I unsubscribed to you all because of this video. Stop playing political games and just give us the damn truth.

Get better interviewers and editors if you're gonna try to pull sleazy stuff like cutting and editing a much longer interview to paint your opposition in a bad light, really sad and pathetic honestly that you have to resort to such petty tactics.

Not gonna enter your clickbait link, don't want to add views to your fake news media. God you guys became pathetic

notice how vice gave their own comment a like :P

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

Oh, hell yes... THIS!

Yeah we have brain. It's obvious. NOBODY trusts Vice.

People are upvoting the same as well

I know I did.

It's on Vice's channel, so having a video that is this widely down voted hurts their channel in the long run... not Dr. Peterson.

Jesse W I think this was fine. They could have edited out some of it if they wanted to, but didn't from the looks of it. But maybe they did. only Peterson knows.

I thought it was rude to show the two stupid questions being asked at the talk as an attempt to paint his supports as quacks, but overall, this wasn't unfair to him.

It's clearly heavily edited. Peterson looks quite annoyed during the interview. It definitely didn't start that way. Even his answers are cut short.

+Rhine Hard PREACH!

It was a 2 Hour Interview that got chopped down to what 5 minutes? And it's obvious that even that 5 minutes was highly edited to favor the vice interviewer. Disgraceful.

Just going to drop the link to the uncut interview here m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtaJitqZ1Z28eJc.html

It’s funny that the full interview makes him look WORSE

@@iamanidiotbut5523 I'm still smarter than you. That's just how low the bar is these days. I really love these usernames. I think people that honestly have a problem with what he is saying are not actually understanding what he is saying. They are too busy trying to judge what he is saying and spending all their energy on trying to be outraged by something, anything, and he is one of those people that takles topics that people can easily be outraged by, and can easily hear what they want to hear, instead of trying to understand deeply what he is trying to say. I don't agree with everything anyone says, but Jordan Peterson definitely chooses his words very carefully and does a good job of bringing up taboo subjects and talking about them tactfully. Honestly I think his ideas require a certain baseline vulnerability and willingness to dive into or own psyche and ask ourselves hard questions that don't normally get asked or that get shoved aside by our own cultural egos and identities. One has to be willing to put our preconceived cultural identity to the side to talk about these issues with this much honesty. It isn't easy, it's actually a lot of work. It's a lot easier to reduce the mans ideas and pigeon whole them into similar ideas of hate and point the finger in rage. The irony is that his ideas are actually not based on hate, and are instead a caution against sacrificing personal freedom for the attempt at certain outcomes. Society will grow in it's understanding and ability to solve all of these problems organically if we let it. Each successive generation has been more forward thinking than the previous, but.....the previous generation also has experience that is valuable. You need both. What you don't need is a bunch of laws that attempt to cover every conceivable situation and obliterate our personal freedoms. I hope we can get to other side without sacrificing everything that has helped us get this far.

Interviewer: "A serious woman who does not want sexual harassment. Do you feel if she wears makeup in the workplace that she is being a hypocrite" Jordan Peterson: "Yeah. I do think that." What context am I missing?

@pc principal It's not a science based belief. It's a political and feelings based belief. He is a social conservative and believes women belong in the home. This is his way of selling his idea to you as empirical when it's not empirical at all. There is absolutely no evidence that men and women can't work together, and in fact we have far more evidence that they can, i.e. the BILLIONS of men and women who work together every day just fine. This isn't a science or data based belief, it's a feelings and anecdotal based belief.

it's pretty slimey. this "journalist" wants to debate Mr. Peterson, try and corner him and have him reveal himself to be the "bad alt right" guy that he obviously isn't, but then swap to back to interviewer when convenient ie. when he doesn't have any good answers to any of Mr. Peterson's counter arguments or questions.

And has convinced himself that the tone in universities is not impacting the rest of society and it's professional conduct.

Which is so ridiculous to even say, let alone think quietly. The entire purpose of higher education is to impact society.

Hi @Tesla Kuhn. Sorry but I have no idea who "himself" actually is. There are two 'himselves' there.

@@danitempest if you read my reply after "aDriveAway" it should make more sense. That with the context of what I'm saying. I'm referring to the "journalist". He is in someone's home by invite, and thinks he should be speaking over the person he is supposed to be interviewing. The journalist is not at all behaving like someone who is there to hear someone else's opinion, which is the way he got himself in the door. He's more proselytizing his religion than asking questions for his audience. Another mistake he is making, in my opinion - as though he is the only person there alone with the professor. If he is at all aware of his future audience, it is that he thinks he is there to shame the professor for them. His grand assumption that others will agree with him. A very self important child, this journalist. Sadly this is the tone, these days.

Release the Krakan !

They can't do that. That will make them look even worse than this obvious hit job did.

#releasethememo

It's on HBO

Ohhhhhhh I doubt they would be as naive as channel 4, and they're certainly not journalists so my hopes are low.

yes

yep

or not... JP just got his BUTT KICKED by Matt Dillahunty... doubt he'll face him again, as I'm sure that one cost him some book sales...

@@brianmi40 Watch it again.

@@rohanjarande - have no desire to nor need to. 4.0 GPA in college tells me my comprehension is just fine. JP is full of pseudo intellectual bullshit and there certainly is no god.

Well it's mainly just that the vast majority of his audience is male, and young. I think that's why they're saying that.

He reaches out to men and dumps on women for just about everything

Peterson: *just trashes women in a flowery words* also Peterson: "why is my audience mostly male?"

@@alfredio Peterson has gone completely conservative only in the last year or so and has joined the far right that now are bible pushers and want women controlled by their bible standards I use to respect the guy but he’s just to far right now for me. Man good women bad ooga booga seriously

@@teresawilson3893 If you think that's what he does, either you're not listening, or you haven't listened and you are substituting a third party's estimation of Dr Peterson for your own. Why not check him out and use your own brain to determine what he's saying and what it means?

Here's the full version: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

They regret that ever since.

hahahahaha

Release the full interview Vice. Even channel 4 released their train wreck.

damn, everything I'm not, made me everything I am Plato

"Look son, it's that famous lobster move !"

Embrace Racing omg I didn’t even realize that similarity 😂😂😂 I guess I’m just so used to hearing that type of shit by these people 🤦‍♀️

Jordan Peterson had said the interview was over an hour

Here it is: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iZ-UjbadutC6nKc.html

@@xoxo5537 It's still not the full version 🤷‍♂️

They have to grow balls for that

👏🏼

That's literally any liberal media

Mulinaster and conservatives are gun slinging nutcases.

where?

@@thelegom7116 where what?

@@41cadence wtf are you saying

@@thelegom7116The interviewer's "style" of questioning suggests that Doctor Peterson has the obligation to prove and justify every nuance of his point of view. The interviewer has clearly made up his mind and, thereafter, only seeks to pursue the matter for mere sake of causing turbulence. It doesn't seem like a genuine pursuit based on intillectual concepts but rather an attempt to be contrary for the mere sake of it.

@@41cadence i cant stop with ym good boy stuff yes dont keep off

Even then they failed to make him sound unreasonable.

he said what he said. he DID say he doesnt know the rules and he did say a woman who puts make up and complain of sexual harrasment is a hypocrite. he did say that.

@SUPERNATURAL MAN i think you didnt understand him.

@@rahuljoseph100 you didnt understand him.

@SUPERNATURAL MAN well whats his point supernatural?

@SUPERNATURAL MAN you can say a million things are sexualizations at a degree- we want to look good so some one would want / love/ accept us ( i dont believe its true as a rule btw). but that is basic psycology nothing shocking about that. but to say then we are hypocrites when we are harrased. even said SPECIFICALY - that is a new level of a conservative old primitive man. and btw i Did see the whole thing and i studied psycology , so what he said about sexualization isnt new to me. so try again.

This has been edited to smear Jordan Peterson, check out what these people did in their editing. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

or not... JP just got his BUTT KICKED by Matt Dillahunty... doubt he'll face him again, as I'm sure that one cost him some book sales...

B Miller Lol Moron

👎VICE NOT 👍TRUTH

@@brianmi40 just watch the full discussion and then ull know

and probably angry that it's taking place in his own home

The interviewer isn't a complete moron. He is a leftist ideologue posing as a journalist.

He knew what the interviewer was doing... he put a stop to it quickly with short responses that the interviewer couldn't misrepresent.

Powerful Lobster Destroys a Soy Boy

More than likely they asked him a bunch of dumb and offensive questions to annoy him then they cut those bits out and left only the part where he was visibly upset. Truly disgusting from vice, the like/dislike ratio does give me hope though. People are finally wakimg up from the far-left zombyism

Jordan Peterson is an idiot. When he said "we dont know" if men and women can work together I facepalmed so hard. How can someone be that stupid? Obivously men and women can work together. We know what the rules are because 99.9% of men will never be accused of sexual harassment.

@@trollnerd Name checks out.

@@bigman-em7cc lol another JP simp unable to explain his ridiculous statements

Totally true! XD

Chirps they want to paint him as an evil trainer instead of a fatherly counselor. The point of being able to ask questions like that is because we are in the presence of someone who will not judge us and will help guide us in the right direction

Lol that camel's back has been broken for quite some time

markymark93 It never had credibility.

* its

markymark93 long long time before that. I stopped watching about 5 years ago. Vice is garbage.

They never had much. Another propganda machine

😂😂

Shame they still get the views.

Yep I did, first I upvoted it because it was Peterson and I like him and then I downvoted it after realising the insidious job Vice has done by chopping the interview into despicable pieces.

Niklas Bloom 😂

Literally came here after seeing it on Joe Rogan again, for this reason.

I edited a major journal in his field (personality) and never heard of him.

Real talk

Duh it's vice what did you expect.

XD Here's the first question without the hatchet job-- kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oqehlsqWlpaxlpc.html www.bitchute.com/video/kLQ0XFkc3zGy/

wtf is that dogshit audio

It doesn't seem like the kind of editing that tries to make JBP look bad, it's just looks like really REALLY bad editing. So bad in fact that it makes me think that the editor had his hands tied with constraints like "compress these 4 hours of material into 9 minutes and don't leave any topics out".

That’s what happens when you let Millenitards run a company.

strawman

i think you hit the nail on the head Erin F

hahahhahaa

or maybe it's because it's hard for his crazy fans to see him make a fool out of himself so they pressed thumb down to show how mature they are?

That's what I would tell myself if I were Vice, but it isn't the truth. So here's the thing. How badly this comes across for Jordan and how much different that is from what he is really saying is damning for established media sources who are behind the times. The fact is, KZfaq and alternate media sources are winning because it doesn't put up these fluffy short highly edited pieces that lack context and twist things to conform to an agenda. Or perhaps its not even an agenda. Perhaps they just need controversy to generate attention. In either case, watch the longer version already on youtube. Then come and discuss. The first thing you'll notice is that he doesn't ever say women shouldn't wear makeup. What he is doing is thinking through the situation bullet point by bullet point, you know, like an intelligent nuanced thinking person does. He is trying to say that a world with no sexual signals in any public or workplace forum does not exist and cannot exist for a long time because at this point, no one knows what is ok and what isn't. Certain things are obvious like you shouldn't inappropriately touch people if they don't want to be touched. But others, like how people can possibly misinterpret sexual signals can be more obscure. And that's a discussion no one is having. But you know what? Vice didn't show that part of the interview in their highly edited down short attention span video, so I guess it never happened and Jordan Peterson is an ignorant hateful man. *Shrug* You decide whether you want to know the truth or not, but the information is out there if you have the will to pay attention. Side note/Post script: I know it is unlikely you read all of that, but I think that's a shame. The real positive social change isn't going to come from uninformed people throwing rocks eachother from opposing ideological camps. It's going to come from good and reasonable people who are willing to discuss complicated topics in detail, long form. If you want to be a better person, know what you're talking about before you say mum. Because, frankly, you're so off on your comment here I would have been embarrassed if I were you.

Inam Abbas Do a little searching and you'll find the full, unedited video posted onto KZfaq, along with a number of other youtubers stating firmly on how it was clear VICE had a very one sided approach to this and only attempted to bring Jordan down. Ultimately, they failed. So no, it's not his "crazy fans" refusing to "see him make a fool of himself" as it is clear he definitely did not.

I had to deal with this with my girlfriend as well. It goes something like this "Hey did you hear that new H3 podcast with Jordan Peterson?" "No. I don't know who that is. Let me google. (Sees a mic article -_-) Holy shit you're listening to this guy?!?! He's an alt right nazi!" And then you have to spend an hour convincing them that the "news" can be bullshit sometimes and in this case is. And then you have to get them to listen. This process took me a fucking week until she finally listened and agreed "Oh I get it. I dont agree with everything he says but the articles I read were definitely lies." And then you go from there. I'd be willing to wager that Inam has heard of Jordan Peterson, but has never actually *HEARD* *Jordan* *Peterson* . So he reverts to what he has been told, which is that Jordan is some kind of boogie man, and is too intellectually lazy to listen and see for himself. And, by the way, it's not a right or left thing. JBP has an audience on both sides. I, for one, am a registered democrat. The first vote I ever cast when I was 20 yearss old was proudly for Barack Obama. So the argument of a partisan fan base for Jordan is ridiculous. He appeals to people on all political spectrums so long as they have the patience and the capability required to understand carefully reasoned thought.

A cult of 44,000 people? That's a hell of a cult.

Kat it's sad to see Vice bend over backwards to appease the leftist harpies. Vice is so far gone down to the point of no return. Same with the Guardian and WaPo and other leftist media.

Kat I mean what is Vice thinking? They think people are that dumb??? :)

Jason Cayen actually the unedited one was just realeased. It's 17 mimutes long of just Peterson and it is damning.

The full version of the interview is actually ~2 hours. One can assume it is even more damning.

Damning of who? Cause it sure as hell not damning of Peterson

Yup

It's obvious that he's trying to make pederson look bad. He's just a pompous turd who relies on being morally superior. "Oh I'm AGAINST sexual harassment". Lol, like wow thats so brave interviewer guy.

Pederson talk about challenging view points and world views of the changing social structures...but someone can't challenge Pederson own views.

مالك نجر ?where did you find it

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

I am sooooo disappointed in vice...

Thank you for the link.

Unedited version: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

Here's some of it, about 20 mins. It shows how they edited out important parts of the interview to make Jordan look bad. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

Alive_Twice Dead_once kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

he suggests its not yet sure if men and women can work together in the workspace.. you know.. really no reason to try to outsmart this guy. life proves him wrong on a daily basis.

cheesenut pea Isn't that true? I mean, men most of the time, men can't work with women in the workplace. I feel like you're lying to yourself.

Yeh, I don't get that point at all. Is working life perfect between men and women? No, of course not. But then there are all kinds of tensions in the workplace completely unrelated to sexual attraction or harassment. And he implies things are getting worse which needs explanation. Also says that it is because men don't know the rules. I thought fingers in the arse were eligible under Regulation 2a...

Nate Palumbo Lol nice effort but that's not the point. He is arguing from false premises. He says things are getting worse in the workplace for men and women and he claims it is because men don't know the rules. He therefore wants to turn the clock back to when things were allegedly better. Firstly, in what sense are things getting worse and for whom? Sure, we didn't have many uppity females in the 50s upsetting the office vibe but that doesn't mean things were better. The restrictions and expectations on women were far worse than today and abuse was swept under the rug more. So what he states as deterioration is highly suspect. Perhaps some office are over zealous, but that must be balanced by the consideration that elsewhere abuse and harassment has undoubtedly been reduced due to cultural changes. Further, he claims the deterioration (which is contested above) is because of the culture change rather than considering that gender roles in the workplace may have been unfair in the past and women reacted to that. This ignores the real cause of this which was sexual abuse in the workplace. Rules changed for a reason.

He said hes not sure they can work together without their being sexual harassment if we dont know what the rules are. Are you capable of understanding complete sentences. Are you gonna mentally edit my reply as well.

@@Mypromiselive Why do you 'hate' Peterson?

@Iraq Lobsta!! 45 Of course they hate Peterson. He speaks too much truth and facts. Truth hurts, and facts don't care about ma feelings. #FeelingsMatter

lmao

Disagreeing with someone with extreme views is not unethical.

I have discovered that a lot of people do not like truth, honesty and good ethics. They just expect you to agree with them even if they believe in unicorns and fairy tales

Lol agreed. It's almost like the reasonable views are the ones that are nuanced and not at the extreme ends of the spectrum xD

He has not pissed off the far right...

Six Beer Math JP is very much for identity politics. Do you think it's a coincidence that 99% of his fanbase consists of white males between the ages of 15 and 35?

The far right really doesn't have a problem with him though.

+Neal Kelly 99%? That's a strong accusation. What is that percentage based upon?

Samuel A Mattioli Here it is kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esCihtWL1b6ZnGw.html

Reaps51 the man is earnest to a fault though given his demeanour it's obviously something he's considered, I reckon he's just figured it to be more profitable investing that kind of effort in fortifying his character over his reputation i.e tidy your room

This is much worse than Channel 4. At least they gave him a fair shake, and had the journalistic integrity to put out the entire interview. VICE chops everything up in order to put out the most effective hit piece they can manage.

@@rainmaker6261 I watched both versions and I honestly don't know what all of you people are talking about. Yeah, they cut the video, but it didn't really change anything he stated, they even cut some unfavorable parts, like Peterson rambling like an idiot about Hollywood. Why do you think this edit is unfavorable?

@@MrKosobi why do you think that part is rambling like an idiot? care to explain since i don't see it the same way at all. those 2 versions are still two cut editions, the interview was 2h long and they only uploaded 17mins of it so who knows what's left or cut out ... and no, the cut did change his statements, if you can't see it i feel like your just biased and hear what you expected/wanted to hear from peterson.

Gotcha!

Because Vice are no better than Buzzfeed now. I wonder what Gavin thinks of what his creation has morphed into?

They are using his approach, the difference is, when he creates controversy, he manipulates it so it benefits him and his patreon account.

Its Vice, This video alone tells you the level they will sink for some views,

Daniel Herrera oh nice catch!!!

Clearly it is. The topic changes to harassment in the workplace with no warning from one scene to the next. I don't get the point of such a short disjointed video.

Yeah haha, I could definitely see the anger in his eyes with some of the later questions. I would love to see the entire interview though.

At least Channel 4 UK had the guts to display the entire interview with Peterson. This coward tried to move the goalposts by doing a hatchet job on his own interview to attempt to win the argument... and he still failed miserably as Peterson made mincemeat out of this moron's arguments even in the short time he was allowed to speak.

I love how the interviewer says they can work with women at Vice. That's far from true. There's an article from the New York Times a few months ago saying there had been at least 2 dozen reports of sexual harassment or assault by Vice employees. More than any other media outlet. The article is titled "At Vice, Cutting-Edge Media and Allegations of Old-School Sexual Harassment"

You'd think that he could at the very least admit that it's not always without some tension, but no. "I respect women" is the battlecry of those who really don't.

VL_TURBO420 when Vice hires a teenage girl as a writer. They put “Lolita Jailbait” on her business card.

Who Broke my Window? Channel 4 were too stupid to see what happened, Newman thought shed won and C4 were totally taken by surprise by the reaction.

+Who Broke my Window? Vice are not known for their integrity, and they must have noticed how badly that turned for Channel 4. They won't release the footage in a million years.

Who Broke my Window? I don't see why? Channel 4 aired a highly edited version and left the full one online. Their thinking was no one would watch the full interview after seeing their edited trash and that everyone would condem Dr. Peterson. It didn't happen. Then after everything they had to try and discredit him in some other way so they claimed Dr. Peterson sent his army of "trolls" to attack Cathy Newman not realizing that it's was painfully obvious nothing of the sort happened and if you want to get technically it was Mr. Peterson recieving the majority of the of the threats. Channel 4 is scum just like every other lefty paper and news outlet. Don't give them credit when it's not even deserved. They were stupid and did something stupid. Just like VICE.

Right? Hahahahahaha

Hear, hear!

Nope. Only over-fluoridated idiots with communications degrees need apply.

They get the runts of the commie degree mills known as liberal arts colleges.

weren't you listening about the post-modernist HR departments in this interview? xD

Doofy? lmao! That's now in my lexicon.

Smart people don't work for vice I guess. I really enjoyed their content a few years ago. I'm very disappointed at the state they are in at the moment.

They cant they'll all fit their agenda

No I'm down voting peterson

@@greatnessosunsakin7414 which would be fair enough, but the rest of us disliked the Video because we have seen the full cut and seen how vice purposely misrepresented Peterson

They actually like what their team is doing so no...

Directly quoting Peterson is misrepresenting him.

I don't think I've ever seen a vice interview that wasn't edited in order to serve their narrative.

I hope JBP had a camera in the room so we get the full thing. I suspect that's why he did the interview in his home, knowing that Vice is a pit of snakes.

Of course theyre going to edit it. Otherwise how could they push their backwards agenda?

hahaha Vice to allow us to judge the content for ourselves ??? never

there are literally hundreds of full length interviews with him on KZfaq.

I never wear makeup nor heels. I used to cover from my collarbone to the bottom of my knees and usually more. Sexual harassment is worse in church. Especially by older men. Any place that has restrictions on women’s dress tends to be worse in the sexual harassment department. You can’t escape it by leaving the workforce. It follows women everywhere we exist.

Oh yes, women should take responsibility for being harassed by men... Wait, that's not what personal responsibility means. It's the exact opposite. Apparently neither you nor Peterson have any clue what it means.

Yes they should if they had any influence in what happened to them then it means they are also to blame that's what the bible teaches.

What about the personal responsibility to see a woman in heels, rouge, and lipstick and not touch them without permission?

sjw kryptonite

hehe gud 1

Randy Stalcup I got a better one. Knock knock Vice: who's there? Honest journalism Vice: (locks and barricades door)

RavenBoy99 👍👍👍👍

lol good one

CNN

Good man. I left the Jimmy Dorr show under similar circumstances. Never went back. Checked in a few times...once it over,that's usually it unless there is a very big change.

You are so right in terms of the lecture questions. I watched the entire bible series Peterson does in toronto and we literally never get conspiritorial questions like the ones shown in this video... Plus, the guy with the crazy beard and bugs eyes probably wasnt the only person they talked to while at the lecture, but Vice somehow decided that he was the Ideal, visual representative for Petersons fan base...

Same here, I'm disgusted by the bias displayed here.

Number 1 Someone correct me if I am wrong here. But what is vice? 2. Was this not created bye gavin?

Same here...still love Hamilton tho

WHAT MORE CONTEXT DO YOU NEED? His comments were indefensible and you know it, thats why you're asking for more footage right? He blamed makeup and high heels for men sexually harassing women. Come on man, take your head out of his backside and see him for what he really is. No amount of unedited footage will fix what he said there.

hk78901 no he didn’t.

Loosing there audience? As someone who only encountered vice recently sees i see it as progressive propaganda geared towards the mainstream progressives. Are you saying it was originally not that?

"He blamed makeup and high heels for men sexually harassing women. " I'm seriously asking, do you honestly believe that is what he is saying? If so, please take a moment to consider that you may be projecting your own beliefs onto another's words, and then watch the interview again under that pretext. Please, the world needs less ideologues.

He did not blame that at all. He is saying it is contributing, he never said it was the sole factor.

or not... JP just got his BUTT KICKED by Matt Dillahunty... doubt he'll face him again, as I'm sure that one cost him some book sales...

@MATTHEW PHAN - No amount of editing could make his words of "Woo Woo" sound any worse than they already are. JP got his butt kicked, as he should have. Dillahunty is brilliant as always, just like him handing people their butts on The Atheist Experience week in, week out.

@MATTHEW PHAN Good to know you can read everyone's mind. Do let me know what I'm thinking if you have a minute to spare.

@MATTHEW PHAN - Good to know all the downvotes commented. Genius, simply genius at work here.

@@brianmi40 hey just a reminder for you to got through the comment section again. It should be very clear who downvoted why and by the way the uncut interview is also on KZfaq. Whether you agree with Peterson or not, it is obvious that the editing changed the intention of Peterson's words

Look at half of the other shit they publish and you'll realized they're glorified tabloids at this point.

Jason Cayen you had any?

After this??? LOL. Vice have been the same since forever.

So you were the one taking Vice seriously....

Vice was good many years ago. Now they are the fast food of journalism.

Did you watch the full UNEDITED interview.

They need some intelligent interviewers. Being a good reporter or finding a good story doesnt make you a good interviewer. This guy needs to do better research before asking his questions

To be fair... Vice never had any credibility... but they've gone from normal MSM bullcrap, to Buzzfeed levels.

Vice hasn't changed. You have!

Never was credible. Never.

I notice that one of the tactics this interviewer employs in the discussion is something that seems fairly similar to the "Kafkatrapping" fallacy. In essence, what he does is wait for Peterson to say something like "sexism is wrong," and then he (the interviewer) sort of scoffs in response and says something along the lines of: "Sexism is a far more pervasive problem than you're willing to admit to." The objective of this tactic appears to be to make Peterson look like he's in denial of the existence of the problem, and that therefore, he must necessarily be a part of the problem. (For comparison: in Kafkatrapping, the tactic is employed to the effect of getting someone to deny something -- e.g., that they're a racist -- and then arguing that their denial of guilt is, itself, proof of their guilt.) I've noticed a real uptick in the frequency with which social justice types pull this stunt whenever they get into a debate with an intelligent opponent who isn't willing to agree with them on every single issue. The cultural climate has devolved to such a point that no moderate positions are permitted in thoughtful discussion anymore. In its purest essence, Kafkatrapping is a bullying tactic designed to put a stop to conversation and debate by threatening one of the participants with being socially ostracized. In other words: "You're either with us or against."

oh i laughed to much at this yes i think you're correct, very much so

Peterson could try taking his own advice, especially regarding the nonsense conspiracy theories he peddles abut "Cultural Marxism".