Though the above video is 30-minutes long, it’s worth every second of your time. In it, you will hear and see University of Toronto professor and clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson expertly dismantle every argument of an eager leftist reporter hoping one of her points on free speech, the wage gap myth, or other feminist talking points would stick.
They don’t. Not even close.
Peterson embarrassed UK’s Channel 4 reporter Cathy Newman whether she realizes it or not. At one point, she was rendered speechless during her poor argument on free speech (around 22:10). Peterson was wrongly characterized as transphobic for refusing to call transgender students by their preferred pronouns in his class, something he says has “never happened” anyway. He clarified that he would use the pronouns if asked but added that he would not “cede the linguistic territory to radical leftists regardless of whether or not it was put into law” in Canada.
Here is part of their conversation:
NEWMAN: Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person's right not to be offended?
PETERSON: Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the conversation we're having right now. You know, like, 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 rather uncomfortable.
NEWMAN: Well, I’m very glad I put you on the spot!
PETERSON: No, but you get my point. You're doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on. And that is what you should do. But you're exercising your freedom to speech to certainly risk offending me, and that's fine. More power to you, as far as I'm concerned.
NEWMAN: So, you haven’t sat there and… huh, I’m just, uh, I’m just trying to work that out. I mean… hmmm.
PETERSON: Ha! Gotcha!
NEWMAN: You have got me! You have got me! I’m trying to work that through my head. Yeah, yeah, it took a while. It took a while… took a while.
Yes, dense things take longer to get through.
Newman tried to gain back the upper hand by expressing her outrage over Peterson’s classifications of the radical left as authoritarian and comparing them to Chairman Mao or Augusto Pinochet. “This is grossly insensitive,” she said.
“I didn’t compare them to Pinochet,” Peterson shot back. “He was a right-wing authoritarian. I was comparing them to the left-wing authoritarians. And I do believe they are left-wing authoritarians.”
Again, Newman tried to counter saying there’s no comparison because with Mao, millions of people died. Peterson silenced her once more:
NEWMAN: Under Mao, millions of people died.
NEWMAN: I mean, there’s no comparison between Mao and a trans activist, is there?
PETERSON: Why not?
NEWMAN: Because trans activists aren’t killing millions of people.
PETERSON: The philosophy that’s guiding their utterances is the same philosophy… the philosophy presumes that group identity is paramount. That’s the fundamental philosophy that drove the Soviet Union and Mao’s China and it’s the fundamental philosophy of left-wing activists. It’s identity politics. It doesn’t matter who you are as and individual, it matters who you are in terms of your group identity. That's murderous...
Clear, concise, devastating points and not a voice was raised to anger. Nicely done.