Monday, January 22, 2018

THAT Interview

Postscript added.
The feminist leftards are so immersed in their own mantra-illustrated and bejewelled rhetoric that they do not even listen to those with a different point of view.  They do not argue from 'fact' but from what they think.  Not that they do think. They hear only themselves, even when someone carefully explains something.  Not that they hear anyone else.  To them the word "Listen" is a command and a reprove: something that YOU don't do. The 'stars' of the feminist left can do no wrong in the media's view and it takes a very clear and patient person to show them up.

So it was we watched Jordan Peterson sit and calmly suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous calumny delivered by one Cathy Newman. Peterson is a Clinical Psychologist, quite used to confronting the mad, the bad and the sad. Here he found all three. And we saw him wipe the floor with her.

Someone is going to have to mop the studio floor after too.

Bettina Arndt gave us a run down of this car-crash of an interview.
Feminism’s clay feet exposed on British television.

British journalist Douglas Murray said he’d never seen a television interview more catastrophic for the interviewer. 
Others are naming TV journalist Cathy Newman’s grilling of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson as a pivotal moment exposing modern feminism’s clay feet. 
Within three days of the 30 minute Channel 4 interview being posted on YouTube it had attracted over 2 million viewers and Newman’s performance was greeted by widespread hilarity on the twittersphere.
Channel 4 now seems to have woke up to the self-inflicted damage the interview is doing to one of the station’s stars and is in damage control with Newman playing the victim role claiming she’s receiving "vicious misogynistic abuse." 
Station management is employing extra security to deal with what they claim are threats to Newman’s safety. Whilst there is no evidence the flood of online criticism of Newman constitutes any threat, Peterson has responded by telling his supporters to constrain their comments.
Newman refused to give Peterson any credence in what he was saying, constantly reframing it to put quite different words and ideas into his mouth.  It was a 'straw man' exhibition worthy of the Tate Gallery.

He was having none of such dishonest nonsense. 
Ironically the major gotcha moment in the interview was all about freedom of speech. Newman decided to grill Peterson about the reason the Canadian psychology professor had first attracted international attention – namely his refusal to use manufactured gender pronouns now mandated under law in his country. After a series of ill-informed, aggressive attacks failed spectacularly to disconcert her calm, reasoned guest, Newman asked Peterson, 
“why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”

The good professor responded: “Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we’re having right now 
You’re certainly willing to risk offending me 
in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do that?” he said, acknowledging her attacks had made him rather uncomfortable but that was fine. “You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell is going on…But you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More power to you, as far as I’m concerned.”

His answer left Newman totally floundering. 
The good-natured Peterson smiled sweetly and said: “Ha, gotcha!”
But it was on the classic feminist issues that Newman was exposed as a vapid ideologue incapable of defending her cherished beliefs. 
Peterson’s rational, fact-based responses to questions about women’s achievements in the workplace went totally over her head. 
Newman responded to evidence with anecdotes, claimed he’d made statements he hadn’t. Their discussion on the gender wag gap started like this:
Peterson: Multivaried analysis of the pay gap indicate that it doesn't exist

Newman: But that's just not true, is it. That nine per cent pay gap, that's a gap between median hourly earnings between men and women. That exists.

P: Yeah but there's multiple reasons for that. One of them is gender but it's not the only reason. If you're a social scientist worth your salt you never do a uni-varied analysis. You say, well, women in aggregate are paid less than men, then we break it down by age, occupation, interest, personality.

N: But you're saying basically it doesn't matter if women aren't getting to the top, because that's skewing that gender pay gap, isn't it. You're saying that's just a fact of life.

P: No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying there are multiple reasons for it that aren't being taken into account.

N: But why should women put up with those reasons? Why should women be content not to get to the top?
P: I'm not saying that they should put up with it, I'm saying that the claim that the wage gap between men and women is only due to sex is wrong, and it is wrong, there's no doubt about that. The multi-varied analyses have been done.” 
And so went on, with Newman incessantly straw-manning, niggling, attacking and wilfully refusing to listen to Peterson’s responses.

Many, like British sociologist Nicholas A Christakis, found themselves in awe of Peterson’s cheerful, reasoned responses. “This man Jordan Peterson is preternaturally calm and composed in the face of a hostile interviewer who also had simply not thought adequately about her ideas and approach. Facts and reason are powerful allies,” he tweeted.

But unfamiliar territory for feminists who are rarely confronted with this type of evidence, particularly in public. 
UK conservative politician Paul Weston points out that what’s so extraordinary about the Peterson interview is that it managed to refute the ideological claptrap which holds sway throughout much of the mainstream media. 
As he says in a YouTube video posted this week, the anointed liberal elite which controls the media knows it doesn't represent popular opinion but “works tirelessly to make damn sure no one's allowed anywhere near the media bubble to propose a learned valid legitimate opinion.”

Yet Peterson slipped through and Newton and her team were shown up for not doing their homework to discover why it is that this formidable man attracts literally millions of followers online. 
Journalist Tim Lott, writing last year in the Spectator UK, said that after listening to hours of Peterson’s videos, he concludes the man is “one of the most important thinkers to emerge on the world stage for many years.” 
As Newman discovered to her peril.
And our pleasure. Pints all round.

Yes, even for Mz Newman who is most in need of it. She has a distorted soul, lies far too easily for her own mental health, and needs all the Grace she can be given. 

That and a sound whacking.

But Peterson gave her that.

He is a Professor, more used to talking with students. They can be as thick as two short planks but have youth as an excuse. They can learn.  Newman cannot hold that rope. 

She is too busy trying to loosen the noose.



The Independant Man had a few words too.


  1. I never had to interview people in my job,but I did have to give formal presentations to large groups of people. If I had ever crashed like that I'd have been fired. 🔥

    1. Yes, she abandoned all opportunity to do her job as an interviewer, which was to give the interviewee every opportunity to explain his position. Instead she was an advocate for feminism, doing her best to rubbish his points, even to the extent of misrepresenting them. And it was so obvious. Did she not understand that WE could hear what he said?

  2. I think she gave a horrible, biased interview that twisted his words, tried to nail him in a corner for things he didn't say.

    So much for "leftards" who don't listen(thanks for that endearing term, btw :)

    However, I don't think biased interviews and word-twisting are exclusively left or female behavior, either :)

    She clearly should be an ambulance-chasing lawyer, not in the media.

    However, the one time she DID manage to pause to take a breath to let him answer direct questions he didn't - such as "Do you believe in equal pay for women?," he smiled and said nothing.

    Now people with his bias might say he was just thinking or hesitating to answer because it was pointless. People with her bias might say he didn't want to answer honestly/directly.

    I say I really don't know why - but I'd like to hear his answer :)

    Regardless, I don't think either person in this interview is giving facts - I think they're giving opinion - and our own bias makes a huge difference in how we view it.

    I tried to remove my bias before witnessing it because you challenged us to. That is what I see - two people giving their opinion and one of them was an obnoxious "presstard." :)

    As for his opinion, IMO, a psychologist's opinion is not based on fact either - they are limited by the scope of their own private practice/focused field of study. Their opinion could contribute to larger societal issues, of course, but they are not "fact."

    Additionally, female psychologists or study men and male psychologists who study women are always a red flag to me - do they have their own issues with the opposite gender they're trying to sort out? Perhaps they should get those sorted out in therapy first to prevent bias and harming their patients, even inadvertently.

    Having said that, I would agree in part with what Dr. Peterson said on one opinion he managed to get out in that women who were fixated on the need to dominate men probably had some issues in their past relationships or a prior experience causing their need to do so.

    However, that in and of itself might actually lend undue credence to the other side - if there are that many women damaged by the men in their family of origin, then there would be indeed many men abused their power with women.

    (I'm not saying that's true, I'm simply saying by his logic, that implies that there are a lot of women with domination issues causes by domineering fathers?)

    However, I'm also curious as to why some men are bothered so much by women wanting equal pay or the pay gap issue?

    Some psychologists would say that the male fixation with subjects like this is based on their own attachment issues, but instead of assuming that, I thought I'd ask? :)

    I disagree with his opinion that the pay gap between gender is not based on gender - but that is MY subjective opinion :)

    I've actually heard men say things like they wouldn't hire a woman in management because "they couldn't handle it, they'd go home and cry and quit" without being given a chance. (No, I was never the woman in question.)

    Regardless, the only thing we know is that there is a statistical gap in pay (at least in America) between genders - but we don't have proof on what CAUSES this gap.

    Perhaps if we spent more time listening to each other about these personal experiences and doing studies on them - removing our belie/biases first - rather than dismissing the other side based on what opinions we already hold, we'd get somewhere :)

    Regardless, personal question - may I ask why what women choose to do and believe about so frequently important to you? I mean, I get the anti-abortion stuff and agree. But frequent topics like this, I guess I don't get how they are harmful for people to believe even if false. Lots of people believe lots of kooky stuff. Oh well, if it's not harmful to us personally or society in some way?

    1. However, the one time she DID manage to pause to take a breath to let him answer direct questions he didn't - such as "Do you believe in equal pay for women?," he smiled and said nothing.

      I'm not surprised Peterson funked that question. Peterson is a liberal. Like most liberals who criticise liberalism he can't see that the problem is not that liberalism has been pushed too far. The problem is liberalism itself.

      In a sane society the gender pay gap would not even be an issue. It would be understood that of course men should be paid more than women. Men have the responsibility to provide financially for their families. Women don't. That's not their role. Men and women also cannot do the same types of jobs because men and women are different.

      Liberals always remain trapped in their own ideology. Even relatively intelligent liberals cling to the fantasy that men and women are interchangeable.

      Peterson provides plenty of entertainment and it's fun to see him upset liberals. It really hurts them because he's one of their own. But he cannot be regarded as anything more than an ally of convenience, until he learns to question liberalism itself.

    2. As for his opinion, IMO, a psychologist's opinion is not based on fact either

      Agreed. Psychology is pseudoscience.

    3. This psychologist now runs a Tavern. :)

  3. PS - my apologies, I failed to produce my own source, when I stated as fact: "Regardless, the only thing we know is that there is a statistical gap in pay (at least in America) between genders - but we don't have proof on what CAUSES this gap."

    The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), here:

    There are also various other links at the BLS that break it down according to same occupations, education level, etc.

    These findings are based on self-reported income by the US census combined with verified by payroll data.

    The only fact it actually provides, though, is that there IS a gap - the speculation as to WHY there is a gap is all subjective opinion on both sides :)

    And again, a psychologist's opinion is a more educated one, but it is still just subjective opinion based on his personal experiences or field of study.

  4. PPS What is interesting to note is that if you check the BLS' statistics through the years, regardless of what political party was in charge, though the income for women has positively increased some for doing the same job as men, women have always made less and still do.

    But as I said, all this tell us is this is a statistical fact - we don't have the "why's" yet other than speculation.

  5. You beat me to it, sir, mine's tomorrow morn. Shall link to yours.

    1. Have just come back to read with a fresh head. Well put, sir. This and Delingpole will serve as the definitive comments on the issue. Amazing how Ms Vapid then tries to turn it into a racist/sexist/whatever thing. As for “common ground”, there isn’t always you know. That demi-woman was bang out of order.

  6. I tried to find common ground, here. But there isn't any grace or God's love here, anymore. I should've figured that out when the juice you left out for some libs you felt were "sick" for supporting LGBTQ, you later said you left out for me, too :(

    I can see "leftards" aren't welcome here, anymore. Note, however, that I never called you or anyone anything of the kind. And despite the fact that you were always trying to find insult in my comments, there actually were none.

    The worst thing I said here was after the commenter came in and objectified and insulted ALL women by claiming smart women were dangerous and shouldn't be educated, which disturbed your other female commenters. We expected the gentleman knight to come in and defend your female friends' honor - but you didn't. You simply "hahaha-ed" and joked he was going to upset half your commenters.

    Thus, I stepped in, replied to another commenter who reacted to him, calling him "it" because I figured turnabout was fair play, as long as we were objectifying groups of people into subhuman.

    And what did you do? Chided ME because I held up a mirror to his pointing finger.

    But please, continue to high-five commenters who say these types of things as your Christian brothers - but I'm not sure Christ would, as I'm not sure they have Christ's true interest, nor your best interest or emotional health in mind with these comments. I think misery enjoys company - and they will do their best to keep you from ever finding light and happiness with a woman so that they don't have to be all alone in their misery.

    Regardless, what was that you were saying about the company you keep?

    Physician, heal thyself.

    May God bless and keep you just the same,


    1. Chided you? I have not commented on what you said, let alone chided you.

      Yes, leftard is a neat term. Not mine but in common use. I do like your 'presstard' though.

      The issue of bad male interviewers is moot as this did not concern any others, just this one.

      Wage gap. Hmmm. He didn't sit there silent. He had already answered. On that matter there have been a few attempts to prosecute employers who paid differentially on the basis of gender (or so it was determined) and each of the few times it was in the public sector. One would think that were women paid less for the same work/job there would be many such court cases. There have not been. One would also think that any sane employer would hire only women and save 'x'% on the wages bill. That doesn't happen either.

      Most businesses these days use one form of 'job-worth' system or another to measure work which do not have gender as a factor. There are even long standing Associations of Remuneration Specialists within the human resources world that have been busy making work paid properly regardless of gender for the past fifty odd years, ever since it became illegal to pay on the basis of gender. I was even a member of the American one for some years.

      This gentleman Knight has many battles to fight on his own account and does not rush to defend or attack willy-nilly when there are good folk like yourself to do the job. It is not as though I stop you. You had the opportunity above and used it. Good for you.

      Physician heal myself, eh? Good one. I have been trying to heal for many more years than you have lived. 'Tis going well from a very fallen start! How about you? No beams to pluck from your eye whilst poking the motes in mine? There is plenty of God's Grace in this Tavern, but it takes Faith to drink it. A bit of humility can be sought too. I have bottles of it hanging by the hard stuff.

      I was reading just an hour or so ago the 'analysis' of tweets and other comments that Channel 4 says are 'threats' against Mz Newman's life. So far not a skerrick of a threat against her but running 300 : 1 against Peterson with real threats. From feminists and leftards and those that like presstards.

  7. I'm sure I will fall on deaf ears again, but I thought I'd at least try to explain to you, Amfortas, since you have clearly misunderstood.

    However, I feel a bit like Dr. Peterson right now, not because anyone is being a jerk, but because people see what they want to see, hear what they want to here, and believe what they want to believe despite what I actually said.

    I wasn't referring to my comment yesterday, I was talking about DforD's comment about women not long ago- which he clearly understood what I meant because he ran crying to JH about it publicly.

    And I agreed with you 100% she was a jerk - however, your point was that "leftards" don't listen to "facts."

    One woman being a jerk and not listening to this man's OPINION is not proof that everyone on the left or all women don't listen to FACTS. Neither person gave facts here - they were both giving opinions (what little he managed to get out).

    DforDoom - if you want to copy/paste my words and reply to me, then why didn't you do it here, where I said them instead of JH's?

    For the record, no - my decision to leave blogging now, as well as FB is not because I have been "crybullied" by anyone - it's because I realized what I say doesn't make a difference anyway - people see what they want to see, believe what they want to believe - so please do not flatter yourself.

    I saw this polarization coming years ago and there's nothing I could do to stop it or make a difference. People want to fear, hate and scapegoat the left, blacks, muslims, mexicans and women for everything, lump us all into one category as if we are all the same, and not listen to what we have to say about it, okay. Nothing I can do about it.

    Dig up some video with some harpie from the press acts like a jerk and use it as proof we're all like that? Be my guest.

    Take care to look in the mirror, though, when you accuse other people of lumping all men together, ascribing the worst motivations, twisting words, and not listening, though righties. Because that behavior is clearly not exclusive to the left

    Why, did you want me to feel crybullied? Well that's a fail then for you - because I'm not blaming anyone else for my decision except me.

    1. Chrystal, put the spade away. You do not really want to dig a hole any deeper, especially in my carpet.

    2. So .... it's okay with you that DforD ran over to JH's, copy/pasted my words, and claimed I was a crybully though I never said nor even implied that?

      I simply meant I can see lefties aren't welcome here and my words failed at making a difference/fell on deaf ears - I blamed me for trying to talk to brick walls.

      Well, that kind of undoes the whole point of your post then, doesn't it? Because clearly, not listening, twisting words, and putting words in mouths is not exclusive to the left or women.

      Smh, as I said, I return your unsolicited advice to you - perhaps you should consider the company YOU keep.

      Well, I'll leave you all to commiserate and drown your troubles - who are always everyone else's fault - in your drinks. However, solutions to troubles are rarely found that way.

    3. I shall have to go over and have a look at JH's. Am I OK with it?
      I have to be. Mostly, people do not seek my permission to do things and I am not aware of much of what others do.

  8. As I replied, there has been a mass shooting here in Kentucky at a high school. All I meant was the hatred and fear of each other needs to stop. Please. It's really bad here :(

  9. "People want to fear, hate and scapegoat the left, blacks, muslims, mexicans and women for everything, lump us all into one category as if we are all the same, and not listen to what we have to say about it, okay."

    Who's lumping "us" into one category, exactly?

    The irony, it confounds.

    1. I didn't mean you, Lord Somber, if that's what you meant - I have no idea what you think or how you feel. But thank you for involving yourself anyway :)

  10. Cathy Newman's usefulness diminishes, her currency goes down, credibility slashed by nasty men ...must be bad for women everywhere

    more evidence I suppose of how Mr Peterson single-handedly contributed to increasing the pay gap.

    no doubt he's ruined BLS 'statistics' too



Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..