Quote Originally Posted by Blue in the Face View Post
The Independent newspaper ran a story about some threats and we can only speculate as to their true origin. My un-researched guess is that it was contrived by the broadcaster as damage limitation for what was a car crash of an interview from the perspective of their employee. Highly ironic given much of the topic of the interview is in regard to woman getting opportunities for the best jobs (and the pay gap). Don't get me wrong, women should definitely get the best jobs if they are worthy and all societies need to empower women in general. But Newman is far from worthy. The goal of an interviewer is to extract from the interviewee what exactly is that they are about and what thinking, not to try and railroad them into verbal mistakes which mis-represent how they feel.

Peterson classifies himself as a "classic British liberal". But because Marxist absurdities seem to be ingrained into so many in Western societies right now, they get triggered him and think he is a distance away from the centre ground. Though he is neither, he has been branded far right, or alt right and even both at the same time. This is truly ridiculous given "alt-right" (libertarianism) and the far right (authoritarian dictatorship) are philosophically opposite to one another. Those that use the terms in the same breath, or think they are related, are severely lacking in their understanding of politics. The fact that Newman tried to bat Peterson off as "alt right" only showed why she should not have been in the position to "interview" him.

If Peterson was alt right or far right I wouldn't be championing him. The man is a colossus. A needed voice for these times.

Sorry, this should be in the politics forum.

I didn't see this when it was broadcast but why would Channel 4 have released the full interview online if they were trying to limit damage? They seem to have gone out of their way to give more attention and publicity to Jordan Peterson (and his book!) as has the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...v-misogyny-row

I am really struggling to understand your definitions of 'far right', 'alt right' and 'Marxist'. I can accept that the first two are mainly defined by libertarianism and authoritarianism - but in Trumps' America they clearly are not unrelated or philosophically incompatible. The middle-American, survivalist, gun carrying, bible bashing, often racist, red necked opponents of big government have cosied up to the Nazis, neo-Nazis, ultra-conservatives, and proponents of low tax, low regulation, free market capitalism like a hand in a glove. And your use of the 'Marxist' label (similar to some other much loved posters' use of the term 'cultural Marxist') seems to be 'Daily Mail lite' - a lazy term of abuse for those who are scared of or misunderstand Marxism, not a description of ideas or philosophy or values.

From what I can understand from his interview and subsequent statements, Peterson is not a fellow traveller of the alt right, and is embarrassed by their support for him.