Jordan Peterson v Cathy Newman – Best SJW Takedown Evah! By James Delingpole.
“I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer,” says Douglas Murray.
If you loathe the cant, self-righteousness, and stupidity of the regressive left, then you’ll love this train wreck of an interview. …
Newman set out to ensnare and destroy someone whose politics she found objectionable — but ended up being hoist by her own petard.
But this interview, I believe, is much more than just a conservative “lol and share” moment. I think it marks a pivotal victory in the culture wars — an incident in which the weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly exposed. So I want to examine in more detail why. …
Educated at one of Britain’s leading private schools, with a first class degree in English from Oxford University, Newman is the embodiment of the woke millennial generation: white children of privilege on a mission to remake the world anew according to the principles of the thing they call “Social Justice.” … Like so many of the university-educated elite of her generation, she embraced the fashionable politically correct, post-modernist view of the world. This view would have us believe that there is no such thing as objective truth — only a succession of competing “narratives,” some more “privileged” than others.
Self-evidently this is nonsense. Dozens of philosophers far cleverer than Newman and her ilk have established through logic that beyond all doubt that there is such a thing as truth. But such post-modernist thinking has, for decades now, been the dominant mode at our university campuses — especially in courses like Gender Studies. …
This is the great ideological divide of our times: not between left and right but between those of us who believe in truth; and those who believe, Oprah style, that we’re all entitled to our own truths and that everyone’s is equally special. …
Newman is combative and disapproving from the off. That’s because — and, for once, she’s right — she understands that Peterson is “The Enemy.” Though both of them would probably identify as being on the left or “progressive” side of the political argument, their intellectual positions could scarcely be more violently opposed.
In a nutshell, it’s Truth v Narrative.
Nowhere is this better exemplified than in their disagreement over the “Gender Pay Gap.”
Newman believes passionately that it’s real — and outrageous!
Peterson believes that it’s an artificial construct, based on a grotesque oversimplification, which consequently is of little value to real world policy-making.
Newman is clearly very upset by this heresy. Well, she would be. Peterson has just gone and rejected what she — as a fully woke, third-wave feminist — considers to be just about the most important truth in the world: that there is an oppressive male hegemony which is keeping women down; that the “Gender Pay Gap” is the ultimate proof of this; that this is an issue which must urgently be addressed.
Peterson points out that when all factors are taken into account, there is of course no gender pay gap in favor of men.
his response to Newman’s outrage that there aren’t more female CEOs is that maybe fewer women actually want to go through the misery of competing with lots of aggressive alpha males for a job which will require them to work long hours and have little time for family activities or leisure. There is evidence to support this. Men and women are different.
Newman has no time for these nuances because her Narrative does not allow it. The Narrative is: oppressive men are holding women back; it’s SO UNFAIR!
Time and again she presses Peterson to agree with her toddler-level Narrative:
She asks: “Do you agree that it’s unfair?”
Peterson replies: “Not necessarily.”
And he’s not being evasive or devious, merely behaving as a grown-up professor at a grown-up university should: looking at the facts; exploring an issue from all angles; drawing intelligent conclusions.
Perhaps the most damning of all the many damning things that can be said about Cathy Newman’s performance in this car crash interview is this: it’s not intelligent.
No, worse than that: it’s anti-intelligent.
Well obviously. She is trying to suppress several self-evident truths.
And this isn’t an accident. Newman’s anti-intelligence is not a bug but a feature of the way post-modernists think. Their ideology is an explicit rejection of the entire pre-20th century canon of Western thinking — a rejection, indeed, of Western Civilization itself. …
This is what was truly so important about this interview. It exposed, more clearly I think than in any adversarial TV encounter I have ever seen, the intellectual emptiness at the heart of the SJWs’ thinking.
Usually, because they’re so strident, aggressive, self-righteous and fluent — the same fluency Marxists used to have when spouting their Dialectical Materialism — high-level Social Justice Warriors like Cathy Newman are able to bully their opponents into compliance and give onlookers the impression of being cleverer and better informed than they actually are.
But it just didn’t work with Peterson: he knows his field (clinical psychology) too well, and he has debated Social Justice Warriors too many times to fall into any of their traps. Also, he’s very patient and polite and coy — so despite the numerous points he scored off Newman, he never looked like a bully.