Another good video clip from Maggie's Farm this morning. I always enjoy Jordan Peterson, but this exchange is especially revealing, not only about the startling unfamiliarity of his interlocutor with ideas outside of her echo chamber, but about Peterson's ability to remain calm and focused in an increasingly irrational argument. There's a lovely moment around minute 23 when the interviewer nearly admits that she has completely lost the ability to deny the reasonableness of his approach--but she recovers quickly and goes back on the attack.
It's really a shame she can't listen to him instead of trying to drown him out. He could do a lot more to advance her ostensibly feminist goals than most of the people she's been listening to so far.
12 comments:
She is painful in her inability to listen. I'm at the 18th minute and she continues to demonstrate a complete inability to listen to what he's actually saying. I will try to stick it out to the end, but for the moment, I need a break.
Nope, she's still awful. Every time she starts a sentence with "you're saying" it's a given that she's going to say something completely incorrect.
It's actively painful for me to listen to her. I must be a misogynist, I guess.
Every time she starts a sentence with "you're saying" it's a given that she's going to say something completely incorrect.
I got four minutes in, and this was already obvious. I'm not sure how interested I am in watching the rest of it if it's going to persist.
There is a video of Jordan Peterson engaging (if that is the right word) a crowd of sjw/trans protesters- the guy must be a saint- his patient effort to communicate over the sea of talking point rhetoric directed at him, and the refusal of the "interviewer" to allow him to reply, was astonishing.
His was attempting to show that criminalizing language led to Bad Things.
Their instant assumption was that if he did not support the state being able to throw someone in jail for BadSpeak, that he must approve of all oppression of the alphabet soup crowd.
Truly, they cannot think. Yuri Bezmanov was right.
She never really stops being awful, but Peterson's performance is masterful, and he has lots of interesting things to say.
Fair enough. I'll try to get through it.
There's a very partial transcript at The Atlantic in a piece by Conor Friedersdorf. (I'm so glad it explains the lobster comment - that was puzzling me terribly.) The title of the piece is, "Why Can't People Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying?" I assume Mr. Friedersdorf did not pick the title since, while he points out this is the problem, he never answers the question. (His link name should have been the title: putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson) Too bad, as it's an interesting question.
Neoneocon also has an interesting piece on this interview, pointing out where you can see Mr. Peterson's training and experience as a therapist. Neo recommends reading her piece then watching the interview. I've done the former but have not yet gotten myself to do the latter.
"Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?"
"Because in order 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? It's been very uncomfortable."
Nice exchange, at the end of which she does the extraordinary thing: she pauses and thinks. It doesn't last -- she tries to reframe it in terms of him consenting to be offended, which if she'd thought just a bit longer she'd have realized was nowhere near the issue. Of course she'd still feel she had the right to ask uncomfortable questions to a powerful figure even if they did not consent. It's even more important, for a journalist, when the powerful do not consent to have the truth explored.
I wonder if she's learned anything from this experience?
It really was an extraordinary moment. She was on the verge of being honest with herself. I found myself wondering if she worried over it later.
I wonder if she's learned anything from this experience?
Given her absolute inability to listen to or process a word he said, I truly doubt it. "So what you're saying is..." /massive eyeroll
I am so, so given to that particular error in communication. It did me good to watch how completely useless a tactic it was, and remind myself not to do it. It's bad enough when you do it on purpose as a rhetorical weapon, but she doesn't even know she hasn't accurately heard her partner in conversation. She doesn't understand the basic arguments of her opponents enough to judge them, reject them, and combat them.
In contrast, I find Peterson a model of lucidity and good faith. I'd love to meet him.
All humans have this inability to listen, due to their preconceived conceptions and mind control programs.
Grim was watching Peterson using therapy and interrogation methods, and it worked.
Which is why debating humans is less effective than interrogating them.
Leftists are zombies, debate shouldn't even be an issue ,but Americans are free to waste their time as they see fit as the country dies. This is a test, but not the result.
Post a Comment