Jordan Peterson interview on C4

storker

Brian? wrote: »

Do you see any irony at all about railing against identity politics while describing “the left” as a homogenous group? A group which is entirely “insane”.

I don't think "Identity Politics" is about naming or defining of groups, it's more about judging individuals and actions on the basis of which group someone belongs to, so that no act or statement is good or bad in and of itself, but can only be judged based on the identity of the speaker or doer.

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

I have difficultly believing these are serious points, but in any case, that's a judgment for you to make, based on your overall take on Peterson's value to your family. It's also up to you whether you want to make your family aware of the negative facets of neo-liberal reality (though history has already given a clear lesson on that), and whether you want to be fully complicit with this new order. In short, not a thing to do with anyone else.

Its not my problem you have difficulties, you post in such a general way that im trying to pin it down to an individual case. What negative facets of neoliberalism "ought" I tell my son? and what should he do with this information? If I was raising my son 50 years ago or today I would still say the same things, get an education work hard and fly straight.

xckjoo

Intothesea wrote: »

If the 'really big' ones forced you to use a dictionary and potentially learn something, that's a win, surely?

As well, w.r.t. Is an auto-contraction of 'with respect to', and is due to my study of experimental physics.

It's poor writing. Unnecessarily long, meandering sentence structure with one running into the next. I skipped most of what you wrote as life is too short. Now I've no idea if you had good points or not.

K.I.S.S.

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

Its not my problem you have difficulties, you post in such a general way that im trying to pin it down to an individual case. What negative facets of neoliberalism "ought" I tell my son? and what should he do with this information? If I was raising my son 50 years ago or today I would still say the same things, get an education work hard and fly straight.

Once again, it's up to you what you think or do about anything in life, Silverharp.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll just sidestep your passive aggressive efforts to preciptate an endless and pointless barrage of petty political posts.

Intothesea

xckjoo wrote: »

Intothesea wrote: »

It's poor writing. Unnecessarily long, meandering sentence structure with one running into the next. I skipped most of what you wrote as life is too short. Now I've no idea if you had good points or not.

K.I.S.S.

Yes, and I'm concerned about the valueless statements in your posts too. Now, less of the petty point scoring politics, if you please.

silverharp

Intothesea wrote: »

Once again, it's up to you what you think or do about anything in life, Silverharp.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll just sidestep your passive aggressive efforts to preciptate an endless and pointless barrage of petty political posts.

I think you are losing if you start insulting people. You are the trying to persuade people to look at this a particular way, yet when pinned with specifics you fold and start insulting the questioner... tells me all I need to know

Intothesea

silverharp wrote: »

I think you are losing if you start insulting people. You are the trying to persuade people to look at this a particular way, yet when pinned with specifics you fold and start insulting the questioner... tells me all I need to know

Ahem. Okay...

xckjoo

Intothesea wrote: »

Yes, and I'm concerned about the valueless statements in your posts too. Now, less of the petty point scoring politics, if you please.

It wasn't meant as an insult so apologies if that's how perceived it. It was constructive criticism. What "points" are there to score?

Toughen up there snowflake!

Intothesea

xckjoo wrote: »

It wasn't meant as an insult so apologies if that's how perceived it. It was constructive criticism. What "points" are there to score?

Toughen up there snowflake!

Says the evident snowflake who only came back to this thread to avenge his ego over our last exchange...

I'm here to hopefully discuss things with people who give a hoot about the subject matter. You'll both have to take out your ego-avenging moves spiritually.

xckjoo

Intothesea wrote: »

Says the evident snowflake who only came back to this thread to avenge his ego over our last exchange...

I'm here to hopefully discuss things with people who give a hoot about the subject matter. You'll both have to take out your ego-avenging moves spiritually.

You being ironic? You've said multiple times that you're not going to post in this thread anymore and yet here you are again.

Stop taking everything so personally. The snowflake comment was obviously a joke; hence the laughing smiley after it. The only one I see here with an ego is you. Every bit of criticism about what you wrote has been taken as a personal attack and you've responded with actual personal attacks. At no point do I see you actually engaged anyone in discussion.

pumpkin4life

Intothesea wrote: »

Intothesea wrote: »

Yes, and I'm concerned about the valueless statements in your posts too. Now, less of the petty point scoring politics, if you please.

No, it's poor writing. The goal of writing is to be clear; that people can understand what you are saying as quickly as possible and move on from that. Plus, you're not even good at it to be honest, a number of the words you've used you don't even seem to know the meaning of, which makes things even more confusing.

I've seen this trend a bit from academic lads, in particular those who have humanities degrees. They falsely believe that vocabulary size = intelligence, when it's not. It's used as a buffer from what I've seen. You're probably educated in a liberal arts discipline, I'm betting.

Edit: Missed you said you studied physics.

victor8600

emo72 wrote: »

how can anyone be critical of peterson? he only seems to want everyone to be happy well adjusted individuals. how is he a bad guy to anyone?

I like JP because he is a Master Troll; he uses his knowledge of psychology to twist and turn any conversation into his advantage.

I also dislike him for the same reason, because some questions can be answered simply "yes" or "no", or at least with several sentences. JP is not capable to answer any question really. For example, ask JP if he believes in God:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8

You would get a more meaningful answer from a weasel. It is like talking to a freshman philosophy student, who keeps asking to define meanings of words instead of answering a question.

johnp001

Intothesea wrote: »

Did you read the AMA article I posted earlier? The effects are pretty negative, with some of them already present in Ireland, hence the uptake of neo-feminist post-modern madness, and attendant Peterson-mania.

Are you referring to the APA paper you cited a couple of pages ago?

Post 771

Intothesea wrote: »

https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Some quotes:
...
"Along with increased risk, the current emphasis on choice, autonomy, and self-reliance insinuates failure as self-failure, for which one is expected to bear sole responsibility. There is diminishing appreciation that individuals’ predicaments are a product of more than simply their individual choice, and include access to opportunities, how opportunities are made available, the capacity to take advantage of opportunities offered, and a host of factors regarding personal histories and the exigencies of lives."
...

To address the quote that seems to be the one most relevant to your argument that neo-liberalism is harmful.
The argument above is arguing for equality of outcome on the basis that accepting responsibility for failure is unpleasant.

I reject both the premise that accepting responsibility for one's failures has a negative impact on people and the assumption that equality of outcome is desirable.

Equality of outcome is incompatible with true equality, which is equality of opportunity.

People can only achieve their potential by accepting responsibility for their failures and learning from them. It is unhealthy and counterproductive to refuse to accept responsibility for personal failure because it reduces the likelihood of self-improvement to avoid future failures.

The paper cited above also claims that neo-liberalism (i.e. "laissez-faire") pervades modern society. However people in welfare states today are the only people in history who have grown up in a world where it was accepted that for all of those who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves that all of their needs and many of their wants would be provided for them for the entirety of their lives. Nothing could be less laissez-fair than that.

cantdecide

victor8600 wrote: »

I like JP because he is a Master Troll; he uses his knowledge of psychology to twist and turn any conversation into his advantage.

I also dislike him for the same reason, because some questions can be answered simply "yes" or "no", or at least with several sentences. JP is not capable to answer any question really. For example, ask JP if he believes in God:

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

You would get a more meaningful answer from a weasel. It is like talking to a freshman philosophy student, who keeps asking to define meanings of words instead of answering a question.

So you're saying that all philosophical questions should be answered as a simple 'yes or no'!

quintana76

Intothesea wrote: »

I have difficultly believing these are serious points, but in any case, that's a judgment for you to make, based on your overall take on Peterson's value to your family. It's also up to you whether you want to make your family aware of the negative facets of neo-liberal reality (though history has already given a clear lesson on that), and whether you want to be fully complicit with this new order. In short, not a thing to do with anyone else.

A different writing style I will concede but you don't by any chance post on Politics.ie under the title 'mercurial'. You have a lot of similarities. Repeated posts full of verbiage on issues that oppose your agenda that are so high in number that they can in effect derail the thread. That wouldn't be your tactic, would it ?

victor8600

cantdecide wrote: »

So you're saying that all philosophical questions should be answered as a simple 'yes or no'!

Well played, sir/madam/other, well played. Have you already applied for a job at C4?

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are suggesting that I have said something that can be construed as a guidance to answering all philosophical questions. Even if such guidance were possible, it is certainly would be presumptuous of me to consider that you would accept this view unless you can be convinced otherwise. And a conviction is a tricky thing. On one hand, facts could be used to back up a statement, but on the other hand, the selection of facts you choose is influenced by your preexisting convictions. Now if we go back to my original statement of "some questions can be answered 'yes' or 'no'", it could be shown, and I trust you can see the logic of this yourself, that among the infinite number of questions, it is very probable that a non-insignificant proportion of them can be answered. Given the limitations of our understanding and the limitations of the language, these questions can only be answered approximately and in some cases 'yes' or 'no' could be the best approximation of a correct answer.

pumpkin4life

victor8600 wrote: »

Well played, sir/madam/other, well played. Have you already applied for a job at C4?

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are suggesting that I have said something that can be construed as a guidance to answering all philosophical questions. Even if such guidance were possible, it is certainly would be presumptuous of me to consider that you would accept this view unless you can be convinced otherwise. And a conviction is a tricky thing. On one hand, facts could be used to back up a statement, but on the other hand, the selection of facts you choose is influenced by your preexisting convictions. Now if we go back to my original statement of "some questions can be answered 'yes' or 'no'", it could be shown, and I trust you can see the logic of this yourself, that among the infinite number of questions, it is very probable that a non-insignificant proportion of them can be answered. Given the limitations of our understanding and the limitations of the language, these questions can only be answered approximately and in some cases 'yes' or 'no' could be the best approximation of a correct answer.

Dyr

quintana76 wrote: »

A different writing style I will concede but you don't by any chance post on Politics.ie under the title 'mercurial'?

Jesus, let's hope not. That fellas a spacer

Professor Moriarty

victor8600 wrote: »

Well played, sir/madam/other, well played. Have you already applied for a job at C4?

C4?

It seems, and correct me if I am wrong,

Okay.

that you are suggesting that I have said something that can be construed as a guidance to answering all philosophical questions.

Clear and unambiguous language would be helpful.

Even if such guidance were possible, it is certainly would be presumptuous of me to consider that you would accept this view unless you can be convinced otherwise.

I remain to be convinced until you convince me.

And a conviction is a tricky thing. On one hand, facts could be used to back up a statement,

Yes. Unless statements are backed up by lies.

but on the other hand, the selection of facts you choose is influenced by your preexisting convictions.

It could not be any other way, unless you are a baby just out of the womb.

Now if we go back to my original statement of "some questions can be answered 'yes' or 'no'", it could be shown, and I trust you can see the logic of this yourself, that among the infinite number of questions, it is very probable that a non-insignificant proportion of them can be answered.

Some questions can be answered. Okay.

Given the limitations of our understanding

All understandings are limited.

and the limitations of the language,

Language always places limitations on communication.

these questions can only be answered approximately and in some cases 'yes' or 'no' could be the best approximation of a correct answer.

Yes.

Intothesea

Not one post worth fully responding to. Very good folks.

The simple fact is, I came in here to make salient points about Peterson's errant logic, his apparent politics that widens the gap between 'sides', and stirs up resentment, and its general relationship with the modern state of Ireland and what could be done to help it.

The statement and restatement of certain ideas were a response to the high level of a new tactic beloved of passive aggressive net denizens these days: play slightly dumb until the offending party gets bored or dies from repetition.

I didn't realize that any bunch of men could carry on like an unsavory bunch of women -- but I guess that's the marvelous power of the Internet at work. I had to look at 4-chan's many similar discussions to figure this out.

So, you can take your negativistic comparisons and do something appropriate with them.

As well, when I started to get outright smart-alec hostility I gave as good as I got, with some well-deserved interest.

Now, after that, I'm not sure what the big cause of offense actually is. I came in here to legitimately criticize Peterson and try to open up the idea that neo-feminists and the like are human too, and suffering as badly as men in the current situation, but responding differently.

Not one uptake of this point, which suggests that people in this thread are dedicated to division.

The irony is, the only thing this will precipitate for men similarly dedicated is increased difficulty dealing with their issues, and with women. It's not a positive negotiating point for recovery, or for thinking logically about how to resolve things. Anything which increases division does all of this, and more.

It's pretty analogous to the neo-feminist position, which has the effect of repelling all psycho-normal men, and justly so. After that, these women don't appear to care, such is the affect of their immaturity and entitlement.

Given that between the two divisions, men are generally ahead on the 'not calling black white' game, I thought that there would be some anenability to balancing out the viewpoint.

But, as evidenced by the totally-blind-to-obvious-reality content of most of this thread, I think the issue is very similar across the divide.

The internet seems to be responsible for most of these expressions. Without it, the post-modern reality-denial of neo-feminism likely wouldn't exist in Ireland, and likewise for Peterson-mania.

Are Irish universities teeming with post-modern supposed Marxists? Is Ireland 100% neo-liberal? If not, there's plenty to do to shore up the situation. Hanging onto your hats and not coming out all bipartisan is likely to turn down the illogical heat in the situation, and as Peterson says, speak honesty and truthfully of the truths that are being denied for political reasons. Refuse to give a hoot, pretty much.

As well, have a look at your own circumstance. What have you lost in the boom and bust? What is your consideration of what society has lost? How much do you care about what has changed for you, and in what way?

Anyway, best of luck folks. And by the way, when I said that I hoped that the intelligent men would move to resolve things in Ireland, I meant all intelligent men, that wasn't angled at anyone on this thread, pretending to be a bit dumb.

Intothesea

johnp001 wrote: »

Intothesea wrote: »

To address the quote that seems to be the one most relevant to your argument that neo-liberalism is harmful.
The argument above is arguing for equality of outcome on the basis that accepting responsibility for failure is unpleasant.

---

What gives you the impression that it isn't harmful? Boom and destructive bust, zero-hour contracts, housing shortages, social damage, there's not much of an end, and this is for a country that has just dipped it toe into neo-liberal policy, relatively speaking.

As well, the paper argues nothing, it describes aspects of the psychological affects of neo-liberal policy in America, and looks at psychology's role in influencing frames of reference that create new pathologies, amongst other things.

---

I reject both the premise that accepting responsibility for one's failures has a negative impact on people and the assumption that equality of outcome is desirable.

---

You'd have to revise that in the case where neo-liberal attitudes have removed many supports and assistance from people. Being fully responsible in a system that takes psychological security away is a recipe for destruction, which is why this statement is in an American journal. It's relevant to this thread on the basis that a more matured neo-liberal system in Ireland will create the same conditions. I.e. Neo-liberal policy is bad for human beings.

---

Equality of outcome is incompatible with true equality, which is equality of opportunity.

---

All of which has nothing to do with this paper, or anything I'm saying.

---

People can only achieve their potential by accepting responsibility for their failures and learning from them. It is unhealthy and counterproductive to refuse to accept responsibility for personal failure because it reduces the likelihood of self-improvement to avoid future failures.

---

Totally agree. However, in a full neo-liberal zone this maxim leads to greater psychological trouble.

---

The paper cited above also claims that neo-liberalism (i.e. "laissez-faire") pervades modern society. However people in welfare states today are the only people in history who have grown up in a world where it was accepted that for all of those who are unable or unwilling to provide for themselves that all of their needs and many of their wants would be provided for them for the entirety of their lives. Nothing could be less laissez-fair than that.

---

Interestingly enough, this strong single-noted outrage against the welfare stratum has only arisen in relation to the crash and austerity.

Before that, there was large and peaceful acceptance that some people can't approach self-sufficiency like others, and that some families have this bred into them over time, which isn't curable outside of implementing some very clever emotionally intelligent moves to gently oust them upwards. In short, there was a much more subtle and compassionate view on all this.

This loss is due to the damaging effects of errantly handled neo-liberal policy, and, I think, the psychopathic way the government screwed over the people of Ireland and kept themselves and their cronies sitting pretty. This was like a mass green light in the culture to be ruthless in considering your entitlements. The beauty of it all...

johnp001

Intothesea wrote:

...
Interestingly enough, this strong single-noted outrage against the welfare stratum has only arisen in relation to the crash and austerity.

Before that, there was large and peaceful acceptance that some people can't approach self-sufficiency like others, and that some families have this bred into them over time, which isn't curable outside of implementing some very clever emotionally intelligent moves to gently oust them upwards. In short, there was a much more subtle and compassionate view on all this.

This loss is due to the damaging effects of errantly handled neo-liberal policy, and, I think, the psychopathic way the government screwed over the people of Ireland and kept themselves and their cronies sitting pretty. This was like a mass green light in the culture to be ruthless in considering your entitlements. The beauty of it all...

What strong, single noted outrage are you talking about?
The post you quoted contradicts your constant unbacked assertions that neoliberal, laissez faire policies are prevalent and increasing in western societies. It doesn't exhibit any outrage and is not indicative of any mass ruthlessness.

Its not constructive to invent negative motivations for a criticism of your statements instead of making any attempt to defend them.

It's a completely circular argument to say that the claim that neo liberalism is not pervasive and harmful is invalid because the claimant is only making it because they are suffering from the damaging effects of all the neo liberal policy.

Hector Savage

The guardian have done a big hit piece on Jordan Peterson.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Calling him "right wing" - laughable.

A lot of us know what a parody the guardian has become, but unfortunately a lot of others respect it and think it's a very reliable newsource (as it is within certain topics)

This will add to people's misunderstanding of him - they think they hate him, based on all this false info. on him.


It's depressing.

koumi

Intothesea wrote: »

johnp001 wrote: »

Your posts, the other ones with words in them, are like brain juice to me and I love them. Please don't ever stop contributing.

20Cent

Anyone know who this cabal of marxists he talks about are and why they want to destroy civilisation?

tritium

Intothesea wrote: »

Not one post worth fully responding to. Very good folks.

The simple fact is, I came in here to make salient points about Peterson's errant logic, his apparent politics that widens the gap between 'sides', and stirs up resentment, and its general relationship with the modern state of Ireland and what could be done to help it.

The statement and restatement of certain ideas were a response to the high level of a new tactic beloved of passive aggressive net denizens these days: play slightly dumb until the offending party gets bored or dies from repetition.

I didn't realize that any bunch of men could carry on like an unsavory bunch of women -- but I guess that's the marvelous power of the Internet at work. I had to look at 4-chan's many similar discussions to figure this out.

So, you can take your negativistic comparisons and do something appropriate with them.

As well, when I started to get outright smart-alec hostility I gave as good as I got, with some well-deserved interest.

Now, after that, I'm not sure what the big cause of offense actually is. I came in here to legitimately criticize Peterson and try to open up the idea that neo-feminists and the like are human too, and suffering as badly as men in the current situation, but responding differently.

Not one uptake of this point, which suggests that people in this thread are dedicated to division.

The irony is, the only thing this will precipitate for men similarly dedicated is increased difficulty dealing with their issues, and with women. It's not a positive negotiating point for recovery, or for thinking logically about how to resolve things. Anything which increases division does all of this, and more.

It's pretty analogous to the neo-feminist position, which has the effect of repelling all psycho-normal men, and justly so. After that, these women don't appear to care, such is the affect of their immaturity and entitlement.

Given that between the two divisions, men are generally ahead on the 'not calling black white' game, I thought that there would be some anenability to balancing out the viewpoint.

But, as evidenced by the totally-blind-to-obvious-reality content of most of this thread, I think the issue is very similar across the divide.

The internet seems to be responsible for most of these expressions. Without it, the post-modern reality-denial of neo-feminism likely wouldn't exist in Ireland, and likewise for Peterson-mania.

Are Irish universities teeming with post-modern supposed Marxists? Is Ireland 100% neo-liberal? If not, there's plenty to do to shore up the situation. Hanging onto your hats and not coming out all bipartisan is likely to turn down the illogical heat in the situation, and as Peterson says, speak honesty and truthfully of the truths that are being denied for political reasons. Refuse to give a hoot, pretty much.

As well, have a look at your own circumstance. What have you lost in the boom and bust? What is your consideration of what society has lost? How much do you care about what has changed for you, and in what way?

Anyway, best of luck folks. And by the way, when I said that I hoped that the intelligent men would move to resolve things in Ireland, I meant all intelligent men, that wasn't angled at anyone on this thread, pretending to be a bit dumb.

Mother of Jesus I couldn’t finish reading this. Sorry but most of the above reads like a pile of tripe.

Look I still half hope you may be trying to be straight with us so I’ll do the same for you. Your posting of walls of text isn’t symptomatic of a good arguement. Insulting people isn’t equivalent to winning an arguement.

As to why no one is previously picking up on the points you mention above, well I’d put that down to it being the first time you’ve actually stated many of them. You may feel that the wall of waffle you’ve posted previously says the same thing but it doesn’t, if anything it’s basically an evasive opinion piece. In spite of that a number of posters have attempted to engage with you and indeed challenge some of the assumptions you appear to be basing your rather dogmatic views on. Top tip: Most people would see this as opportunity to engage in debate rather than evasion and insult.

Intothesea

johnp001 wrote: »

What strong, single noted outrage are you talking about?
The post you quoted contradicts your constant unbacked assertions that neoliberal, laissez faire policies are prevalent and increasing in western societies. It doesn't exhibit any outrage and is not indicative of any mass ruthlessness.

Its not constructive to invent negative motivations for a criticism of your statements instead of making any attempt to defend them.

It's a completely circular argument to say that the claim that neo liberalism is not pervasive and harmful is invalid because the claimant is only making it because they are suffering from the damaging effects of all the neo liberal policy.

From my observations, the single note detectable in Irish culture towards the welfare tranche is 'resentment'. It's a predictable and ironic response to the money-well going dry, courtesy of the people at the top.

As well, I'm sure it's the AMA article discussing the psychological costs of running a neo-liberal system that you're referring to. I don't remember making any sweeping statements about neo-liberal policy being prevalent and increasing the world over (a matter that google will sort out in short order, I'm sure). My knowledge of the social effects of neo-liberalism are due to living in what's likely the world's hottest spot for its completely unbalanced application -- the U.S.

Are you asserting that the nature of neo-liberal policy uptake is not progressive? I would beg to differ, as the very nature of it forces down unions, government controls, and public spending. The only way is down from there, in my conception of a fair and just social system. It's possible to see the bargain with neo-liberal lucifer going down anyway, what with all the newly slimmed-down government apparently doling out rights we supposedly only dreamt about 20 years ago.


Anyway, suffice it to say, I'm no fan of neo-liberalism, and am skeptical that it will deliver long-term peace and tranquility financially. As for any other way, the ball has pretty much been dropped already, with inequality set to become more rife in the future. It'll all work out in the end, if Peterson can convince everyone that their not top 1% IQ and lack of aggressiveness means that they deserve to be at the bottom. What a great day for Ayn Rand fans that would be.

Sand

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone know who this cabal of marxists he talks about are and why they want to destroy civilisation?

Its best to think of it as similar to neoliberalism. It is used almost entirely as a pejorative, very few people consciously identify as neoliberals, yet it exists as an ideology and indeed many believe it (neoliberalism) is the dominant ideology of the western world.

As to why they want to destroy civilisation? Its the same reason as people wage war. The purpose of war is to win a better peace. The purpose of undermining the existing society is to build a better one after it has collapsed. In theory at least. In practise its just undermining the existing society.

Intothesea wrote: »

Stuff

Is it a revolving door?

Sand

Hector Savage wrote: »

The guardian have done a big hit piece on Jordan Peterson.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest

Calling him "right wing" - laughable.

A lot of us know what a parody the guardian has become, but unfortunately a lot of others respect it and think it's a very reliable newsource (as it is within certain topics)

This will add to people's misunderstanding of him - they think they hate him, based on all this false info. on him.


It's depressing.

I'd normally have a lot of time for the Guardian. Its clearly a paper with an agenda, similar to the Daily Mail, but I had credited it with being professional and honest in a way that the Daily Mail is not. At least outside the Comment is Free portion which is a mixture of a fact free zone and navel gazing blogging on the entirely trivial.

But there's a pattern emerging where its engaged in a series of hit pieces and pieces which are overall dishonest. Taking some factual evidence, and then placing it within a dishonest or misleading narrative so that the reader receives a false understanding of events. I saw this with the Damore/Google case, and we're seeing it again with the Peterson/C4 interview.

Its as if the emergence of 'fake news' from sites like Breitbart left two options to media like the Guardian: drive towards honest warts and all reporting, or fight fire with fire with narratives and reporting defined by the agenda of the paper and/or the writer. It seems that they are increasingly tending to the latter.

the purple tin

Is Cathy Newman trying to be C4's resident attack dog? I saw her interviewing Milos Yiannopoulos and it was the same as this; constantly interrupting, shouting the guest down, trying to set obvious traps and being generally aggressive, comes across as quite amatuerish. She needs to watch a few interviews by Jeremy Paxman to see how it should be done.