Comments on: Jordan Peterson, Cathy Newman and Online Abuse

By: D K

D K — Thu, 20 Jun 2019 03:14:21 +0000

I recognize her situation because Ive been in her position before. You just keep swinging and hope you hit something. She battled with all she had – i think that was the problem.

By: Kill Shot – The Narrative Takes Two to the Chest; Women in the Infantry Myth Firmly Debunked – Free Range International

Wed, 24 Jan 2018 15:13:27 +0000

[…] media critic Stephen Knight pointed out “these findings raise some inconvenient questions for those who like to play […]

By: kris

kris — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:36:12 +0000

Newman responded afterwards by saying she enjoyed the interview as a challenging argument and I got the impression that they both did. In fact there was almost a flirtatious moment when Peterson said that many people probably thought she was a difficult person to get on with and she agreed with him, laughing. The fact that she had trouble answering his reciprocal argument on free speech was hardly a “Catastrophic fail” It was just that Peterson has obviously thought a lot more deeply about the topic than anyone presently on the talking heads circus. So few people have had the courage to articulate and stand up for the counter feminist argument on mainstream media that it is hardly surprising that Newman was taken by surprise. Is it impossible these days to just enjoy a refreshing and stimulating political discussion without both sides going bananas over who got the better of who??

By: Steven Bower

Steven Bower — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:45:18 +0000

Here is a nice analysis of the interview: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/?utm_source=twb

By: Mark t Shark

Mark t Shark — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:41:36 +0000

Look, these days, if anyone says anything even remotely insensitive on twitter it is retweeted 1000s of times yet here we are with claims of abuse so rampant that De Pear claims to have been forced to bring on security experts to deal with the volume of hatred. He then even raised the specter of police involvement (scary!) while no one at channel 4, or anywhere really, to this point has shown even a single offensive and/or abusive tweet let alone the number required that would warrant such drastic action.

The lack of any evidence at all calls to mind Hitchen’s gold: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

By: Steven Bower

Steven Bower — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:12:48 +0000

I don’t get any Deepak Chopra vibe. Pearson applies Jungian ideas of archetypes in treatment of patients to explain the causes of their behaviour, and these same archetypes explain the enduring popularity of certain works of fiction and recurring themes in folk stories from different cultures. I haven’t listened to D.C. much, because I find it painful: he’s a fantasist screwing money out of the gullible, whereas .J.P. is a deeply thoughtful therapist.

By: ptfrd

ptfrd — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 02:08:20 +0000

> Assuming their methodology is a good one

Well it’s certainly not good enough to justify throwing around figures like “30 times more”. All it would have taken was one single Twitter account anywhere in the world to like & retweet one single violence-endorsing tweet* to drop that figure of about “30 times” down to about “15 times”.

If instead they had steered clear of any spurious calculations, and used a headline like “We found much more Twitter-based endorsement of violence against Peterson than against Newman, albeit with limited data“, I would say they’d done a great job.

* – This one: https://twitter.com/tijanamiljovska/status/953515642577027072

By: Dermot O'Sullivan

Dermot O'Sullivan — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:35:59 +0000

Newman’s question, “why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?” is actually a good one. It gets to the nub of the question du jour. Granted, Newman asked it in a snarky manner, but it’s good to have the topic aired, responded to and effectively skewered in less than 150 words. Newman’s dumbfounded response to Petersen’s classical liberal explanation was truly shocking: it reveals a lot about the culture of the newsroom she works in, that it appeared never to have occurred to her that Peterson’s freedom of speech was hers as well.