gigantic Christie and pure POTUSes like Jesus Cruz that never really pan out because their ideological purity is never enough or they have the political brass of a thumbtack and the integrity of gum. You could say that the “right” lost a nation out of its own feckless individualism.
It might be time to for us normie boomer rightists to rethink this thing; to rethink this thing and then erect a hundred Petersons who are even more Peterson than Peterson.
Why neither Peterson nor Fry put it that plainly is a bit of a mystery to me.
Because they’re sufficiently captured by the leftist mindset so as to be charitable to their debate opponents and their motives. Both of them, Fry especially, are too afraid of what others will say. They might be called racist, homophobic, or some other claptrap if they engage with the base assumptions of progressivism.
accusing others of some collective, racial sin that is never-quite-defined but which nonetheless invalidates any argument the accused might present,
That’s all Dyson does through the ‘debate’.
That’s all Dyson does through the ‘debate’.
And this pernicious, immoral, stupefying horseshit isn’t some random aberration or fit of brain fever. In the Clown Quarter, where our betters-to-be credential themselves, it’s very much in fashion and the measure of being woke.
As a debate, a reciprocal exchange, the event went about as badly as you might imagine, with the ostensible topic only touched on intermittently, not least because of Dyson’s weird compulsion to make everything about race and proprietary victimhood. But as a demonstration of the ‘progressive’ identitarianism currently in fashion, of habitual projection, and of the feebleness and incoherence of what passes for wokeness, it served a kind of purpose. It was, I think, telling that the champion of political correctness was the one reduced to making inappropriate gay jokes.
But then Dyson relied quite heavily on doublethink – for instance, the bizarre claim that you can’t treat black people as individuals unless you first think of them as an interchangeable pile of victims with no agency of their own. And then there was the spectacle of both Dyson and Goldberg insisting that people shouldn’t be worried by the ascendancy of censoriousness, intersectional tribalism and other leftist conceits, while endorsing almost every leftwing conceit that a sane person might worry about, or be wronged by, or just find repulsive.
Don’t fall for the Authorized Version of Canada peddled by the Ceeb and the Toronto Star.
While it’s a cliche that Toronto considers itself the center of the Universe, the fact is that demographically it is Canada. One-sixth of the country’s population lives in that conurbation, and broadly agrees with the Authorized Version of Canada. Now, that’s largely because they’ve never been exposed to any other way of looking at major political and social issues, but it’s their default mode of thought. When people like Peterson and Steyn can dominate an audience despite the usual “Scary Conservative with a Hidden Agenda” mudslinging from their opponents, there’s been a sea change.
As I said, I don’t know why these debates are allowed to continue.
Dyson’s weird compulsion to make everything about race and proprietary victimhood.
Stealing that.
proprietary victimhood
Note that, at the end of the Stephen Fry clip linked upthread, during the closing comments, in which Fry draws attention to Dyson’s hucksterism, Dyson responds, inevitably, by insinuating a racist motive on Fry’s part and then rambling, hyperbolically and at length, about how victimised he is. And then the terminally inadequate Ms Goldberg simply lies about what Peterson said, before, again, invoking victimhood and implying that all feelings should be treated as of inherently equal merit, and valid by default, except those of white people. Whose feelings are somehow uniquely entitled and suspicious.
As I said, I don’t know why these debates are allowed to continue.
Because JBP, for one, is not right-wing. He calls himself a classical (English) liberal, and considers himself a man of the left, who has worked in the past for the UN to promote mass immigration – namely, their Agenda 2030 document:
“The universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of migrants must be respected. These migrants make a positive economic contribution to their host countries, by building up their labour force” -Agenda 2030
“I worked on the UN Secretary-General’s High Panel for Sustainability Report that was delivered, I believe, in 2013, and rewrote the underlying narrative to strip out most of the ideological claptrap” -JBP, The Dark Room Podcast, October 2016
Perhaps these debates are allowed to continue because it’s a case of the Bolsheviks fighting the Mensheviks, but it’s being told as the Bolsheviks fighting the reactionaries. Whether the Bolsheviks or the Approved Opposition wins, the result will be the same.
Dyson’s weird compulsion to make everything about race and proprietary victimhood.
There is nothing weird about it, it is how he makes his living, just as does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, TaNehisi Coates, DeRay McKesson, and so on, along with their “white allies”. It is a con as old as the republic and described by none other than Booker T. Washington:
There is nothing weird about it, it is how he makes his living, just as does Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, TaNehisi Coates…
Well, yes. But it seemed important to draw attention to how forced and inapt his race hustling was, and how monotonous. At times, it seemed no more relevant than some crazy guy banging on about the merits of porcelain shoes.
What Ten said. Times eleven.
But it seemed important to draw attention to how forced and inapt his race hustling was, and how monotonous.
No argument there, but when, with this sort, is it not ? I particularly enjoyed his repeated condescending “mmmmmmm, mmmmmmm” over Peterson whenever he tried to make a point, always an effective argument. The difficulty is, as always, you and I and everyone here will see that, but his acolytes will see the whole debate as him sticking it to The Man™.
I am all in favor of Darleen’s suggestion that anyone engaging theses fools go Buckley on them but that, of course, would be racist too.
It was dissapointing that nobody called out one of the most egregious claims, made by both Dyson and Goldberg, that the existance of PC is only called out when the oppressors have lost their absolute power. They should read “The Joke” by Milan Kundera, whereby the teller of a mild joke ends up in the gulag. Try telling a gag about the Great Leader on North Korea – your family will join you in the forced labour camp. But of course Orwell got there first in “1984”.
Fry was the only one that clearly identified the stultifying nature of PC. I get this every day in my workplace. If I was to honestly express some of my political and social views, I would be a pariah. And I have to keep a tight rein on my sense of humour.
That same right stood by while its largest American state was taken over by foreigners. It stood by while for decades its schools, media, welfare systems, medicine, and retirement funds were socialized.
Terms like “right” and “left” are meaningless. The true currency of the political class is power. Ever more of it must be obtained, and once obtained, it must be preserved. Thus, we have Republicans voting for trillion dollar, deficit financed budgets, maintaining the abomination of the ACA, and a thousand other statist policies. The nominal right is quite happy to see these programs enacted and preserved because said programs are useful tools in its own pursuit of power. That is, all politics and all politicians are authoritarian in their temperament. Establish all the “checks and balances” you want, but from the get-go, politicians will begin to dismantle them because they have no disincentive not to. All the partisan preening is merely theater to keep the plebes entertained while they pursue their true goals.
That’s another generation entirely that also elected the Accidental President, who, as the ideologically impure, former Democrat, New Yawk secprogg, not-Ted-Cruz embarrassment . . .
And see, this.
“They might be called racist, homophobic, or some other claptrap if they engage with the base assumptions of progressivism.”
I think this was posted at Ace’s and it’s absolutely true:
“People who don’t care about politics pick their politics according to the quite-rational criterion of which politics will result in them being bothered, bullied and ostracized the least.”
Which side is it again that engages in non-stop bothering, bullying and ostracization?
The difficulty is, as always, you and I and everyone here will see that, but his acolytes will see the whole debate as him sticking it to The Man™.
I suppose so, yes. You can’t solve stupid.
But judging by the Twitter feed of “soft lefty” Stephen Fry, a good number of his followers weren’t at all impressed by Dyson’s arguments, tactics or personality. Some formed an opinion of Dyson much like my own – i.e., of a nasty, incompetent sophist, a man accustomed to getting away with second-rate race-hustling. And more specifically, someone who’s learned that modish and ponderous words can be a tool for racist browbeating, even when used almost randomly. Some of Mr Fry’s followers may even have realised that the performance they watched wasn’t some outlier, but par for the course.
Meanwhile, “Real” Socialism.
It’s time to regard the progressive left as a disorder. Not rhetorically, actually. It’s at that point that they cease to be and the ostensible right can get back to relearning the principles it forgot, a talent scores of non-rightists practice far, far better than it.
Otherwise? Co-dependency.
Maybe it is just me, but as Dyson’s rants went on, the members of the audience within camera range started giving each other side glances. At one point I could swear I heard an almost collective intake of breath, and not in a good way.
Seemed like he managed to alienate almost the whole house.
I’ve said it before. Politicians on the left promise to use the power of the state to improve life for the disadvantaged, and politicians on the right promise to shrink the state and get out of our lives, but in power, both use the state to enrich their friends.
Although to be honest, I’d prefer routine petty corruption to the prospect of a true believer like John McDonnell with his hands on the levers of power.
a true believer like John McDonnell
Speaking of whom.
“a mean, mad, white man”
Aren’t the first two adjectives redundant when followed by “white man”?
The grammar of racist invective – I mean political correctness – can be confusing.
Seemed like he managed to alienate almost the whole house.
Well, he isn’t the most charming creature to stumble across the Earth. And I suspect that this kind of racial browbeating and theatrical victimology works best when there’s some other leverage in play – in a classroom, where grades may be at stake, or at some mandatory workplace “diversity training.” In a mixed crowd and free from peer pressure and the usual forms of censure, it just looks obnoxious, pretentious and wearying.
Some formed an opinion of Dyson much like my own – i.e., of a nasty, incompetent sophist, a man accustomed to getting away with second-rate race-hustling.
Compare and contrast.
What, you’re going to keep fighting until those 800 years never happened?
Heh, nice one!
That was one of the most frustrating “debates” I’ve ever watched. Dyson’s a one-trick-pony. Back when I had a television (and I’m sure even today), one could regularly see him on the political shouting matches spouting his hustle play to the ignorant marks watching.
Peterson kept asking his “opponents” (and I put that within quotation marks because to not do so would give Dyson and Goldberg more than they deserve) when would they say that the Left had gone too far, and the question never was answered. Oh, Goldberg eventually vomited up some mealy-mouthed verbal pig’s breakfast about violence. Under that measure, the Left has already gone too far (witness, to choose but one example, Cal-Berkeley when Milo (Can’t spell his last name) showed up.
the bizarre claim that you can’t treat black people as individuals unless you first think of them as an interchangeable pile of victims with no agency of their own.
Logic is hard.
It was, I think, telling that the champion of political correctness was the one reduced to making inappropriate gay jokes.
When you really *care* about minorities… 🙂
When you really *care* about minorities… 🙂
Well, quite. I’m not necessarily put out by gay jokes – I’ve heard one or two belters – but given the context, it was bizarrely inapt – and naff. It was so tone deaf and incongruous that Peterson looked across at Fry as if to say, “What the hell is going on?” And it did rather suggest that the piety being professed, all that gushing sensitivity, may not be entirely sincere.
Would you like to make a statement before your sentence is carried out?
“lethal intensity”
This is, of course, a rhetorical device to justify violent suppression of dissent. Let’s treat Dyson as the enemy of civilization that he is.
And it did rather suggest that the piety being professed, all that gushing sensitivity, may not be entirely sincere.
These aren’t your amateur empathizers who just have warm feelings towards humanity. Professional-level empathizers are licensed to judge who doesn’t deserve empathy. Competitive callousness is where the fun and profit is for the pro-empathizer.
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2018/01/elsewhere-261.html
20-year Milgram Experiment, where the meta-message inside political correctness is to override your own judgement
Try at least 40 years. It was that far back that they told me that the US Civil War was NOT about slavery. Or at least that is what we were told to write on the big test if we wanted to get credit for knowing anything about the most prominent conflict in our nation’s history.
“Milo (Can’t spell his last name)”
It’s Yanny-something. Or Laurel.
More Jordan Peterson…
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/21/the-left-and-the-right-arent-hearing-the-same-jordan-peterson/
US higher education doubles down on stupid…
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10920
And then the terminally inadequate Ms Goldberg simply lies about what Peterson said,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhl5yeZlltI
And she writes for the NYT.
And she writes for the NYT.
Heh. Thanks for that. And so we have to wonder whether Ms Goldberg, our statusful columnist and “senior correspondent” with a degree in journalism from Berkeley, is an incompetent giggling ditz, or a liar. Though I suppose it could be both.
And she writes for the NYT.
I’m now imagining the possible excuses. “I, a professional journalist with a degree in journalism from Berkeley, didn’t actually bother to watch the interview that I referred to repeatedly during a public debate and cited with great enthusiasm, and in which both the interviewer and interviewee make clear, pointedly and repeatedly – at least three times – that Peterson didn’t say what I, a professional journalist and self-styled upholder of good manners, claimed he said.”
Of course the acid test of Ms Goldberg’s integrity, such as it may be, is how she responds to the dozens of people who’ve tweeted her with proof of this, shall we say, error. Will there be a retraction, an admission of ineptness, an apology to Peterson?
Four days in and nothing so far.
Post updated.
ZeroFox Given attempts to parse the ramblings of Michael Dyson.
Inappropriate gay jokes.
A display of raw power. I can say these things, you cannot.
So Dyson’s point is that since Jordan Peterson is doing very well as an author pointing out problems in society then there is nothing to worry about?
Peterson isn’t pointing out the problems with his own life, he is pointing out the problems with society.
And why can’t we make gay jokes?
Maybe some gays like humour.
“Inappropriate Gay Jokes”
Band name?
Band name?
It’s certainly a name that’s easier to say to my mother than “The Butthole Surfers”:
“I thought you were going to that new movie with your friends.”
“We’ve put it off to Sunday because Carl backed out to see the Butthole Surfers.”
“…”
Inappropriate gay jokes.
