Canada Kicks Ass
Jordan Peterson makes Interviewer look silly


Previous  1  2

Tricks @ Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:29 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
I think Mr. Peterson has performed a public service here. This will have a good deterrant effect on mindless interviewers, I hope. Mind you, it's always good to keep in mind that the qualificaitons required for being a TV interviewer are to be look good on TV.

Fuck I'd rep you if I could. Maybe get someone with a modicum of intelligence if you're going to conduct a hostile interview.


Mowich @ Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:41 pm

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
But we've heard Beave's opinion. Let's hear somebody else's

Don’t Feel Sorry for Cathy Newman, She Deserves the Mockery

By now many on Ricochet will have heard about or seen the now infamous video between Channel 4 “journalist” Cathy Newman and the darling of the new right Jordan Peterson. Channel 4 “news” is like Britain’s version of MSNBC except it, in the condescendingly British way, pretend to be fair and impartial. A lie if ever there was one.

Anyway as Jordan Peterson was on a tour of the UK they perhaps felt he would be good for their ratings to invite him on to discuss topical issues. What happened next is the video that is perhaps one of the greatest takedowns of smug liberal feminism that you will ever see this year. Why Channel 4 news agreed to publish the whole video is beyond me. Perhaps they thought their arch-feminist inquisitor would decimate poor Jordan or that his fans would give them some much-needed internet volume. Their news show is least watched of the big UK channels.

Spoiler alert — that didn’t happen. Instead, Cathy Newman was outclassed, outsmarted, and overpowered by a polite, soft-spoken Canadian who answered every acid-laden question she threw at him and was still respectful to her. It becomes clear to even the most sympathetic viewer that the whole interview was a set-up from early on as she tried — more than once — to trick him into saying something “bigoted” or hateful so Peterson would able to be labeled as at best a fool at worst a far-right bigot. Thankfully Jordan with his politeness and straight-talking not only destroyed her arguments but made it so that the interview backfired on her. So much so that the brilliant English conservative journalist Douglas Murray said she should take out a super-injunction on the video.

Its normal under some circumstances now to feel pity for her. But most Americans and those outside Britain should not fall for such pity. Cathy Newman has a history of doing the above stunts to politicians or people she disagrees with politically and launching attacks on those with different opinions to her.



PluggyRug @ Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:46 pm

Another Peterson put down which the Liberal sheep will try to spin.


BartSimpson @ Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:15 pm

What I saw in that video was Cathy Newman repeatedly trying to play that stupid fucking game of the left where they make shit up, outrage themselves, and then expect the target of their "So you're saying" game to defend something they never said.

Peterson totally fucking owned her leftist ass on this. He never let her get away with it even once!


And then he truly upped the ante by calling her out on her anti-freedom of speech position by noting that she was using her freedom of speech to deliberately offend Peterson!

Well done, sir! R=UP


BeaverFever @ Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:26 pm

Coach85 Coach85:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
No, I addressed that false argument directly in my previous post. See my comment where I say “All that matters is that a policy or practice disproportionately disadvantages one group.” Some women are rewarded for “better than a typical women“ and aren’t mistreated. Some men are punished for being “no better than a typical woman “ Doesn’t mean the typical women in the workplace aren’t being treated unfairly. The opposite in fact.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, I'll refer to the clinical psychologist on this.

It’s not a matter for clinical psychologist. The psychology profession is not involved in identifying or adjudicating cases of discrimination. And it’s not “my opinion”. People can and do win judgments in a Court of law, no psychologists involved.

Here’s the definition of discrimination:
a) Defining discrimination
Discrimination is not defined in the Code but usually includes the following elements:

not individually assessing the unique merits, capacities and circumstances of a person
instead, making stereotypical assumptions based on a person’s presumed traits
having the impact of excluding persons, denying benefits or imposing burdens.

Many people wrongly think that discrimination does not exist if the impact was not intended, or if there were other factors that could explain a particular situation. In fact, discrimination often takes place without any intent to do harm. And in most cases, there are overlaps between discrimination and other legitimate factors.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
So for one you’re talking about executives not ramk and file employees and secondly even then the female employees often end up earning less and/or getting second- tier leadership roles despite the fact that senior leadership is where we’re LEAST likely to find “agreeable” women given what it takes to get to that level. More than half of Canadian firms have no female executives, only 5% have female CEOs and only 2 of the 100 top paid CEOs are women. I don’t think an ill- proven link to “agreeableness “ is the culprit.

Jordan discusses that point directly. You've made the assumption that women want these top executive jobs. As he discussed, agreeableness is just one of the factors. Like the host, you're focusing on a single point ignoring the rest of what was said.
. I’m using that as example of the flawed and simplistic arguments filled with sweeping generalizations and pseudo-science. Where’s the irrefutable evidence that women are more agreeable than men? Where’s the evidence that the emolyer isnt just using that as an excuse? That’ applies to all sorts if generalizations not just the agreeable. For example: Perhaps yor boss hates Blacks and is determined to pay you less than your white peers and thinks if anyone asks he can explain it away by saying “everyone knows” Blacks simply don’t work as hard as whites and it’s case closed he might not even know he’s biased he just subconsciously judges you more harshly than the others

Why aren't you concerned at the number of men (or lack thereof) in the field of healthcare? Why are there so many more female doctors and nurses? School teachers? Social workers? Psychologists and ironically, HR Managers?
. Well I’m doing my part for the HR managers lol. And doctors are still male dominated. But yeah of course there shouldn’t be any discrimination there either.

Many would assume that men don't enter the field of nursing, for example, because they don't want to. However, if this situation was reversed and it was a woman entering a male-dominated field, the assumption would automatically be that there are sexist barriers, not that they really have no interest.
. There are sexist barriers against men too, including, but not limited to, those caused by other men such as ridiculing male nurses, flight attendants, etc. and the like for doing “women’s work “. Or here’s another sexist barier against men: who would you rather keep your daughter after school, a male teacher or a female teacher? That’s not just women being sexist against men that’s men being sexist against men. It’s nyok either

The point of all this is that we’re not living in a world where men and women are equals. Most of the people who hold power happen to be white males and although individuals from other groups can also succeed and rise through the ranks they can mostly only do so on the terms created by the ruling group. For example, why do you think Mat leave only pays 55% and women have to give up employment insurance on order to claim it? Because none the government decision makers who elected to make it that way were women.


Tricks @ Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:08 pm

BeaverFever BeaverFever:
Where’s the irrefutable evidence that women are more agreeable than men?

Not irrefutable, but it is a studied and documented difference.

Gender differences in personality traits are often characterized in terms of which gender has higher scores on that trait, on average. For example, women are often found to be more agreeable than men (Feingold, 1994; Costa et al., 2001).


BeaverFever @ Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:13 pm

This quote from that study may be the most telling:

Men and women belong to different species and communications between them is still in its infancy. – Bill Cosby




Previous  1  2