• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jordan Peterson butchers Cathy Newman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

This really was a butchery of a lot of talking points that primarily fall on the left side of things. I've got my disagreements with JBP but he truly is a talented orator and highly intelligent guy.

I've listened to about half a dozen of his lectures, and though I don't agree with him about everything (apparently I've failed in life by not procreating...sheesh), he has a fascinating and otherwise pristine approach to the discussion of morality. I highly recommend that people watch his Maps of Meaning series on Youtube. Better yet, lift them from the youtube video, convert them into mp3s and listen to them on your commute.

His lectures on psychology hurt my head. I'm going to have to work my way up to them.

My main problem with Peterson is his non-lecture moments. Every interview is just him bitching and moaning nonstop about political correctness. In-lecture he's brilliant. Off-lecture he sounds a lot like every right-wing hack on this forum.

Will watch the video later.
 
"But what gives you the right to say that? Maybe that's how women want their relationships. I mean, you're making these vast generalizations."

"I'm a clinical psychologist."

:lol:
 
I've listened to about half a dozen of his lectures, and though I don't agree with him about everything (apparently I've failed in life by not procreating...sheesh), he has a fascinating and otherwise pristine approach to the discussion of morality. I highly recommend that people watch his Maps of Meaning series on Youtube. Better yet, lift them from the youtube video, convert them into mp3s and listen to them on your commute.

His lectures on psychology hurt my head. I'm going to have to work my way up to them.

My main problem with Peterson is his non-lecture moments. Every interview is just him bitching and moaning nonstop about political correctness. In-lecture he's brilliant. Off-lecture he sounds a lot like every right-wing hack on this forum.

Will watch the video later.

Someone took the maps of meaning series and put them on a podcast. So should be easy to find on iTunes (I found it on the PodBean app)
 
"But what gives you the right to say that? Maybe that's how women want their relationships. I mean, you're making these vast generalizations."

"I'm a clinical psychologist."

:lol:

I laughed hard at that and "got ya"
 
Which edition?

I have all the latest editions books (planned on getting a group together but it fell through). I have 2 friends that prefer 3rd(?, not sure if correct). I have only played like twice so don't have a preference.
 
That moment when Newman knew she was beat:

newman.jpg

Wow, that was a great interview.

Newman and Peterson actually had a fantastic rapport. They clearly enjoyed sparring with each other, and for that reason it was a ton of fun to be an observer of that interaction. Although the interview was definitely combative, it was endemic of what is so different from combative American interviews. At the end of this clip, Peterson was aggressively confronted with all of the arguments and accusations that have commonly been hurled against him, but ultimately, he was given the space to respond to each and every one of them. We the audience had fun and learned something about Jordan Peterson in the process. If this had a been a Sean Hannity-type interview, there would have been endless screaming, Peterson never would have gotten a full thought out, we would have learned nothing, and all we'd have to show for it was a headache.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

This really was a butchery of a lot of talking points that primarily fall on the left side of things. I've got my disagreements with JBP but he truly is a talented orator and highly intelligent guy.

Jesus, that lady had a chip on her shoulder that could sink the titanic. You could tell she was very confused about the concept of "multi-variate analysis".

16:22 WHY WOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO BATTLE FOR A HIGH QUALITY POSITION...

She's dumbfounded because she believes that as a women, success and achievement should just be handed to her on a silver platter. She got nailed with paralysis several times in the interview but that's the moment that did it for me.
 
Last edited:
That moment when Newman knew she was beat:

View attachment 67227492

Wow, that was a great interview.

Newman and Peterson actually had a fantastic rapport. They clearly enjoyed sparring with each other, and for that reason it was a ton of fun to be an observer of that interaction. Although the interview was definitely combative, it was endemic of what is so different from combative American interviews. At the end of this clip, Peterson was aggressively confronted with all of the arguments and accusations that have commonly been hurled against him, but ultimately, he was given the space to respond to each and every one of them. We the audience had fun and learned something about Jordan Peterson in the process. If this had a been a Sean Hannity-type interview, there would have been endless screaming, Peterson never would have gotten a full thought out, we would have learned nothing, and all we'd have to show for it was a headache.

That's it. I imagine if Newman didn't have an agenda to follow, it could've been even better.
 
That's it. I imagine if Newman didn't have an agenda to follow, it could've been even better.

Oh, to be sure, she was no John Dickerson. She was agenda driven as hell. Yet she was just restrained enough to give Peterson the space he needed to clarify his positions, which represents that extremely thin line between the combative and scorched-earth approaches to interviewing. It's possible for the former to be fun, while the latter is only able to be nauseating.
 
I watched that. I don't really like Jordan Peterson, but I did agree with most of his points here.

What is it that you dislike about Jordon Peterson? I don't suppose I agree with him on everything - religion for example - but I find him honest, open and straightforward.
 
Oh, to be sure, she was no John Dickerson. She was agenda driven as hell. Yet she was just restrained enough to give Peterson the space he needed to clarify his positions, which represents that extremely thin line between the combative and scorched-earth approaches to interviewing. It's possible for the former to be fun, while the latter is only able to be nauseating.

I love that she tried to challenge his opinions but I didn't like how she continually tried to twist his statements. To her credit though, like you said she did at least allow him to clarify his positions. To be fair, that may have been the entire point of the interview was to try and frustrate him into making a mistake and see if he didn't have an ulterior motive behind his beliefs. The level of composure he showed during the interview is pretty incredible.
 
Oh, to be sure, she was no John Dickerson. She was agenda driven as hell. Yet she was just restrained enough to give Peterson the space he needed to clarify his positions, which represents that extremely thin line between the combative and scorched-earth approaches to interviewing. It's possible for the former to be fun, while the latter is only able to be nauseating.

Here is an interview with him from after the interview, I have only seen the first 10min but figured I would share with you all in case you were interested.

https://youtu.be/TK2-xYyNpYk
 
Here is an interview with him from after the interview, I have only seen the first 10min but figured I would share with you all in case you were interested.

https://youtu.be/TK2-xYyNpYk

"Which of these two people is the real person?" That comment suggests he may not have enjoyed the sparring like I had initially assumed.

Will watch more when I get the chance.
 
Last edited:
What is it that you dislike about Jordon Peterson? I don't suppose I agree with him on everything - religion for example - but I find him honest, open and straightforward.

The man's incredibly arrogant, but that seems to me a fairly common trait amongst psychologists.
 
"Which of these two people is the real person?" That comment suggests he may not have enjoyed the sparring like I had initially assumed.

Will watch more when I get the chance.

Yeah, I saw half the interview but need to go to sleep so will have to finish later. Looks like he doesn't care about eviscerating someone in a debate as much as having genuine discussion. We would be better off as a society if more of us were like that.
 
Last edited:
The man's incredibly arrogant, but that seems to me a fairly common trait amongst psychologists.

JP states his opinions with conviction, which some might see as arrogance. If this is a common trait among psychologists it is also the case among posters on Debate Politics, present company included.
 
She's a horrible debater. All she did was pull strawmans.

Channel 4 is now rushing to put Cathy Newman in a safe place by playing the victim card. They have announced that she has received threatening messages on twitter and other anti-social media. And that they have had to consult 'security experts' for her protection. So we must now cease to criticise Newman or we will be accused of joining the 'hate' campaign.
 
Yeah, I saw half the interview but need to go to sleep so will have to finish later. Looks like he doesn't care about eviscerating someone in a debate as much as having genuine discussion. We would be better off as a society if more of us were like that.

Peterson also made an appeal for people to stop trolling her on social media after the interview.
 
I don't see JP so much as arrogant as extremely confident because he knows his stuff. I think that's not uncommon for academics.
He's also very effective when he plunders fallacious arguments based on emotion.
 
Here is an interview with him from after the interview, I have only seen the first 10min but figured I would share with you all in case you were interested.

https://youtu.be/TK2-xYyNpYk

My wife and I watched a full half hour of this interview together, and though she and I have both been fans of his lectures for some time, unlike my wife I've also been watching the occasional interview. The link you posted put into clearer focus a nagging problem I've been having over Peterson for some time now, and that is that he may be a potential cult leader in the making. I'm not saying he will be, but some foundations and factors are there for it: he has enormous charisma, he's completely self confident, he's highly intelligent, he clearly knows his discipline and is able to communicate it in a remarkably forthright and indisputable way, and most alarmingly to me, he's been able to attract an extremely large following in a short amount of time, and that following is beginning to resemble the Alt Right: mostly male, conservative, anti-feminist, and anti-politically correct.

This second interview supplied the missing puzzle piece when he lamented the deterioration of public discourse and then went on to use Antifa during Charlotte as his go-to example. Okay, Jordan, was there anybody else present at the Charlotte protest of any note? Anybody who might have attracted the attention of Antifa in the first place? Jordan doesn't say. And it wasn't just this interview. In every one I've seen online, the boogeymen are invariably the same: political correctness, Marxism, Communism, feminists, etc. All of the objective truths he espouses are undeniable and are easily applicable to our society as a whole, yet that scalpel of truth only seems to be applied, as he might say, to one specific ideological supposition, which if you understand the term is also a subtle pejorative. And it seems remarkably disingenuous or un-self aware to mourn the polarization of public discourse while consistently bashing one side. When criticizing the "polarization" of discourse, the implication is that both sides are engaging each other in an unreasonable and unproductive way, yet the examples he goes to in order to make his case are certainly not from both sides. It's not an accident that the posters most taken with Peterson in this thread are from the right wing of the aisle. And that's unfortunate, because there's no reason why Peterson's beliefs and conclusions need to be aimed in that direction alone.

For the record, based on listening to him I don't know if it's fair to say that Jordan Peterson himself is a right wing ideologue yet, but based on the highly focused topics he complains about, it shouldn't be surprising that that's the following he's disproportionately gathering.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

This really was a butchery of a lot of talking points that primarily fall on the left side of things. I've got my disagreements with JBP but he truly is a talented orator and highly intelligent guy.

Until your clip, I had no idea that Peterson or Newman even existed; thanks for introducing the personeas to those of us that were unaware.

If found the interaction very instructive. Newman bolts into the "interview" seeking a confrontation, oblivious to nuance or his actual words; then shot-gunning her cliches and morally tinged incredulity. It was as if his mere presence compelled her to throw everything but her bra and clipboard at the guy.

It was interesting to watch this unflappable guy carefully attempting to focus her on his ideas while she is finding offense and shock in every "the" and "and" in every trivial comment he uttered. Seeing an otherwise intelligent and quick witted woman turn into an unthinking, cliche spouting harpy looking for an incoherent fight over anything, no matter how trivial or irrelevant, was weird.

The woman is in severe need of a personality transplant. If she is married, I feel sorry for her husband (or her wife or her dog, for that matter).
 
My wife and I watched a full half hour of this interview together, and though she and I have both been fans of his lectures for some time, unlike my wife I've also been watching the occasional interview. The link you posted put into clearer focus a nagging problem I've been having over Peterson for some time now, and that is that he may be a potential cult leader in the making. I'm not saying he will be, but some foundations and factors are there for it: he has enormous charisma, he's completely self confident, he's highly intelligent, he clearly knows his discipline and is able to communicate it in a remarkably forthright and indisputable way, and most alarmingly to me, he's been able to attract an extremely large following in a short amount of time, and that following is beginning to resemble the Alt Right: mostly male, conservative, anti-feminist, and anti-politically correct.

This second interview supplied the missing puzzle piece when he lamented the deterioration of public discourse and then went on to use Antifa during Charlotte as his go-to example. Okay, Jordan, was there anybody else present at the Charlotte protest of any note? Anybody who might have attracted the attention of Antifa in the first place? Jordan doesn't say. And it wasn't just this interview. In every one I've seen online, the boogeymen are invariably the same: political correctness, Marxism, Communism, feminists, etc. All of the objective truths he espouses are undeniable and are easily applicable to our society as a whole, yet that scalpel of truth only seems to be applied, as he might say, to one specific ideological supposition, which if you understand the term is also a subtle pejorative. And it seems remarkably disingenuous or un-self aware to mourn the polarization of public discourse while consistently bashing one side. When criticizing the "polarization" of discourse, the implication is that both sides are engaging each other in an unreasonable and unproductive way, yet the examples he goes to in order to make his case are certainly not from both sides. It's not an accident that the posters most taken with Peterson in this thread are from the right wing of the aisle. And that's unfortunate, because there's no reason why Peterson's beliefs and conclusions need to be aimed in that direction alone.

For the record, based on listening to him I don't know if it's fair to say that Jordan Peterson himself is a right wing ideologue yet, but based on the highly focused topics he complains about, it shouldn't be surprising that that's the following he's disproportionately gathering.

I didn't take his Charlottesville comment like that, I may need to go back and see it again but it sounded like he stated Antifa as am example paused and then said "and" the Charlottesville incident. I took it as him pointing them out as an example as well just not directly by name.

I am also not certain of his political lean outside of anti-far left.
 
Yeah, I saw half the interview but need to go to sleep so will have to finish later. Looks like he doesn't care about eviscerating someone in a debate as much as having genuine discussion. We would be better off as a society if more of us were like that.

But it is fun watching someone get destroyed. Have you ever watched the Sargon vs Thomas Smith debate? It's beautiful.
 
Back
Top Bottom