Aftermath of the bigoted channel 4 interview and other sensationalist muckrakers.

[igualitarist]

Jorden Peterson should be arrested for hate speech and sicking his Alt-Right goons to harass Cathy Newman. No more platforms for Fascists like Peterson.

Sorry, but fortunately the world isn't a big Berkeley

[Fitheach]

Sorry, but fortunately the world isn't a big Berkeley

Sadly it isn't. It is filled instead with a lot of Crypto-Fascists and their cowardly enablers who are to busy trying not to stand for anything to call them out.

[The Penguin]

Sadly it isn't. It is filled instead with a lot of Crypto-Fascists and their cowardly enablers who are to busy trying not to stand for anything to call them out.

I think your confused. Berkeley is one of the biggest hotbeds of intolerance and fascism known to man.

Thank god their stupidity is confined principally to California.

[Arrkon]

I've never been more excited by a thread on this website than I am for this one.

So many people not even bothering to watch the interview.
So many people straight up making things up.
So many people participating in the cognitive dissonance the interviewee experienced, produced by the internal conflict of "This persons logic is irrefutable, but my beliefs prevent me from accepting it's reality".

It's delicious.

I wonder if there is a scientific explanation to why the loudest and most opinionated people get such a kick off of this endless moral pissing contest.

[D3thray]

For the Jordan Peterson is a fascist waste of flesh crowd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ER1LOarlgg

For the Cathy Newman was just constantly attacking Jordan crowd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuPiSyV2UoU

Don't assume the worst of people you disagree with, the truth is usually far more mundane.

[Izalla]

He didn't actually say that; that was interviewer's claim he actually denied.

He just said that similar mechanisms can (and do) contribute to human hierarchies. Aren't the only reason for them, but, as far as i see, in theoretical "freedom-of-opportunity" ideal-society Peterson would assume that hierarchies will, naturally, still be present.

Not because it is right, but because it uses natural structures of human society with natural inclinations and preferences.

You could conceivably replace them with more complex social constructs that would avoid hierarchies in current advanced human society; result wouldn't be natural, however, and would necessarily require repression of those natural tendencies.

He even went on to say that it was evidence that society is not organized in the way it is because of a patriarchal conspiracy, and yet people are still trying to twist it in the same way the interviewer did. Amazing.

Also to anyone saying that Jordan Peterson refuses to call trans people by their preferred pronouns and are defending that by saying stuff about biology and facts, the man even says in the damn interview that he calls people what they prefer to be called. He's never spoken out against trans people like that. The only things I've ever seen him argue against, are being forced to call people what they want under threat of legal action (and it's only about pronouns because that's what the law itself was about, but apply it to forcing you to say or not say anything and he'd be saying the same damn stuff about it), and being expected to use the myriad of words people are using for people who consider themselves gender neutral (such as xer). He also has argued against saying "they" because it is a word that is meant for plural, not singular, which is his easiest to refute point because we use they all the time to refer to someone if we don't know their sex/gender or don't want to be specific about it.

Stop trying to lump him in with Ben Shapiro and his views on trans people, both sides goddamnit. And stop trying to use the lobster thing against him as if he didn't explain himself ENTIRELY right after she posed that stupid question to him.

[Northy]

Shame, should have been reversed. Just let Peterson talk, and people will hate him without the need for an interviewer to ask questions.

Peterson is a waste of flesh.

You seem unpleasant.

[Deleted]

The Interview is... yeah, IMHO it speaks for itself. One thing actually did surprise me, the News Network didn't edit anything. No Cuts at all. Just uploaded the whole shot to their YT-Channel, and left the comments open. May seem like that should be the minimum standard, but it is not.

I wasn't surprised that Internet Troll Brigade would be out in full force, didn't take long. More than I expected though, and sadly, it was mostly petty gloating. The old proverb "The laugh is always on the loser." came to mind. While this is not on Peterson - he is only responsible for his own actions, not for others - it gave the "Victory" a very bitter taste. Of course, not all comments on various social media platforms were like that, there were in fact a lot of measured discussions going on. As always, the loudest and shrillest voice gets noticed more. Peterson talked about this on his Interview on GeenStijl, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6qBxn_hFDQ. He didn't want that outcome, and regrets having used the "gotcha" phrase. But hindsight is 20/20, isn't it?

After this, the Press did their take on it. There have been neutral articles, ones in favor of him, and ones against him. And a lot of "news-reporter gets PWND" Videos. Ugh. Memes can be fun and clever commentary, but there is a point when there are too many (We are way past that point) and just boring.

All in all, it feels like listening to a bunch of sport fans, bickering over their favourite teams .

[Deleted]

He's abusive because he insists on misgendering people, which is abusive behaviour. The only thing people are trying to "force" him to do is stop that abusive behaviour.

God damn, man. I wanted to read the rest, but that's some rot right there.

Misgendering? How can you misgender something that has a fluid othergender?

[Deleted]

It's amazing how dense some people are. Look past your nose for a few minutes.

Get off it and start considering where you'll be when you can't guess the genders right.

[h4rr0d]

That's not what's going to happen though. What Peterson was able to say, he supported with logic and has the research to prove the stuff he is saying. I thought the dude was a bigot before I decided to pay him some attention after watching that interview. Watched a few of his lectures, and I don't get why people hate him so much outside of that he's deconstructing the philosophy behind the social justice aspect of the left. Peterson is injecting a lot of logic back into the conversation, and I think that's a good thing. What needs to happen is that there needs to be a candid debate with him, and other intellectuals who have a different perspective than his. It's a shame that no one is willing to have that conversation. It's hard to believe he's such a horrible person when he clearly states his views and backs up things he says with empirical data.

I don't believe that is ever going to happen for exactly the reasons you stated. While he has the empirical data to fall back on, left wing plays emotions and calls you names as soon as you start proving them wrong. The reason for this is, that most leftist agenda is idealistic ... stuff, that crumbles to dust the second you start confronting it with the reality of everyday life.

[Deleted]

So what you are saying, is women shouldn't be allowed to own themselves?

I don't usually like you, but you're hitting all the thematic notes to get the whole symphony sing.

[Deleted]

I was expecting something from Channel 4 in UK, disappointed

I was expecting something from Channel 4 in UK, disappointment.

Fixed that for you.

[Deleted]

I won’t be anywhere bad because I can accept those who are different than me. I’ve never cared about forcing people to conform to my preconceived notions. If I make an error I can graciously accept that I was wrong. There’s nothing wrong with evolving socially. Hell, I may be looked down upon by future generations for my ignorance in handling these types of things, but at least I am open to learning to not be insensitive.

Why would I try to force someone to be something they aren’t? Just so a few bigots can feel more comfortable?

That's exactly what you're defending here. The ability to cause a witch-hunt for not guessing an imaginary gender properly. Can you read, or are you just so violently ill in the head you would've been thrown out of society in a more civilized time?

The othergenders here ARE the bigots trying to force others to conform. Otherwise they could just act like a real person and ASK you to call them by a different pronoun, not be an extorting little bitch.

[Venant]

I understand what you're saying here and I even agree with it.

I have two fundamental disagreements though.

1. Just because something is natural does not mean it is desirable. For example, for a male, it is evolutionarily advantageous for him to rape every single female he comes across. I think you can make a strong argument though, that there are a lot of valid reasons to not do that. It's an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

I think you have taken the observation of a phenomenon existing out of context and assumed that I meant that its benefit comes from the fact that it exists in nature. I am not saying that in-group preference is 'good' because it is 'natural', I am saying that it exists and gives massive advantages to those who engage in it.

2. Yes, morals are subjective. There's an infinite amount of interpretations of a finite set of phenomena. Or as David Hume put it, you cannot get an ought from an is. However, there are a finite number of valid interpretations. That is, interpretations that don't lead to extinction. I also think you can use a combination of virtue ethics, phenomenology and pragmatism to reach moral judgments that pretty soundly defeat moral relativism. The example I like to use, is that you can interpret pain as a moral good, but even if that is your subjective interpretation, if I smack one of your teeth with a hammer, you will very quickly be looking for the pain pills and the phone number of the nearest dentist. Your own actions betray your subjective ideas. You can claim pain is good all you want, but when push comes to shove you don't really believe it. That bit of phenomenology leads us to the conclusion that pain is bad; or put less obtusely, unnecessary pain, pain that doesn't produce a desirable benefit is bad. If pain is bad, then it's logical to say that the opposite of pain is good. This leads me to the conclusion that the amelioration of pain is virtuous. You could counter that by saying that you claim that for yourself but not others, the amelioration of your pain is virtuous but not the pain of others. This is where pragmatism comes in. I can't say that's an invalid way to think, but if you propagate that way of thinking, you will eventually find yourself face to face with someone tougher than you that also has no moral regard for your pain, and that's not gonna go well for you.

It's for those reasons that I could never call myself alt-right. Their goals violate my personal ethics.

That bit of phenomenology leads us to the conclusion that pain is bad; or put less obtusely, unnecessary pain, pain that doesn't produce a desirable benefit is bad.

Your argument is flawed, but it is most flawed at this point where you make a universal claim. You could just invert your entire argument and say 'I think rape is good. I went out and raped somebody and it gave me great pleasure. Therefore through a bit of phenomenology, we come to the conclusion that it is always good to rape.'

Of course, my inversion flips the action from being something that is done to you with something you are doing to others. This is far more useful than assuming that you are the victim who is having things done to you, because power is something that changes people, and history has shown that people who go from being victims to having power almost universally change their views of morality. Such a way of thinking practically dooms you to becoming corrupt as soon as you gain power over others.

I agree that labels like 'alt-right' aren't useful for the discussion of ideas among individuals. What I think you fail to realize is that you are trapped in the Overton window of a dominant culture. This forum is an interesting reflection of that, when you consider the seemingly arbitrary things that you aren't allowed to discuss on here, you realize that the control of these parameters of discussion is completely intentional. It is also interesting to note that Trump has caused such severe derangement among adherents to this system because he has chipped away at their control over this window, and thus he is an existential threat.

The truth is that there are certain questions that cannot be allowed under the current system because those questions will literally destroy the foundations of the system itself. You have to ask yourself whether such a system is based upon rationality, and whether you will push to end that system if it is irrational.

[Deleted]

The biggest issue with this is that as you develop a more complex mind, the capacity for instinct to drive behaviour lessens, and the opportunity for non-hereditary culture to emerge.

The biggest issue with it is you fail to recognize that inability to follow instinctual behaviour patterns will still cause cognitive dissonance if you override them with cognition. Like Peterson said, change the biology before you change the culture that's been built on top of that culture.

And if you change your own personal biology don't expect people to first of all know it beforehand and secondly for them to be punished if you decorated your gilded gelt in a way that wasn't instantly recognizable much less along the traditional gender divide.

[Knolan]

When I saw the memes on 9gag I was sure they would go for the victim narrative.

The problem here is that, as always, people will not see the interview (which take a lot of time) and believe whatever it is written in the news (which takes far less time) and then believe they are the intellectuals because they spent 5 minutes reading the news.

If you haven't seen it, go watch it, it is a great interview.

[Venant]

I never claimed universal morality, not by a long shot. I'm simply pointing out that you appear to be trying to justify racism, xenophobia, and thought policing. Instead of addressing those questions, you sought to try and say such terms were meaningless, and it was a clear attempt to dodge.

When it comes to justifying, and even propping up racism, then you really are going for the bottom of the barrel. You are not persecuted, that is what you seek to do to others. Trying to label yourself as a victim, the target of some conspiracy and mass hysteria... is ludicrous.

You are invoking universal morality by using the terms 'racism' and 'xenophobia'. Its like you are telling an Atheist that God isn't happy with him because he is 'sinning'.

In the end, you are trying to justify racism and xenophobia, no amount of deflection is going to change that.

Thats a pretty big claim to make without ever making an argument and just repeating 2 words over and over again.

[Deleted]

Thats a pretty big claim to make without ever making an argument and just repeating 2 words over and over again.

Better yet, he thinks he's winning because of it. Soon he'll start projecting again, then insult you and vanish.

[Astalnar]

Can i get a tldr. I don't keep up with random internet drama very well.

Dr. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and a professor form University of Toronto who was invited to an interview with Cathy Newman in order to promote his new book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote for Chaos. From the get-go it was obvious they just wanted to ambush Peterson with the classic feminist gotcha questions. But it didn't work, as in the 30 minute interview Peterson calmly dismantled every claim the interviewer put forward, and demonstraded how and why is it wrong. The original video was published on youtube by Channel 4, and as of right now it has around 3.5 million views, and a comment section that in vast majority agrees with Peterson. Any other video from that channel has somewhere between 5k to 50k views in total.

As Channel 4 didn't like how their journalist was put to shame on live television, and Newman was turned into a meme with her "so you're saying" they tried to spin the story how they had to call in a security expert because of all the "threats" Newman got after the interview aired, all while forgetting to show any examples of it. And all while tweeting pictures of Newman being all smug about the new victimhood narrative. The story was picked up by Independent, Guardian and others, who tried to denigrate, smear, and disqualify Peterson as alt-right, even though he politically identifies as classical british liberal. All while ignoring the fact, that Newman's fans were actually the ones threatening Peterson.

Here is the link to the original video: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
I recommend watching in full.

Examples of meme magic that is that is so "threatening":