@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 Unfortunately there's nothing passive about her aggressive demeanor. It's evident that she's engaged in a "Gotcha" contest, in which Peterson won't stoop to engage.
I'm not super into Jordan Peterson, I mainly watched this video out of curiosity. You could fill a book with the words she put into his mouth. God awful "journalism".
She listened quite well. Her catastrophic failure was attempting to twist his words into straw man arguments that were immediately shot down. That's the difference between an interviewer and a debater, the debater will always win because they know a straw man argument when they hear it. When someone says "So you're saying...", be prepared for a argumentative fallacy.
I suppose, if that's what you call listening. However, I feel that if she was actually listening, she wouldn't draw ridiculous conclusions and have to say, "so what you're saying is..." Or maybe she was just trying to find a reason to be triggered. Either way, what he actually says is typically very clear.
She had pre-set notions, with little to back them up. By their own professions, he listens more and she talks more. She listened for words that she thought she could use to formulate arguments against him. I agree that she she attempted to "talk over" him, and it seemed as if she wasn't listening. And yes, she was trying to "trigger" him, hence her admission of "Yes, you got me". She was basically unprepared for him, both argumentatively and factually. There's a difference between "listening" and "understanding". She didn't listen to understand, she listened for argumentative "potholes" in his words, and then attempted to tell him what he actually meant, or create arguments that had nothing to do with what he said. She's just poor debater with preconceived ideas that had no chance. She did try, I'll grant her that much.
She had to be listening very well in order to quickly attempt to twist his words and just as quickly realize that his rebuttals to her queries were sufficient enough to stop the line of questioning. But just as ctyragdoll pointed out, this was not a discussion.
As a language learner I can’t express enough how much I love this comment. What a gem when you can take such significant meaning from a language you’ve put thousands if not tens of thousands of hours into learning. Happy for you!
Really interesting! Did you struggle with following the "conversation"? I suppose, after 10 years of learning English, following it shouldn't be too difficult.
This will be immortalized as some of the most elegant and respectful ways in modern history to deal with a fanatic. Dr Peterson is undoubtly a person to have in high regard.
I feel bad for Jordan here. The host is clearly looking for a dramatic angle to push on, and he's not giving her one. "Are you saying that..." "No I'm saying.." Over and over and over.
@@Glacialvoid devils advocate is when you argue a fifferent or opposing argument to the one that is being debated. It is not when you reconstruct the oppositions words and pervert their meaning. The worst part is that she knows she is misinterpreting him, and it is clear in her tone of voice that she is acting/pretending. She is not being honest, and her whole being knows this ....but she is doing her best to conceal it. She is lying, and thats what makes this interview so embarrassing.
@@lightsoutlena To be truthful, to be an effective devils advocate, you can "pervert" the words in any way you want as long as the meaning is retained. Especially if the perversion leads to the questions being as emotional as possible. Im not at all saying this to defend her, in fact her perversion does go too far, any journalist shouldnt interpret anything beyond trying to understand the essence of something. Journalists SHOULDNT play the devils advocate. I am just saying, that this does give us something positive. Jp is really good at shutting things like that down, and they're both helping us to do that ourselves.
At least a male senior executive realized it wasn't worth losing 90% of their viewership on YT. If Cathy was in charge this would be gone in a heart beat.
Here is yet, another example of 'Cathy' not understanding or letting Mr Peterson finishing his thought/statement! Cathy's behavior looks like, sounds like and smells like a lot of liberal Gobbledygook! Again, these people need to Close Their Mouths and open their ears.
Honestly, it seems more like a case of an extreme debater mind that has zero willingness to concede, almost as if she is trying to prove a point like their life depends on it. As a result of this mindset, she attacks ever single word that he is saying and attempts to construe it in a way that portrays him and his argument in the worst way possible. From my experience in sanctioned debates in school as well as adjudication from said debates, both in my school and other, her ability to honestly reason in a way that deduces common themes is absolutely pathetic. She would barely survive people in year 7-8 in terms of ability.
Yeah, but I think she does a great job of criticizing Jordan - and I think he mentions it that she does a great job of not being afraid to offend him in search of the truth. I think the segment starts at about 22:14
@@MrMeszaros the problem is I don't think she was looking for the truth. at least not willing to let it be what it is. she had a conclusion she wanted to reach and she had to try to get him to go along with it. people do this all the time in politics. the give away is nearly always a bunch of questions involving "what you're saying is" and then an intentionally disingenuous statement. politicians do it for votes, news anchors do it for ratings. this is why youtubers like Joe Rogan, Uncommon Knowledge, Russell Brand and the like do so well. they ask questions and follow where they lead, they don't try to steer the answers.
Actually, that is a valid argument. The sky is not always blue, the wind doesn't always blow, and the grass doesn't always grow. But I see what you mean: this interviewer was definitely looking for a confrontation.
@@BigBri550 but he didn't specify the "always". He might've meant "now", which could be more or less likely depending on the context - if you're discussing the weather for example.
@@LibertarianGearhead Well, the OP is a characterization anyway, but here’s how it works: “The sky is blue” is an absolute statement even lacking the word “always.” So if Cathy were to retort, “So you’re saying sunsets don’t exist,” she’s not exactly wrong. If an absolute statement can be interpreted as exclusionary, it is invalid unless it happens to be true under all circumstances. To conclude otherwise is assumptive.
@@rhydianc7502 Yeah but taking questions from an interviewer who is constantly getting things wrong is difficult, so he corrects her and tries to help her understand with questions to her.
Deep insight into how the far left thinks one step ahead of what is actually being spoken and implies nefarious meanings to Jordan. Absolute masterclass. 3 could be good, it could be bad, but idk we talking about 1+1 to get to 2 at the moment.
You know, I don't particularly gush and fall over myself repeating "Oh, Jordan, Jordan, you're SO smart" but you know, compared to most people I've seen/met/married/argued with/listened to, this guy has a fucking neuron or two actually fucking firing somewhere deep in the recesses of his anterior cingulate medullary fomentum-you know, actually *demonstrating* the oft-trumpeted claim that human beings at some point diverged from the apes, UNLIKE around ninety-nine point nine percent of the tetrapod-like organisms that come under the designation "humanity".
@@grillGrilla Tee hee; I would be hilariously happy to oblige. Each and every single day I am struck with the realization that the vast, VAST majority of human beings have only the vaguest notions of the existence of modes of thought about science, history, the sum of human knowledge up to this point or really, ANYTHING AT ALL beyond their Facebook pages and the latest engrossing conspiracy theory. That's when they're rationalizing why they shouldn't vaccinate their kids, if indeed you can dignify the term as "rationalizing."
Well, yes and no. They can't take this down or disable comments because the blowback would be a scandal. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
@Wo Jak I didn't say we don't learn from our mistakes I just made an observation that there are mistakes that never go away regardless of whether you learn or not
Lameck Wanyama- Jordan talked about this indirectly. He said that the first clip they showed on TV made her look better, so they happily released the full interview on UA-cam thinking it was a win for her. It backfired to say the least.
I would think that Cathy has much respect for this man after her interview. He answered every question with a direct response and unwavering opinion. What an intelligent and genuine human being, he is.
Feminism is worse than cancer. It's hate, distilled into a childishly aggressive ideology, directed towards 50% of the human population, in an oversimplistic bid for power. This is truly the misguided basis for the ideological ignorance that led to the most horrifying events of the 20th century, and more deaths than cancer caused in the same time frame.
The intellectual needs to be placed in it’s proper place. It used to be portrayed as a midget with a big ear. Intellectuals like comic book man are not necessarily productive or wise.
Also, some people from Channel 4 (see Cathy's retweets) are trying to selectively use random "offensive" comments on this video, to try and portray this sorry excuse for an interviewer as a victim of "harrassment". It's disgusting.
So you're saying.... she is not cut out for a high profile/ high flying career like mainstream media TV presenter, or politician, or CEO etc where public scrutiny is a part of the job?
Cathy: What gives you the right to say this? Jordan: I'm a clinical psychologist Always amazes my how quick his wit is. If this was a live audience there would have been applause!
How about asking him what he means. It's so annoying to keep implying what someone means when you truly don't understand what their saying. She is hard to listen to.
Oh she does understand perfectly... and at some point she even realise she cannot argue back and have to change subject. but that's not her objective to present his viewpoint. Her objective was te present and paint him as a "provocateur, hating, mysoginist and transphobic man" but she failed epicly
That woman needs lesson in the art of listening. She is infuriating. A producer should have slapped her and said, "Snap out of it!" A la Cher in Moonstruck
Wow. Just wow. This interview is a total train wreck. Cathy's ranting does NOT represent all women's views. Please, Cathy, stop "helping" us. You are a mess.
They never are just like the gq intervew. These as it just happens to be women are representative of a leftist political stance. They both got destroyed. Don't worry nobody believes this is representative of all women's views. Thank you for your comment.
@rumpleforeskin73 good reasoning. Besides, she seems to be blaming him for everything that is wrong and demanding him to justify history facts!!! Making him responsible for crisis everywhere!! How silly!!, as he said!!!.
Jordan was so eloquent and patient. His precise use of words was a joy to listen to. I wonder if she would have enjoyed listening to him as much I did, had she actually listened
After this interview, I unironically looked into buying his book. I did and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks Cathy Newman, for being the best possible advertising for Mr Peterson & his work that anyone could ask for.
I am sure that her supervisors expect her to act that way in order to make him fail in his statements. She is an journalist after all, thats what they often do with people who are controversial. If she manage to talk him into saying something sexist, she is gonna make an interesting headline and thats the way her channel will be more marketable and attractive for viewers.
when she had that moment of enlightenment that her right of free speech could upset someone and that it still is a right you gotta defend, i knew she has to be plain stupid. i mean it even took her a while to wrap her head around that thought.
@@INFINITY_99 If you answer the question why she doesn't want to understand him, it'll lead you to the point where she has to be stupid. She got a fundamentalists few of gender inequality. Fundamentalism per se means that one has to be stupid, because it means that you are aiming for that one and only simple answer about a certain thing, not allowing any other answers. Fundamentalism is a way to avoid thinking. I don't know how that isn't stupid.
@@biedl86 You seem very preoccupied and judging. I definitely see your point. However, I will not support your in accusing her to be stupid - that would be overhasty. The central problem is that she stands in for a viewpoint that is very extreme and that can be refuted quite easily to some extent. That's the reason why Jordan Peterson smashes her in this debate. She just doesn't have clear evidence that supports her thesis and, on top of that, her strategy wasn't thought out so well. This doesn't change the point I am making right now, though. You shouldn't be so fast in judging someone.
abhishek mittal you’re degenerating it. all the assumptions she made came from statements he led. Only he was smart enough to not let them out of his mouth.
@@gjinkalla7121 He is no doubt very smart guy and a superb articulator. But for the anchor, pin pointing every other word is not smartness that the anchor was doing
@@gjinkalla7121 No, all of the assumptions she made were leaps in logic. Using logical fallacy in a recorded debate is what makes her look unintelligent. It seems like you weren't able to understand anything JP said just like the reporter. He isn't arguing based on opinions, he uses purely factual arguments.
I am very glad that the channel is brave enough to let the comment section remain open. Even though they probably aren’t fond of the comments, it’s the right thing to do.
They haven't for a long time and look what's happened. Rampant depression and substance abuse. Turns out being too agreeable to toxic societal norms ain't such a good idea!
She also sound like she has no scientific training. For instance: she doesn't understand what multivariate analysis (5:42) is and doesn't know what "negatively predicts" means (19:33).
that's what debates usually are about, unfortunately or fortunately. Fortunately, because 2 people may go so radical in their views, that some of the sideless audience might try to see the middle ground themselves.
@@boris5950 Both feminists and antifeminists should not be talking about wage gap statistics without understanding this math problem: BUSINESS A 50 men works for salary of 300$. 30 women works for salary of 250$. BUSINESS B 40 men works for salary of 500$. 40 women works for salary of 450$. BUSINESS C 30 men works for salary of 700$. 50 women works for salary of 650$. TOTAL A, B, C 120 men works for average salary of 467$. 120 women works for average salary of 483$. So who is discriminated here, men or women?
@@goranmilic442 yeah, sure, everyone should have better statistics training at school, as this problem of just having a look at averages and immediately jumping to conclusions also affects people who don't identify neither as feminists nor as anti-feminists. PS : I think your example would have been quicklier compelling to me using "position" or "industry" instead of "business" ;-)
I'm sure she's partially doing it for the sake of the viewers. Don't you think this interview would be boring if she didn't get J. Peterson to elaborate his point in a way that the average viewers can get? It also helps him to debunk his detractors.
Folks keep getting mad at Newman here, but Petersen uses implications in the things he's saying to communicate a lot of stuff indirectly. And he's doing it on purpose. It's a very manipulative tactic, one that works really well against someone who isn't prepared for that.
FINALLY.. Yes.. you got one right cause all of your other (So you are saying) was like, like... you were talking to someone else.... Your replies were not even part of the same conversation.. Then this.. YES you got totally owned and thrown away on your own show.
I think the thing that really pisses me off is her inability to comprehend what he's saying. She, mistakenly, decided before they met who he was and what he stood for and no matter how many times he corrected her she still kept to her initial narrative.
Why is it that, when we see a woman interviewer (mostly women), you know right away whether or not they are totally against the person being interviewed and are not interested in talking about what the interviewed person says? Interviewees are only invited to a tongue-lashing session. You don't have to be a Trump fan to be utterly appalled by the interviews from CNN and others. At least Cathy is polite enough to not flat out severely interrupt him. The Trump interviews should be set up in infamy as a complete and utter disgrace and I hope these eventually show up in ways that put shame on Caitlyn Collins. Trump has been interviewed as if he is a rapist. His outing her as rude was a controlled understatement, (direct this at Anderson Cooper.) There's no excuse for her over 100 interruptions.
This interview should be archived for the betterment of humanity forever. It should be played in every school at least once a year in every grade as a masterclass on critical thinking and handling vicious dishonest attacks
Bingo. She quite possibly conducted the worst interview in the history of television. This is how coerced confessions happen lol luckily Jordan is too smart for her tactics
@@spaceghost4628 she made the conversation more interesting since it was confrontational, to be entirely honest I’m glad she proved him right by fighting so hard for the answers she wanted.
@@Nick-bz3sz not for me, GQ interview was much better with Helen Lewis. They disagreed on damn near everything but she let him speak and was overall much more intelligent and articulate than this joke. I much rather watch smart people talk to smart people.
I'm STUNNED--this video has picked up ONE MILLION MORE VIEWS than it had just YESTERDAY, when I first watched it. I'm heartened that the response is overwhelmingly positive. Even though it's likely mostly guys here, this gives me hope, at least, that The Narrative is collapsing. EDIT ONE YEAR LATER: Thanks to the ladies that chimed in here as well.
That's what happens when you know your subject and use common sense. Still discovering the guy's work, but from my perspective he looks extremely interresting.
I don't get what she was trying to achieve here.. She asked a question, he answers it then she asked it again as if somehow he's gonna give a different answer, like this is some kind of multiple choice test and he's circled the wrong one hahahaha and when he denies the words she's putting in her mouth she began to stutter then disregard his answer all together.
She tried everything, hostility, interrupting, not allowing him to finish his point, avoiding deep conversation and not listening - to win. Lefties are about winning and not about what's truth. If you discus things from ideological perspective you're losing from the start.This woman has not capacity for that anyway. She is confusing assertiveness with intelligence.The only thing left for her to try is a gun. Disgusting hysterical personality with no substance.
chrislikescandy she’s not weak, she just wants to produce a good headline for her company. it’s in her interest to get something controversial out of him.
This interview was my entrè into Jordan Peterson a couple of years ago...I've been a fan ever since, though I hate to use such a banal term as "fan" to describe my admiration and respect for this man's intellect and reasoning. I was having a conversation with a good friend who is himself extremely intelligent; we were discussing how crazy the vibe is in society and how often people misconstrue and just [plain] don't listen to one another, and he responded by telling me he had read an interesting piece about that very notion in the paper that morning. He sent me the article, which was titled "Why No One Seems To Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying" [paraphrasing the title....but it was something very close to that]. Neither my friend nor I knew who this Jordan Peterson was, but the article did a very good job making its point, and there happened to be a thumbnail of this [same] interview embedded in the corner of the page...I clicked on that after reading the piece and the rest, as "they" say, is history. Not sure how long you've been aware of Peterson, but if recent I invite you to check him out. AND, don't listen to his detractors...listen to him with an open heart and an open mind. However, if you are already familiar with him disregard all I said.
@@FedericoGPena Thanks for your comments. I don't remember exactly when I became aware of him, but it has been at least a little over a year- maybe slightly more. I think a Canadian friend on Facebook mentioned him, and I began to look for myself. I find Jordan Peterson to be brilliant, thought-provoking, and flat out refreshing. I think he makes some people uncomfortable because he challenges accepted ideas so succinctly.
This interviewer refuses to hear what Dr. Peterson is saying. I am an MD in the US, but I make less than 100k a year. This is because I took of many years to have and raise my children. My children are grown but my career will never catch up to a my male colleagues. I am ok with this. My children are worth the sacrifice of my career
Shes totally unconscious of how idiotic her understanding of anything he has answered just doesn't break down in her head and only hearing the first word he says.....amazing she probably still didn't notice it
Your loss was losing time to develop your career but your gain was being able to spend time raising your kids, that is priceless. Inherently men choose to be a provider and women choose to be a carer, it's a recipe for success when both sides are appreciated.
It's desperation, my friend. She gets upset that Professor Peterson compares SJW activists to Chairman Mao, so he explains that their ideology is the same. So she doesn't listen! Why? So that she can insist on her non-point.
@@VixeyFrost If you think that, then I don't think you listened to him either. To be fair, most of this interview was him defending against her wildly inaccurate accusatory statements. Watch some of his lectures.
Now after 6 years, this is still such a masterpiece to watch. The utter incompetence of Cathy as an interviewer and her constant attempts at misquoting and trying to put Jordan into a corner are just so embarrassing, while Jordan just simply answers every question and redirects her ill-intentioned attempts onto the right path.
@@moelarry8088 there is a vice interview in which he says the reason that women wear makeup is to be sexually provocative, that’s obviously untrue and can instantly be debunked by offering similar examples of accessories men use for confidence like nice clothing or shoulder pads. He then goes on to say that them wearing said makeup is inviting sexual harassment in the workplace, he then does his bullshit way of speaking where goes “I don’t know” after stating something that he obviously believes. Jordan Peterson constantly take bullshit arguments that he backs up with unrelated empirical evidence so that people like you believe him. For example claiming that gay couples raise their children worse than straight couples and having no evidence to back that up (because it’s statistically completely incorrect), instead he uses unrelated data of single parents raising children worse than couples. The man is openly transphobic and homophobic, but uses the thinnest veil imaginable to act like he is a liberal (Also cultural Marxism is literally a dog whistle to cultural Bolshevism, which the nazis said Jews were doing in the 1930s)
She's really trying to be passive-aggressive towards a clinical psychologist.
Shows the utter lack of self-awareness of these "woke" journalists.
@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 Pretty crazy, and nice profile picture.
Big mistake!
Michael G. Scott - She's a Feminist.
@@dostthouevenlogicbrethren1739 Unfortunately there's nothing passive about her aggressive demeanor. It's evident that she's engaged in a "Gotcha" contest, in which Peterson won't stoop to engage.
I’m surprised his jaw didn’t break from the amount of words she was trying to put in his mouth
Good one dude. But no for real, it's honeslty so pathetic, it made me so mad
I'm not super into Jordan Peterson, I mainly watched this video out of curiosity. You could fill a book with the words she put into his mouth. God awful "journalism".
Unbelievable!
thedrizzle313 exactly. I found myself on many occasions saying” that is not it all what he said, lady”
thedrizzle313 Exactly! I found myself on many occasions saying” that is not at all what he said”, lady.
One of her traits certainly isn't being a good listener.
She listened quite well. Her catastrophic failure was attempting to twist his words into straw man arguments that were immediately shot down. That's the difference between an interviewer and a debater, the debater will always win because they know a straw man argument when they hear it. When someone says "So you're saying...", be prepared for a argumentative fallacy.
I suppose, if that's what you call listening. However, I feel that if she was actually listening, she wouldn't draw ridiculous conclusions and have to say, "so what you're saying is..." Or maybe she was just trying to find a reason to be triggered. Either way, what he actually says is typically very clear.
So are you saying women aren't good listeners? And that they should be happy just being low paid lobsters?
She had pre-set notions, with little to back them up. By their own professions, he listens more and she talks more. She listened for words that she thought she could use to formulate arguments against him. I agree that she she attempted to "talk over" him, and it seemed as if she wasn't listening. And yes, she was trying to "trigger" him, hence her admission of "Yes, you got me". She was basically unprepared for him, both argumentatively and factually. There's a difference between "listening" and "understanding". She didn't listen to understand, she listened for argumentative "potholes" in his words, and then attempted to tell him what he actually meant, or create arguments that had nothing to do with what he said. She's just poor debater with preconceived ideas that had no chance. She did try, I'll grant her that much.
She had to be listening very well in order to quickly attempt to twist his words and just as quickly realize that his rebuttals to her queries were sufficient enough to stop the line of questioning. But just as ctyragdoll pointed out, this was not a discussion.
6 years later and it still hits.
100% amazes me after that "Got ya" moment seeing the cogs in her brain turn to try figure out how to spin and twist what he actually said.
6 years later and cathy seems sane in comparison to the woke leftists today
Fkn slaps
I'd argue it hits even harder!
Absolutely 💯💯💯
I spent 10 years learning English. This interview was my prize.
Great job!
As a language learner I can’t express enough how much I love this comment. What a gem when you can take such significant meaning from a language you’ve put thousands if not tens of thousands of hours into learning. Happy for you!
Really interesting! Did you struggle with following the "conversation"? I suppose, after 10 years of learning English, following it shouldn't be too difficult.
@@melaniegrace7707 took you thousands to learn english? U probably were not trying hard enough then.
This was mind blowing statement of :D :D I will put it on one of the top of the year
Jordan:
- Cats like to be in warm places...
Cathy:
- So you're saying cats are responsible for global warming?
Fucking hilarious, you win the internet.
Love it, love it , love it...I think my enthusiasm has contributed to my carbon footprint......oh dear!
xD!!!!!!
Funny!!!!!
LOL
I know it wasn't her point, but this interview made me instantly pre-order his book.
I just ordered it too!
Cubeologist same!!
I got it on Audible. If you enjoy listening to Dr Peterson talk, it's like a 15hour podcast lol
Added to the wishlist. It was great to watch him school Channel 4 news.
Just waiting for my next credit to come in and I'm all over this.
This will be immortalized as some of the most elegant and respectful ways in modern history to deal with a fanatic. Dr Peterson is undoubtly a person to have in high regard.
“I’m very very careful with my words” - Jordan Peterson
“Well I’m not” - Cathy Newman
You didn't have to say that, sweetheart. It was just so obvious - me
that's why I love the comment section 😂
That was his warning to her...but she didn't realise and got had later on. BOOM!
Sums it up
This comment section keeps giving and giving, even after two years. So satisfying, lol.
She’s trying so hard to misinterpret his words that it become annoying.
It’s quite a well known debate technique. She just miserably fails at doing it correctly.
Let me offend the “laydees” for ya. But that’s what women do 🥴
@@bj1783 you’re no Jordan Peterson. 😄
Straw men
@Patrick J Mims nice 👍
- "so you're saying that..."
- " no I'm not..."
And that goes on 100 more times
I feel bad for Jordan here. The host is clearly looking for a dramatic angle to push on, and he's not giving her one. "Are you saying that..." "No I'm saying.." Over and over and over.
Tenkos Came here to say just that.
Peterson: facts facts facts Interviewer: so, you're a sexist bigot racist then? Next question. XD
Lol perfect summary of the interview. This is one of those women who think being belligerent and bitchy is strong and intelligent. WRONG
Someone should remind Cathy this tactic is also known as lying
Thank you Cathy Newman for bringing in hundreds of thousands of new fans to Jordan Peterson. It's probably the best thing she's done in her career.
i would say millions! But yeah this was excellent!
*whole interview:*
Cathy: So you're saying that.....
Jordan: I literally never said that......
Good summary.
Jordan is too smart for her
Yes pretty much
ua-cam.com/channels/lLNqr9kTEehlf7jSiSLJVg.html
sounds like my wife when we get in an argument hahaha
she is basically losing an argument with herself
It's called playing the devils advocate! A very useful tool :)
@@Glacialvoid devils advocate is when you argue a fifferent or opposing argument to the one that is being debated. It is not when you reconstruct the oppositions words and pervert their meaning.
The worst part is that she knows she is misinterpreting him, and it is clear in her tone of voice that she is acting/pretending. She is not being honest, and her whole being knows this ....but she is doing her best to conceal it. She is lying, and thats what makes this interview so embarrassing.
@@lightsoutlena To be truthful, to be an effective devils advocate, you can "pervert" the words in any way you want as long as the meaning is retained. Especially if the perversion leads to the questions being as emotional as possible. Im not at all saying this to defend her, in fact her perversion does go too far, any journalist shouldnt interpret anything beyond trying to understand the essence of something. Journalists SHOULDNT play the devils advocate. I am just saying, that this does give us something positive. Jp is really good at shutting things like that down, and they're both helping us to do that ourselves.
@@Glacialvoid i can appreciate that.
lena trackburn yup, there’s a term for that. The strawman argument.
"So you are saying this thing that you have never said" ~Interviewer
Perfect summary of this whole half hour
fucking funny haha
over and over again ... shes not very bright, and shes bitter, _and_ shes 'on a mission' the dizzy blonde. >_
That sums it up, what a horrible interviewer talk about someone that got their job because of gender not merit.
Exactly what i was thinking. Peterson is way too smart for this lady though
Ive never watched an interviewer try so hard to catch someone in a gotcha question and fail every single attempt 😂😂
you would think they'd know better after failing the 3rd of 4th time huh
@@timyassa4343 Not when the network has an agenda or rather narrative to push
And then getting caught in a gotcha question herself. That’s just Karma 😂
"I like bread."
"So what your saying is; you want poor people to starve to death?"
Tres amusant
man... this should be in top of the comment section :D
lol
Hahahahah 😂😂😂
+sammehman Very accurate assessment of her interview style. She exposes her contempt and hate for men during the interview.
Jordan:The dog is a man's best friend.
Cathy: *So you're saying dogs hate women?*
Good one. This is exactly something Newman would say.
😂
Noice
I like your comment but I'm not gonna hit like because of the number of likes you have.
magyar?
So you are saying.....
LOL
she did that atleast 10 times
color morale 37 times.
Vincent Rodriguez you're joking
Womansplaining at its finest.
Kudos to Channel 4 for keeping the comments on. This is documentation of their absolute wreckage
At least a male senior executive realized it wasn't worth losing 90% of their viewership on YT. If Cathy was in charge this would be gone in a heart beat.
Look at the views 🤑🤑🤑🤑
Jordan: Women birth 100% of babies
Cathy: so you're saying all women have to have kids
Here is yet, another example of 'Cathy' not understanding or letting Mr Peterson finishing his thought/statement! Cathy's behavior looks like, sounds like and smells like a lot of liberal Gobbledygook! Again, these people need to Close Their Mouths and open their ears.
no words, she is a rat...
Does this woman still have a job ?
@@xfiles5913 she better find something she is good at.
Azai Thou bold of you to assume that she is good at things in general
"So you're saying..."
"So what you're trying to say is..."
"You're just saying.."
She just isn't listening.
Yh I think it’s because Jordan is so smart she has to dumb his words down to understand
Honestly, it seems more like a case of an extreme debater mind that has zero willingness to concede, almost as if she is trying to prove a point like their life depends on it. As a result of this mindset, she attacks ever single word that he is saying and attempts to construe it in a way that portrays him and his argument in the worst way possible. From my experience in sanctioned debates in school as well as adjudication from said debates, both in my school and other, her ability to honestly reason in a way that deduces common themes is absolutely pathetic. She would barely survive people in year 7-8 in terms of ability.
Are you saying a comet will hit this planet at noon??
Yeah, but I think she does a great job of criticizing Jordan - and I think he mentions it that she does a great job of not being afraid to offend him in search of the truth.
I think the segment starts at about 22:14
@@MrMeszaros the problem is I don't think she was looking for the truth. at least not willing to let it be what it is. she had a conclusion she wanted to reach and she had to try to get him to go along with it. people do this all the time in politics. the give away is nearly always a bunch of questions involving "what you're saying is" and then an intentionally disingenuous statement. politicians do it for votes, news anchors do it for ratings. this is why youtubers like Joe Rogan, Uncommon Knowledge, Russell Brand and the like do so well. they ask questions and follow where they lead, they don't try to steer the answers.
Jordan Peterson: Yes
Kathey Newman: So what your'e saying is no.
And that's sexist, isn't it?
😂😭
@@schlimmbotg472 Patriarchal tyranny, in fact 😂
🤣🤣🤣
@@schlimmbotg472 obviously, everything a man does is sexist. They slowly want to criminalize having xy chromosome
This interview is Jordan Peterson's greatest moment. It's evergreen and it will never be forgotten.
Jordan: "There are starving people everywhere."
Cathy: "So you're saying that women belong in the kitchen."
😂😂😂😂
Lol
Hilarious 😂🤣
This wins😂
Precisely this😂😂
Jordan-“The sky is blue”
Cathy-“so you’re saying sunsets don’t exist?”
It's hard to watch, but damn I keep coming back to this shitshow
Actually, that is a valid argument. The sky is not always blue, the wind doesn't always blow, and the grass doesn't always grow. But I see what you mean: this interviewer was definitely looking for a confrontation.
@@BigBri550 but he didn't specify the "always". He might've meant "now", which could be more or less likely depending on the context - if you're discussing the weather for example.
@@LibertarianGearhead Well, the OP is a characterization anyway, but here’s how it works: “The sky is blue” is an absolute statement even lacking the word “always.” So if Cathy were to retort, “So you’re saying sunsets don’t exist,” she’s not exactly wrong. If an absolute statement can be interpreted as exclusionary, it is invalid unless it happens to be true under all circumstances. To conclude otherwise is assumptive.
😂 yeah, just like that
notice how he answers all her questions and she ignores all of his
Exactly.
typical toxic feminist
That's a women attitude for you I always see that in my house!
He is the one being interviewed.
@@rhydianc7502 Yeah but taking questions from an interviewer who is constantly getting things wrong is difficult, so he corrects her and tries to help her understand with questions to her.
JP: "1+1=2."
Cathy: "So, you're saying 3 is irrelevant to this equation?"
Deep insight into how the far left thinks one step ahead of what is actually being spoken and implies nefarious meanings to Jordan. Absolute masterclass. 3 could be good, it could be bad, but idk we talking about 1+1 to get to 2 at the moment.
I watch this quite often, just to remind myself of how not to be an idiot.
You know, I don't particularly gush and fall over myself repeating "Oh, Jordan, Jordan, you're SO smart" but you know, compared to most people I've seen/met/married/argued with/listened to, this guy has a fucking neuron or two actually fucking firing somewhere deep in the recesses of his anterior cingulate medullary fomentum-you know, actually *demonstrating* the oft-trumpeted claim that human beings at some point diverged from the apes, UNLIKE around ninety-nine point nine percent of the tetrapod-like organisms that come under the designation "humanity".
😅
@@kamakirinoko it would amuse me to have a clip of you voicing this comment in person included at the end of this video footage.
@@kamakirinoko Your comment regenerated my dead brain cells :))))
@@grillGrilla Tee hee; I would be hilariously happy to oblige. Each and every single day I am struck with the realization that the vast, VAST majority of human beings have only the vaguest notions of the existence of modes of thought about science, history, the sum of human knowledge up to this point or really, ANYTHING AT ALL beyond their Facebook pages and the latest engrossing conspiracy theory. That's when they're rationalizing why they shouldn't vaccinate their kids, if indeed you can dignify the term as "rationalizing."
Tbh, kudos to channel 4 for leaving comments enabled and not being as butthurt as they could be.
seriously. that's pretty commendable
The top executive got a letter from her to disable them but he realized the name on the letter was Cathy so he threw it out.
Well, yes and no. They can't take this down or disable comments because the blowback would be a scandal. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Yitzi Schweitzer right
From what I remember it's because they thought they 'won' the debate.
whenever you think your life is hard, remember Cathy Newman has to live with this her entire life..
Yeah, but she is too thick to realize that’s a bad thing.
This was so unfair lol
@Wo Jak I didn't say we don't learn from our mistakes I just made an observation that there are mistakes that never go away regardless of whether you learn or not
Lameck Wanyama quality comment
Lameck Wanyama- Jordan talked about this indirectly. He said that the first clip they showed on TV made her look better, so they happily released the full interview on UA-cam thinking it was a win for her. It backfired to say the least.
I would think that Cathy has much respect for this man after her interview. He answered every question with a direct response and unwavering opinion. What an intelligent and genuine human being, he is.
You're giving her way too much credit
Jordan: *comes dressed in suit
Cathy: So you're mocking poor minorities who can't afford suit?
I'm so grateful that Channel 4 never turned off the comments for this.
Feminism is Cancer.
Feminism is worse than cancer. It's hate, distilled into a childishly aggressive ideology, directed towards 50% of the human population, in an oversimplistic bid for power. This is truly the misguided basis for the ideological ignorance that led to the most horrifying events of the 20th century, and more deaths than cancer caused in the same time frame.
She might as well have led with the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Or children, or slaves, etc.
@@iamyouarei9497 👌👌👌
What an embarrassment she is to intellectual conversation. His patience is incredible.
Yeah, if it's one thing in this other than Cathy's stupidity that I can appreciate then it is definitely JP's super human patience.
I think he is about to cry out of sheer frustration
The intellectual needs to be placed in it’s proper place. It used to be portrayed as a midget with a big ear. Intellectuals like comic book man are not necessarily productive or wise.
I feel sorry for that woman. she no near match for this guy knowledge.
He is a psychologist.. he is used to deal with worst cases than this
Also, some people from Channel 4 (see Cathy's retweets) are trying to selectively use random "offensive" comments on this video, to try and portray this sorry excuse for an interviewer as a victim of "harrassment". It's disgusting.
URLs? That would be handy to have.
I knew that would happen.
So you're saying.... she is not cut out for a high profile/ high flying career like mainstream media TV presenter, or politician, or CEO etc where public scrutiny is a part of the job?
NZAnimeManga So you’re saying Twitter accuses her of harassing lobsters?
Standard.
Cathy: What gives you the right to say this?
Jordan: I'm a clinical psychologist
Always amazes my how quick his wit is. If this was a live audience there would have been applause!
His IQ is 150...
How about asking him what he means. It's so annoying to keep implying what someone means when you truly don't understand what their saying. She is hard to listen to.
so you're saying you hate women
Oh she does understand perfectly... and at some point she even realise she cannot argue back and have to change subject. but that's not her objective to present his viewpoint. Her objective was te present and paint him as a "provocateur, hating, mysoginist and transphobic man" but she failed epicly
Willious Washington no just some. Some men to hahahah your comment made me laugh
So you are saying that you are saying some thing.
what lol
This "debate" ages like a fine wine.
it really does
So you're saying men age more gracefully than women?
Ikr I came back for my 100th time
"The right to not be offended" These people are insane
So true, must be the 10th time i have watched this and its still just as good
“So you’re saying...”
Coouge 😂👌 notice how she needs to reinvent what he says to hold an argument.
That woman needs lesson in the art of listening. She is infuriating. A producer should have slapped her and said, "Snap out of it!" A la Cher in Moonstruck
So you're saying... Repeat a paraphrase that says NOTHING that Jordan Peterson said -- hahaha!
Coouge
In a nutshell, yes. That sums up this interview and those behind her speaking through her.
She's totally a puppet.
She's womansplaining.
Came back for a listen. Remarkable how stable and persuasive (and patient) Dr Peterson's thesis has been.
Wow. Just wow. This interview is a total train wreck. Cathy's ranting does NOT represent all women's views. Please, Cathy, stop "helping" us. You are a mess.
Great comment, gives back hope.
P.S. are you related to Dinesh?
Yeah, it's a shame when someone so repugnant claims to speak on behalf of all women
@@KevinPetrusNL No relation. Wish I was! :)
They never are just like the gq intervew. These as it just happens to be women are representative of a leftist political stance. They both got destroyed. Don't worry nobody believes this is representative of all women's views. Thank you for your comment.
I'm a woman, and I was just so annoyed. Respect to Jordan for keeping his cool with such a long and painfully ridiculous interview.
Kathy just increased pay gap to 12%.
Lol
Brilliant lol
No doubt lol
@rumpleforeskin73 good reasoning. Besides, she seems to be blaming him for everything that is wrong and demanding him to justify history facts!!! Making him responsible for crisis everywhere!! How silly!!, as he said!!!.
@rumpleforeskin73 she isn't very bright
Jordan:
Cathy: So you are saying women can't be silent?
I laughed so hard at this comment
Funniest comment here
Best one so far
😂
Made my day.
Jordan was so eloquent and patient. His precise use of words was a joy to listen to. I wonder if she would have enjoyed listening to him as much I did, had she actually listened
Me: i play fotball
Her: so you are saying girls cant play sport
Lol
But theres one thing tho girls arent video games.
Girls can play sports Foxy Boxing WWE Bra and pantie fights
jan_teigen_ lol
@@huskiehuskerson5300 To₹
No Cathy Newman, that's what YOU'RE saying.
boom!
so your saying is that she is saying what she is saying under the disguise of what he is saying to help what she is saying?
@@lederpium1965haha
Don't you understand how an intererview works?
@@MrLordingit Leading and projecting questions are not how a good interview works. That's how "gotcha!" journalism works.
Jordan: 'According to statistical analysis, women prefer...'
Cathy: 'That's a vast generalisation'
Says the woman who kept trying to sum up everything he said in a nice neat generalization.
it's funny that she was like "ThAt WaS a VasT gENreALizatioN"
and in the same interview say "your followers harras and bully people"
She needs to stop telling him what he's
Saying and actually listen to what he's saying.
@@crybabyfans3162 and you need to realize that journalism isn't about that, that's just an intelligent and respectable thing to do
@@goncalobaia1574 ofc i already know that but she's just making the conversation harder than it has to be
After this interview, I unironically looked into buying his book. I did and I enjoyed reading it.
Thanks Cathy Newman, for being the best possible advertising for Mr Peterson & his work that anyone could ask for.
"What gives you the right to say that?"
"I'm a clinical psychologist"
steve rapatas 😂 best line
Man I died when he said that xD
HeadShoot, LOL!!!!
Biggest mic drop...
OHHHHHH! *Guy falls forward, hands on face, eyes rolled back and jaw wide open.
Cathy is a joke... she tried so hard to attack Peterson under false pretensions and illogical fallacies.
They're just called logical fallacies by the way :)
I am sure that her supervisors expect her to act that way in order to make him fail in his statements. She is an journalist after all, thats what they often do with people who are controversial. If she manage to talk him into saying something sexist, she is gonna make an interesting headline and thats the way her channel will be more marketable and attractive for viewers.
Mortyrxx propagandist not journalist.
Women are told so many lies by feminists that they actually started to see man as their enemies for no good reasons.
And failed
Jordan Peterson: *exists*
Cathy: So you’re saying dead people are irrelevant
Underrated
Goated comment
Underrated
I completely disagree with this statement. Cathy would more likely say something along the lines of "So you’re saying dead Women are irrelevant?"
@@Caspricocious 😂😂😂😂
“I’m very very very careful with my words”😌 gets me every time
And he is... what a breath of fresh air! :)
“Women typically have higher pitched voices than men”
..... “So you’re saying women should just shut up”
well.. um...
This.. Such an accurate parody.
This is so funny
Yes
😆😝
Does she truly not understand ANYTHING he’s saying?!
She's just a feminist propagandist.
when she had that moment of enlightenment that her right of free speech could upset someone and that it still is a right you gotta defend, i knew she has to be plain stupid. i mean it even took her a while to wrap her head around that thought.
I suppose, she doesn't want to
@@INFINITY_99 If you answer the question why she doesn't want to understand him, it'll lead you to the point where she has to be stupid. She got a fundamentalists few of gender inequality. Fundamentalism per se means that one has to be stupid, because it means that you are aiming for that one and only simple answer about a certain thing, not allowing any other answers. Fundamentalism is a way to avoid thinking. I don't know how that isn't stupid.
@@biedl86 You seem very preoccupied and judging. I definitely see your point. However, I will not support your in accusing her to be stupid - that would be overhasty. The central problem is that she stands in for a viewpoint that is very extreme and that can be refuted quite easily to some extent. That's the reason why Jordan Peterson smashes her in this debate. She just doesn't have clear evidence that supports her thesis and, on top of that, her strategy wasn't thought out so well. This doesn't change the point I am making right now, though. You shouldn't be so fast in judging someone.
Jordan Peterson: I am a man
Cathy: So you're saying you hate women
That's what feminism means
abhishek mittal you’re degenerating it. all the assumptions she made came from statements he led. Only he was smart enough to not let them out of his mouth.
😂😂🤣
@@gjinkalla7121 He is no doubt very smart guy and a superb articulator.
But for the anchor, pin pointing every other word is not smartness that the anchor was doing
@@gjinkalla7121 No, all of the assumptions she made were leaps in logic. Using logical fallacy in a recorded debate is what makes her look unintelligent.
It seems like you weren't able to understand anything JP said just like the reporter. He isn't arguing based on opinions, he uses purely factual arguments.
I am very glad that the channel is brave enough to let the comment section remain open. Even though they probably aren’t fond of the comments, it’s the right thing to do.
"So why should women put up with facts?"
basically all she said
They haven't for a long time and look what's happened. Rampant depression and substance abuse. Turns out being too agreeable to toxic societal norms ain't such a good idea!
So what you're saying is "all women are too dumb to deal with facts ?"
is that what you're saying ?
lol
There is a real feminist view here check this out... ua-cam.com/video/J7GWHgVZJQU/v-deo.html
She couldnt handle his honesty, she wants to win, has no desire to find truth.
She also sound like she has no scientific training. For instance: she doesn't understand what multivariate analysis (5:42) is and doesn't know what "negatively predicts" means (19:33).
that's what debates usually are about, unfortunately or fortunately. Fortunately, because 2 people may go so radical in their views, that some of the sideless audience might try to see the middle ground themselves.
@@boris5950 Both feminists and antifeminists should not be talking about wage gap statistics without understanding this math problem:
BUSINESS A
50 men works for salary of 300$.
30 women works for salary of 250$.
BUSINESS B
40 men works for salary of 500$.
40 women works for salary of 450$.
BUSINESS C
30 men works for salary of 700$.
50 women works for salary of 650$.
TOTAL A, B, C
120 men works for average salary of 467$.
120 women works for average salary of 483$.
So who is discriminated here, men or women?
@@goranmilic442 yeah, sure, everyone should have better statistics training at school, as this problem of just having a look at averages and immediately jumping to conclusions also affects people who don't identify neither as feminists nor as anti-feminists.
PS : I think your example would have been quicklier compelling to me using "position" or "industry" instead of "business" ;-)
"NEVER TRY TO BE RIGHT, JUST FIX THE PROBLEM"
"so what you're saying *insert the complete opposite of what he was actually saying*"
so true, well spotted.
I'm sure she's partially doing it for the sake of the viewers. Don't you think this interview would be boring if she didn't get J. Peterson to elaborate his point in a way that the average viewers can get? It also helps him to debunk his detractors.
Mark Campling not really it’s very obvious
Fributes Very typical move for feminists
Folks keep getting mad at Newman here, but Petersen uses implications in the things he's saying to communicate a lot of stuff indirectly. And he's doing it on purpose.
It's a very manipulative tactic, one that works really well against someone who isn't prepared for that.
At a certain point in the interview he starts to answer "No" as soon as she says "So, you are saying", without even let her finish the question. 😂
Jordan: *pauses to breathe*
Cathy: "So you're ignoring me now."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
😂😂😂
😄😄😄
Jordan : no
Cathy- so you're saying YES?!
😂😂😂
So you are saying that I got destroyed in my own show?
@roger gerritsen yeah please let me know which show xD
FINALLY.. Yes.. you got one right cause all of your other (So you are saying) was like, like... you were talking to someone else.... Your replies were not even part of the same conversation.. Then this.. YES you got totally owned and thrown away on your own show.
"Power is Competence" is a profoundly beautiful statement.
@@liamream9029 it is indeed. There are many times people have power without competance.
I think the thing that really pisses me off is her inability to comprehend what he's saying. She, mistakenly, decided before they met who he was and what he stood for and no matter how many times he corrected her she still kept to her initial narrative.
Can she stop trying to twist his words and actually listen please
#FakeNewsAwards
She's a feminist, what do you expect.
She absolutely cannot. If she listens to what he's saying then she won't even be able to make a pretense that what he's saying is in anyway incorrect.
she's womansplaining.
Well you just defined leftist feminism lol. This is what they do.
Coming back here once in a year...
More informative each time... Priceless
Jordan: "UA-cam is primarily ma-
Cathy: "So you're saying women shouldn't be allowed on UA-cam?"
See kikikzsjc!!7
She wasn't setting up an interview it was a trap. Attempting to put Peterson in a bad light then backfired.
Frankly, it's embarrassing.
Yay my name's Frank. Middle name...And. last name Beans. Frank A. Beans
I've never seen so many failed attempts to build a strawman in my entire life
she never realized that didnt work on him and she was running out of tactics. As my meemaw once said: what a world !
Thank you, JP, for not taking the bait.
Why is it that, when we see a woman interviewer (mostly women), you know right away whether or not they are totally against the person being interviewed and are not interested in talking about what the interviewed person says? Interviewees are only invited to a tongue-lashing session. You don't have to be a Trump fan to be utterly appalled by the interviews from CNN and others. At least Cathy is polite enough to not flat out severely interrupt him. The Trump interviews should be set up in infamy as a complete and utter disgrace and I hope these eventually show up in ways that put shame on Caitlyn Collins. Trump has been interviewed as if he is a rapist. His outing her as rude was a controlled understatement, (direct this at Anderson Cooper.) There's no excuse for her over 100 interruptions.
She might have set a world record
This felt like pac vs margarito
This interview should be archived for the betterment of humanity forever. It should be played in every school at least once a year in every grade as a masterclass on critical thinking and handling vicious dishonest attacks
WE'RE REACHING PATIENCE LEVELS THAT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE POSSIBLE
Dude's a saint. I'd have started prefacing every other reply with "no, you dumbass..." three minutes in.
One and Only JB can do that.
My scouter shows 9000+.
not me. I'm pulling all my hair out over here.
I actually said to my husband I would have punched her, 8 mins in! Fuck she angers me
She’s determined to back him into a corner and he just isn’t biting.
She keeps trying to get him to react and shout over her too, which would make her a victim
That's becasue he has intelligence.
@@recker2006
Big elephants cannot always understand small elephants.
Coz he doesn't belong there
"Haaa. Gotcha" Utterly bodied
"Because in order to be able to think you have to risk being offensive" - Jordan Peterson
That was my favorite line
That's the best quote out there.
I just got you to 1.1k likes
can I has cookie?
@@Proximity- ⁰0
‘I’m not saying anything’ - Jordan Peterson
As a woman, I can't with this interview. Just became a fan of Peterson.
Jordan: *"Good afternoon Cathy."*
Cathy: So you're saying a late morning doesn't exist and therefore is less of?
🤣
This is so gooooood
😂😃
This is it.
YES.
This woman just showed extreme incompetence in reasoning.
she should be fired!
So what ya saying is men are more competent then women?
@@henrythehilux3963 nope, you did 😄
Fantastic interview. A VERY precise and eloquent guest meets an Interviewer with a clear agenda and incapable of listening.
Totally incapable
Steen Engelbrecht thank you
This interview is timeless
She's acusing Dr. Peterson of "vast generalizations" when sh'es the one that's actually vastly generalizing. The irony.
It´s called Projection, one of the bacis psychological diffense mechanisms.
Bingo. She quite possibly conducted the worst interview in the history of television. This is how coerced confessions happen lol luckily Jordan is too smart for her tactics
@@spaceghost4628 she made the conversation more interesting since it was confrontational, to be entirely honest I’m glad she proved him right by fighting so hard for the answers she wanted.
@@Nick-bz3sz not for me, GQ interview was much better with Helen Lewis. They disagreed on damn near everything but she let him speak and was overall much more intelligent and articulate than this joke. I much rather watch smart people talk to smart people.
@@spaceghost4628 you’re right, I just thought this interview was funny
This just became a classic interview.
CONNOR YOU ARE SO RIGHT
Connor, I can't tell you how much I love your comment
This just became a classic comment
Oh my god this reporter is so annoying, she keeps womanterrupting Mr Peterson ... :/
Connor, I bet your room is spotless
I'm STUNNED--this video has picked up ONE MILLION MORE VIEWS than it had just YESTERDAY, when I first watched it. I'm heartened that the response is overwhelmingly positive. Even though it's likely mostly guys here, this gives me hope, at least, that The Narrative is collapsing.
EDIT ONE YEAR LATER: Thanks to the ladies that chimed in here as well.
We, the women, are here too. And we cheer for dr. Peterson with love and respect.
Many UA-cam channels have commented on and provided the link.
This is on trending too first video that had a anti left veiws finally different opinions
Also Known As its growin everywhere with everyone. myself n all my mates we all see this bullshit now. the last year has bern eye opening for many.
Feminists can only lie and/or delude themselves about the number of women that agree, or mostly agree, with professor Peterson.
That man is too smart for her.
She got tripped up when he called her out one time, yet she tried to bash this man for 30 minutes and he kept his composure. Well done!
100% Composure is 🔑
That's what happens when you know your subject and use common sense.
Still discovering the guy's work, but from my perspective he looks extremely interresting.
that’s feminism my friend.
How typical 😂🤣
Men use Logic
Women use emotion.
She had No opinion of her own, her opinion had her
@Samuel Nelson nah I had it correct.
Jordan Peterson: Hello
Cathy Newman: so you think all women should go extinct?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! basically yeah
Cathy Strawman
Great one :-)
DANGGG LOL
I don't get what she was trying to achieve here.. She asked a question, he answers it then she asked it again as if somehow he's gonna give a different answer, like this is some kind of multiple choice test and he's circled the wrong one hahahaha and when he denies the words she's putting in her mouth she began to stutter then disregard his answer all together.
TL;DW: "So you're saying... [thing that was never said]" x 1000.
Thats talking to woman in general. (Its not negative, its just a thing all men have observed)
Right? So frustrating. Dr. Peterson must have the patience of a saint.
+bruce livingston
He seemed kind of amused at quite how blatantly she was trying to misrepresent him to be honest.
She tried everything, hostility, interrupting, not allowing him to finish his point, avoiding deep conversation and not listening - to win. Lefties are about winning and not about what's truth. If you discus things from ideological perspective you're losing from the start.This woman has not capacity for that anyway. She is confusing assertiveness with intelligence.The only thing left for her to try is a gun. Disgusting hysterical personality with no substance.
i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/995/415/b30.jpg
Jordan: “I like ice cream.”
Cathy: “So you hate sherbet?!?”
This woman didn't want to have a rational conversation - she just wanted to attack this guy. Weak.
chrislikescandy she’s not weak, she just wants to produce a good headline for her company. it’s in her interest to get something controversial out of him.
British leftwing media in a nutshell.
maybe that is why they claim women make less, they can not be rational.. LOLOLOL
Edung Edward oh no
I completely agree she reversed everything he said in a negative.
I can't believe it's like she's trying hard to get him pissed but the guy is soo calm he laughs at her dumb questions
This dude destroyed her credibility, when she was planning to tarnish his. Get rekt
His mother made him idiot-proof.
Not only that. He is a master of verbal Jiu Jitsu. He completely turned her own attack against her. She was befuddled by her own words.
@@MrAndyBearJr verbal karate. Verbal CQC. Lol
Its cause he is doped up on some drug like xanax, He almost died from it a couple months back.
The interviewer did a horrible job. She was awful.
it wasn't that she was awful. It's that he was right.
This interview was my entrè into Jordan Peterson a couple of years ago...I've been a fan ever since, though I hate to use such a banal term as "fan" to describe my admiration and respect for this man's intellect and reasoning.
I was having a conversation with a good friend who is himself extremely intelligent; we were discussing how crazy the vibe is in society and how often people misconstrue and just [plain] don't listen to one another, and he responded by telling me he had read an interesting piece about that very notion in the paper that morning. He sent me the article, which was titled "Why No One Seems To Hear What Jordan Peterson Is Saying" [paraphrasing the title....but it was something very close to that]. Neither my friend nor I knew who this Jordan Peterson was, but the article did a very good job making its point, and there happened to be a thumbnail of this [same] interview embedded in the corner of the page...I clicked on that after reading the piece and the rest, as "they" say, is history. Not sure how long you've been aware of Peterson, but if recent I invite you to check him out. AND, don't listen to his detractors...listen to him with an open heart and an open mind. However, if you are already familiar with him disregard all I said.
@@FedericoGPena Thanks for your comments. I don't remember exactly when I became aware of him, but it has been at least a little over a year- maybe slightly more. I think a Canadian friend on Facebook mentioned him, and I began to look for myself. I find Jordan Peterson to be brilliant, thought-provoking, and flat out refreshing. I think he makes some people uncomfortable because he challenges accepted ideas so succinctly.
Russsoooo! *with punisher voice"
Indeed
This interviewer refuses to hear what Dr. Peterson is saying. I am an MD in the US, but I make less than 100k a year. This is because I took of many years to have and raise my children. My children are grown but my career will never catch up to a my male colleagues.
I am ok with this. My children are worth the sacrifice of my career
Shes totally unconscious of how idiotic her understanding of anything he has answered just doesn't break down in her head and only hearing the first word he says.....amazing she probably still didn't notice it
Your loss was losing time to develop your career but your gain was being able to spend time raising your kids, that is priceless. Inherently men choose to be a provider and women choose to be a carer, it's a recipe for success when both sides are appreciated.
Debate? I just watched a televised homicide. How embarrassing for that poor woman.
Nick Sharps bahahahahahaha
Nick Sharps In her mind, she either won argument or hit glass ceiling as a child.
Fuck it, she deserved to have her ass handed to her.
@@MitchelGant Amen, brother.
So are you saying that she's poor because she's a woman?
Jordan: I'm straight
Cathy: So you're saying people shouldn't be gay?
Why are you gay?
Your profile picture made this comment really funny haha
Well, people shouldn't be but they are
Lol 😂
@@marioellersiek6917 Are you trying to be smart, because we both know that he was making a joke just like all the other comments.
"So you're saying..." and then completely misrepresents what he just said.
I’ll add “misrepresents the statement she never let him finish”
It's desperation, my friend.
She gets upset that Professor Peterson compares SJW activists to Chairman Mao, so he explains that their ideology is the same.
So she doesn't listen!
Why? So that she can insist on her non-point.
@@michaeldavis2001 “SO LeTs TaLk abOuT tHe LobstUress”
Jordan Peterson : 1x1 = 1
Cathy: so you're saying 1x1=2 ?
*Terrence Howard: Yes
😂
* Eric Weinstien: 😪
She keeps putting words in his mouth, yet isn’t able to refute his actual points.
It’s really ticks me off. This man is incredibly calm With that woman I aspire to be that way.
@@jessicaparker4018 hahaha I said the same to my dad a few minutes ago :D
I really want to be like him someday 🙌🏼
She's terrible. Truly embarrassing display of "journalism."
He brushes her attempts off so effortlessly lol
@@colin1818 Unfortunately, she's display of a big part of "journalism" nowdays.
This lady didn't listen to a single word Dr. Peterson said, and it was frustrating to watch.
So what your saying is if she was a man she would be better at her job?
He wasn’t saying much of anything tho. He sounds like he’s just trying to be a skeptic.
@@VixeyFrost If you think that, then I don't think you listened to him either. To be fair, most of this interview was him defending against her wildly inaccurate accusatory statements. Watch some of his lectures.
It really is. She’s not even trying to listen. She actually is making very good points but it’s getting lost in her overly combative demeanour
@@evaoliveira8579 what're you a big drinker o'er there?
Many a strawman were slayed upon the battlefield this day.
HeliRy So youre saying only strawmen are slaughtered on the battlefield and no strawwomen? Isnt that being divisive?
+Davin Tedja
So you are saying we should be slaying female straw people instead of male?
Isn't that misogynist?
Anon ymous so what you're saying is that we should exterminate ze straws and replace them with wood?
Time is dismantle the Pulpriarchy!
So what you're saying is that you support the genocide of the peachful straw people. You bigot!
Now after 6 years, this is still such a masterpiece to watch. The utter incompetence of Cathy as an interviewer and her constant attempts at misquoting and trying to put Jordan into a corner are just so embarrassing, while Jordan just simply answers every question and redirects her ill-intentioned attempts onto the right path.
It's like he's talking to a brick wall. She is just absolutely DETERMINED to put words in his mouth.
One problem is that she isn't listening to his answers so she is missing the nuance.
She is a perfect example of an interviewer with an agenda to push. 🤔
I've never met a brick wall trying to put words in my mouth, but yeah, her brain is busted af.
Without much success; I'm afraid
This woman is so argumentative that she doesn’t even hear one thing...
@Damian Thomas yeah, like “women who wear lipstick in the workplace are asking to be sexual assaulted”
@@huhhuh364 you use quotations but he never said that. Add a source with that quote included or stop spreading false information.
@Lou aaaand he never responded. No surprise there lol
@@huhhuh364 please validate what you’re saying. Word of advice, think before you speak
@@moelarry8088 there is a vice interview in which he says the reason that women wear makeup is to be sexually provocative, that’s obviously untrue and can instantly be debunked by offering similar examples of accessories men use for confidence like nice clothing or shoulder pads. He then goes on to say that them wearing said makeup is inviting sexual harassment in the workplace, he then does his bullshit way of speaking where goes “I don’t know” after stating something that he obviously believes.
Jordan Peterson constantly take bullshit arguments that he backs up with unrelated empirical evidence so that people like you believe him. For example claiming that gay couples raise their children worse than straight couples and having no evidence to back that up (because it’s statistically completely incorrect), instead he uses unrelated data of single parents raising children worse than couples.
The man is openly transphobic and homophobic, but uses the thinnest veil imaginable to act like he is a liberal
(Also cultural Marxism is literally a dog whistle to cultural Bolshevism, which the nazis said Jews were doing in the 1930s)
She's a great representative of someone who doesn't listen to what's being said.
So she's representing a woman?
@@V--Nasty--V lol🤣🤣
So what you're saying is that women don't listen?
So are you making any generalization?
Driven by emotion NOT logic.. “so you’re saying all women are emotional” damn she’s stuck in my head now 🤣
I googled “death by a thousand cuts” and this interview was the first result