YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman - Post Interview Analysis

Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman - Post Interview Analysis — Transcript

by TheAsianRepublican · 5,132 words · 724 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00but first the talk of the daemon your
0:04interview with channel 4 Kathy Newman it
0:07started I was watching this and it was
0:09like a self-propelled train wreck just
0:12for half an hour it just kept on going
0:14it was quite fun the means that came out
0:17of it were really good but I think
0:19yesterday or today it took kind of a
0:20more joyless turn but first I'm going to
0:24ask you will talk about the aftermath
0:26after but first how did you experience
0:28that interview what happened there what
0:30was going on there well there were lots
0:33of things going on which is why people
0:35are watching it right I mean there are
0:38lots of things going on at many levels
0:40of analysis all the time and it's hard
0:43to determine which level of analysis you
0:45should focus on especially when
0:47something complicated is happening the
0:49way I experienced it was that I went
0:52into the channel 4 studio and I sat and
0:55in in well first in the green room where
0:57everything was quite friendly Kathy was
0:59being made up in there and so we had a
1:01pleasant interchange I would say and
1:04then I was brought into a room where the
1:08interview took place with the cameras
1:10and we spoke for two or three minutes
1:12before the cameras rolled and she was
1:15pleasant and engaging distracted a bit
1:17but it's exactly what you'd expect right
1:21she's got her mind doing many things but
1:23then the cameras went on and she just
1:25was a completely different person
1:26instantly yeah
1:27and so that was interesting you know it
1:29was interesting to me that she had both
1:32of those approaches so instantaneously
1:35at her disposal you know and so of
1:37course the first thing that entered my
1:40mind was well you know my eyebrows went
1:44up and I thought okay which of these two
1:47people is the real person right and then
1:50she she well you could say she played
1:55devil's advocate I suppose that's one
1:57way of thinking about it she laid out a
2:00set of ideological presuppositions two
2:03sets actually her set and my set and the
2:08set of ideological presuppositions that
2:10she laid out
2:12for my side of the argument or very
2:14little resemblance to anything that I
2:16think or say and so she would ask me a
2:19question which wasn't really a question
2:21it was a barb with bait on the end of it
2:24and I would respond and then she would
2:27tell me to say yeah she would she would
2:30say what I said except then what she
2:32would say had nothing to do with what
2:34I'd saying she was actually she was she
2:37was fabricating on the fly the person
2:39that she hoped the villain that ayah
2:42that she hoped I would be and then
2:44insisting that that was me and that
2:48denying it was a lie essentially that's
2:51what the interview was so it's deeply
2:53insincere because she was not she was
2:55playing an ideological persona and she
2:58wanted you to play one as well well she
3:00wanted to me to be the proper foil for
3:02that you know and and was was insistent
3:05is the right word that I abide by that
3:10particular decision and but there was
3:14more to to the interview than that
3:16because it was I mean I've had a lot of
3:21experience listening to people tens of
3:25thousands of hours of experience
3:26listening to people because I'm a
3:27clinical psychologist and I've had an
3:29extensive practice and I've dealt with
3:30every sort of person you could possibly
3:33imagine and a very large number of
3:35people that you couldn't imagine no
3:37matter how long you tried so I was
3:40watching her after the first minute like
3:42a clinician instead of like an
3:44interviewer and I was really paying
3:46attention to what she was doing and I
3:48truly don't believe that anything she
3:50said in that entire interview was true
3:54on its own it was all I actually have a
4:00chapter about this in my book called
4:02assume that the person you're listening
4:04to knows something you don't which is a
4:06taxonomy of conversational types and a
4:10discussion about how to engage in a
4:13conversation if what you're trying to do
4:15is further your knowledge of the truth
4:18if both of you are trying to further
4:21your knowledge of the truth which is a
4:22proper conversation it's the highest
4:23form of conversation not the only form
4:25you
4:25amuse each other - that's a perfectly
4:27good former you can have a friendly spar
4:29or you can play a primate dominance
4:31hierarchy game which is very very common
4:33which is mostly what was happening in
4:35that interview but she was using her
4:40words as tools to attain a particular
4:44kind of end and I couldn't exactly
4:46figure out what the end was some of it
4:48would would be to dominate the
4:51interviewee especially if that's a
4:53person then that would be contaminated
4:55with ideological correctness you want to
4:57dominate your interviewee if you believe
5:00that they're wrong from an ideological
5:02perspective and you want to do that
5:03number one to attain victory and number
5:06two to buttress your ideological points
5:09so there was that then there was some
5:11devil's advocate I suppose and and maybe
5:13that's more forgivable because you could
5:15say that she has a responsibility to do
5:18that as a journalist which I don't
5:20believe by the way asking difficult
5:21questions and playing the devil's
5:24advocate are not the same thing even
5:26though sometimes playing the devil's
5:27advocate is necessary and then I think
5:29there was an underlay of career
5:32grandstanding I don't know that much
5:34about her and I don't know how she's
5:35made her reputation but she was
5:37obviously she is obviously a combative
5:40person and my suspicions are that she's
5:42made a success of putting people maybe
5:47she's made a success of herself in other
5:49ways but she's made a success of herself
5:51at least in part by putting people
5:53uncomfortably on the spot and so all
5:57those things were going on at the same
5:58time and then of course underneath that
6:00is the fact that there was an
6:02ideological battle being played out I
6:04would say a three-fold ideological
6:05battle there was a battle between her
6:07position which was radically neo-marxist
6:11postmodernist I would say she was
6:14arguing against who she thought I was
6:16and so that was the battle and then
6:18there was the position I was trying to
6:19put forward which had virtually nothing
6:21to do with what she was discussing was
6:23fighting your Strama who yeah yeah yeah
6:26well and it was like I was able to
6:30remain reasonably detached during the
6:32interview because I realized almost
6:34immediately that whoever she was talking
6:36to bore very little resemblance to me
6:39and so I mean she was quite
6:41sophisticated in some sense and what she
6:43did because she did manage to sort of
6:47her claims became so preposterous and so
6:50self contradictory that it was difficult
6:53to remain completely detached and I
6:56think and this was the crux of the
6:58interview and I think part the part
6:59that's attracted the most attention she
7:02had asked me at one point in a in a
7:05provocatively self-righteous manner just
7:07what gave me the right to assume that my
7:11my privilege of free speech let's put it
7:15that way
7:15gave me the right to potentially offend
7:20someone and hurt their feelings and I
7:23thought about six things at the same
7:24time but the first thing I thought was
7:30you're a journalist that's the last
7:34question in the world you should ever
7:36ask someone if you have any genuine
7:40integrity as a journalist because that's
7:43all you have as a journalist you have
7:45the right to offend people and hurt
7:47their feelings and so I called her out
7:50on that I said look you know all you've
7:53done in the last 20 minutes is
7:56everything you possibly could to make me
7:58as uncomfortable as you possibly can
8:00and I said it in a way that I would say
8:05was designed to let her know that I knew
8:08exactly what she was doing and then I
8:11suggested that that was actually okay
8:15because she had every right to do that
8:16but that she couldn't have it both ways
8:19she couldn't make her living and her
8:23reputation using those tactics let's say
8:26and those are for her those were tactics
8:28of seeking the truth
8:30they were almost purely tactics of
8:31domination right and one-upmanship and
8:34and maybe you know if you live in the
8:37postmodernist world you don't believe in
8:39truth anyways there's just victory and
8:40power games and so perhaps that's what
8:42she was pursuing I don't know exactly
8:45what she was pursuing but it was so
8:47palpably obvious to the two of us at
8:48that point that she had in fact done
8:51nothing except try to make me on
8:53comfortable.that calling colouring or
8:55calling her on it left her speechless
8:58and then that was the only time I would
9:00say when I actually spoke to the genuine
9:03human being instead of the ideological
9:06ideological from that fell off briefly
9:08and then you said I got you yeah well I
9:10would say technically and this is might
9:12be interesting for people who are
9:13interested in union psychology if you
9:16want to understand what Carl Jung meant
9:18by animus possession which is a very
9:20difficult concept then that that
9:23interview was a textbook case of having
9:26a discussion with someone who is animus
9:28possessed and I can't explain what that
9:30means because it's very complicated but
9:33but if you go and read Jung and you read
9:36about animus position and you need a
9:37demonstration of it so that it that you
9:40get a sense of what's what it means then
9:43that interview is is exactly indicative
9:47of that and and I would say as advice to
9:50people maybe it's more like education
9:53anyone see with anyone who is animus
9:55possessed their goal is to engage you in
9:58the argument if you engage in the
10:02argument on the terms they've defined
10:03you lose it doesn't matter whether you
10:05win or lose you lose as soon as you
10:07engage in the argument and so what I did
10:09in the interview was just not engaged in
10:11the argument yeah so I wouldn't say I
10:13did that with a hundred percent
10:14perfection one of my friends was a very
10:17smart guy there was the scene where the
10:20scene let's say where she was taken
10:22aback I said ha gotcha and my friend
10:28said you know maybe you could have
10:30played that differently there maybe you
10:31could have said all right so you know
10:34obviously you just thought about what I
10:37said you know and maybe we could
10:40actually have a real conversation about
10:42that but you know she had I had become
10:47somewhat angry a little bit at that
10:51point because she had violated the rules
10:54of that make journalism possible by
10:58suggesting that I didn't have the right
11:01to make people uncomfortable with my
11:02speech like she had she had broken a
11:05rule that she
11:06shouldn't have broken in my estimation
11:08that made me angry and so I said
11:12something that was designed to be witty
11:14hopefully was witty and I thought that
11:17was a reasonable approach and maybe it
11:18was but but it might have been better to
11:24have played it straight and and said
11:26look okay now we know we can get
11:28somewhere you know because we're
11:30actually talking yeah so you mean that
11:31after the ha got you you would have
11:33taken control of the conversation we
11:35could have actually had a conversation
11:36we didn't have a conversation or we well
11:39it depends on what you mean by
11:40conversation we had a kind of
11:42conversation but what we actually had
11:44was a dominance hierarchy dispute right
11:46yeah with an ideological overlay yeah
11:48definitely
11:49so then it went quite viral yeah I think
11:52I'm gonna leave Oh God it was trending
11:54on YouTube yes number seven on trending
11:56on yourself number seven yeah
11:58crazy and some loose clips on Facebook
12:00also God yeah nerds
12:02yeah million yeah no definitely and then
12:04Oh Derrick Blackman in the u.s. made a
12:06clip and they've got 750,000 views in
12:09twenty day yeah then the memes came and
12:11then a day later kind of took a joyless
12:15turn yeah yesterday and today right now
12:18yeah well it's amazing well you see so
12:20here's a strange thing a so I kind of
12:23played let's say night on white horse
12:27and so the Guardian yesterday published
12:31a astoundingly reprehensible article
12:35about you know about the channel 4
12:38interview no they've done some nice
12:40interviews about my book so they've been
12:42kind of all over the place with me you
12:44know but the Channel four people claimed
12:48that Kathy has been targeted with
12:50threats no a torrent of online abuse by
12:54internet trolls
12:55that's like 50,000 trolls you know
12:58that's a lot of trolls you might start
12:59thinking maybe they're not all trolls
13:01but in any case overwhelmed by
13:04misogynistic abuse and threats and that
13:07they had called in a security specialist
13:10to assess the level of threat and so it
13:14was the beginning of the attempt to
13:16twist the story around so that the story
13:18became
13:20Kathy Newman poor embattled channel 4
13:25newscaster was merely trying to do her
13:27job even though she might have been a
13:29bit provocative interviewed alt-right
13:32hero dr. Jordan Peterson in an honest
13:36manner - to expose his agenda posted the
13:40results to YouTube and was immediately
13:42mobbed by his army of internet trolls
13:47right so she went from so my senses she
13:50went from journalists playing a variety
13:55of complicated games - to - to target of
14:03criticism online - heroine embattled
14:08heroin in the panoply of martyrs to whom
14:12similar things have happened in the past
14:14and what's terrible about it so so and I
14:18inadvertently I would say contributed to
14:21that because when the Guardian story
14:23came out I read it and the story
14:25purported to be about the threats that
14:27she had received but really the story
14:29because the story opened with the
14:31description of me and the description
14:32was let's call it far from flattery you
14:35know it was the same old thing dr.
14:37Peterson he's a provocateur he's has an
14:39army of trolls if anybody ever dares to
14:43challenge him let's say I know all
14:45they're doing is honestly charging the
14:46trolls come out and then they have to
14:48fear for their lives and that was that
14:50was the story the threat that threats
14:53were just the prerequisite for the story
14:57and then yeah like a dozen UK news media
15:02sources that the newspapers in
15:04particular have picked us this up some
15:08even more critical of me than that some
15:10in a slightly more balanced fashion but
15:13and see when the Guardian story broke I
15:17tweeted something I said look if you're
15:20I've looked at the tweet - are they
15:23YouTube comments and most of the more
15:25merely criticism but if you're
15:27threatening her
15:28I'll stop you know because we had an
15:31exchange of words which is what we're
15:33supposed to do I think this message to
15:35your followers was one of the most liked
15:36tweets you ever put out yeah but here's
15:39the terrible thing about it you know
15:41what happened was that the fact that I
15:44tweeted that was instantly used as
15:47validation for the claim that there were
15:49threats and that was just yeah that's
15:52what happened and see it's weird because
15:53when I wrote that I thought there's part
15:56of me that thought that thought that
15:59that might happen there was a little
16:00warning bell that went off that said
16:02look you know there's no evidence that
16:04these threats are credible and if you
16:06respond by by asking people to back off
16:11you're also implying that there are
16:14people who who should back off that this
16:16is real and I thought no I'm gonna do it
16:19anyways because she has been targeted
16:22she has been subject to a very large
16:25number of very vitriolic comments and
16:28maybe that's enough and so you know it's
16:31okay to come out and say that's enough
16:32but the thing is it wasn't okay because
16:35as soon as I did it then the fact that I
16:37did it was used as proof that all of
16:40these claims were valid and that that
16:41just floored me like I was very
16:44distraught I think is the right word
16:46about that this morning because I didn't
16:48I didn't see that coming there were
16:50there threats against her have you seen
16:52them defined threat specified there's no
16:55threats that were sufficient to get the
16:57police involved so what what they see
17:00the Guardian was very vague about what
17:03the threats were and how and who these
17:07security people were they were vague
17:09about that but the implication was that
17:11the threats were serious enough so that
17:14security people needed to be called in
17:16to advise
17:17okay well the narrative is clarified a
17:19little bit in the last day now they just
17:21said well they had security consultants
17:22come in to look at the threats well so
17:25then you think well is that because
17:27they're actually concerned about the
17:28threats or is that because they want to
17:30spin off a story about how the threats
17:32are so severe that they had to call in
17:33security consultants and like I have a
17:35strong so let's say it's ten percent the
17:38former and ninety percent the latter
17:40which is what I would estimate and so
17:42but it doesn't matter now because the
17:44narrative has already been twisted
17:45around now
17:46I don't know what I don't know if that's
17:48going to I have no idea if that's going
17:54to actually backfire on channel 4 or if
18:00it will have the effect of further
18:03damaging my reputation I mean I know the
18:05Canadian media has picked up the
18:08victimized Kathy Newman narrative and
18:10run with it as well well they're
18:12certainly they're certainly trying the
18:14independent I think was at feast today
18:16as a subtitle
18:17when white men feel there when white men
18:20feel they are losing power any level of
18:22nastiness as possible yeah in the
18:24struggle to to regain yeah that was that
18:26was definitely one of the most appalling
18:28headlines that I've ever seen a credible
18:31news organization produced and they like
18:34see one of the things I pointed out in
18:36my book in 12 rules for life is that as
18:39a clinician talking to many hundreds of
18:43people for many thousands of hours and
18:45watching how things unfold in their life
18:47from the earliest stages of their
18:49childhood memories to their current
18:51state of life and into the future one
18:55thing I've learned is that no one ever
18:57gets away with anything and so this
19:00reporter has made a kind of statement a
19:01kind of provocative statement and he or
19:03she doesn't understand that there will
19:06be consequences of that and and perhaps
19:09not the sort of consequences that the
19:12author will tie back to that statement
19:14but that's the sort of that's a that's a
19:17statement that you only make if you are
19:20very historically ignorant or very
19:24unconscious in cautious or if there's a
19:28very dark part of you hoping things will
19:30go very wrong very soon and I would say
19:33that there's a reasonable possibility
19:35that things are going to go very wrong
19:37very soon for all of us for all of us
19:41none of what's happening in this
19:43polarized atmosphere is amusing to me
19:46what happened see even with the channel
19:494 interview you know and maybe I was a
19:52bit self congratulatory let's say when I
19:57made my
19:59sort of satirical gotcha statement I'm
20:05not and and then I would say you could
20:08read what happened with channel 4 as a
20:11victory for me and as a loss for Cathy
20:13no depends on what she was aiming at if
20:16she was aiming at three million views on
20:18YouTube in two days
20:20then it's not a loss you know and for me
20:23it's like well it my book went up to
20:27number two and on amazon.com in the US
20:29the next day right it's number one in
20:31Canada it's number three in the UK all
20:33on Amazon I couldn't have asked for more
20:36publicity right and so I could also be
20:39sitting back and saying well you know
20:40she tried to my a person who regarded
20:44herself as my ideological opponent tried
20:46to go after my philosophy and my
20:48reputation on national TV failed
20:51brutally and has been taken apart for it
20:54it's like this is a good day but I don't
20:56regard it as a good day I don't think
20:59it's a good day
21:00I think that it's evidence of the
21:04instability of the times that we're in
21:07it would have been much better for me
21:10and for everyone else if what we would
21:12have had was a real conversation so so
21:17it's not good it's not good
21:19and I asked Kathy in a variety of
21:21different ways now if she would sit down
21:23and have an actual conversation because
21:25the right way for this to end
21:27is not for me to declare victory because
21:30I don't regard it as a victory I mean
21:33I'm not saying that I would have liked
21:35to have the table's turned I'm not
21:37saying that I would have been happy with
21:38a loss but what happened in there was
21:41not an optimized victory what we need to
21:45do what would be best is if she would
21:47sit down with me for about an hour on
21:50camera where we could actually have a
21:53discussion like I would like to ask her
21:55something for example I've been trying
21:57to puzzle this out I saw a picture of
22:01her today no that was a tweet was a
22:04tweet by one of her friends and and they
22:05said that the tweet was something like
22:08we're amusing ourselves watching the
22:12Twitter comment
22:13well waiting for the police
22:15investigation okay and then there's a
22:17picture of Kathy holding a tablet you
22:19know looking shocked in a very pleased
22:23way I think it's the right way of and
22:25you see that's kind of what I'm worried
22:27about is that she is shocked in a rather
22:30pleased way was this the police
22:32investigation into her the threats to
22:34her presumably it wasn't clear but
22:36presumably but I think she removed those
22:39tweets she did remove them but it's hard
22:41to remove things from Twitter yeah and
22:43so but I've also been sitting here
22:45thinking like you know people write me
22:48and they say well you must be I'm
22:50writing you a letter support you must be
22:52receiving an overwhelming amount of hate
22:54mail you know keep up the good work I
22:56don't receive any hate hate mail I
22:58received like five pieces of hate mail
23:00it in the last 15 months idea I can't
23:03believe that that's the case it's it's
23:07yeah and and they weren't particularly
23:09vitriolic their criticisms you know so I
23:12don't get hate mail now I don't know why
23:14but I don't but you know if if the
23:19tables were turned you know and if I had
23:23done an interview and then 50,000 people
23:26had written critical comments about me
23:28in two days
23:30ranging from like pretty severely
23:33critical to pretty damn vitriolic I
23:36would be having a rough time of it man
23:38I'd be sitting there thinking Jesus you
23:41know what the hell did I do
23:42what did I do that was so deeply wrong
23:44that this was the result but I don't
23:48know what Kathy's thinking does not seem
23:51to well you know I hesitate to guess at
23:55it but but there's no evidence that
23:59that's her response you know she said oh
24:01well it was all in good fun it was part
24:03of the game thank you for being a good
24:05sport if he's not a game for me for
24:09feminism yeah exactly Viva feminists
24:11we're really and I mean what my
24:15impression of the response to her
24:17interview is that virtually everyone
24:22watching it online and I'm judging this
24:24response by the number of likes to
24:27dislikes and the comments which are
24:28running about eighty to one against her
24:30which is like fifty the one against you
24:33is not good like eighty to one against
24:36you is really really not good
24:38there's something wrong and so and these
24:41aren't trolls these aren't my army of
24:44trolls these these three million people
24:46who've watched the video or it's more
24:49than that actually that's that's all
24:51sorts of people everywhere and they're
24:54they're not happy with the way the
24:56interview went and that would crush me
25:01yeah you know and I think that's the
25:04right response to that it's like when
25:06you're when you receive overwhelming
25:10public criticism like that the right
25:13response should be not Glee at stirring
25:19up the hornet's nest but careful
25:22reanalysis of what you did as art it's
25:28not as hard as the alternative because
25:31if you're riding high and there's a
25:34correction coming and you keep for
25:37stalling it the correction will get
25:40larger and larger and larger and larger
25:42and finally when it comes you will not
25:44be able to tolerate it and that's the
25:47situation I believe that she's in the
25:49correction is coming as she responded to
25:52your request to sit down again
25:53no but it's been made very very you know
25:56recently okay
25:58so I've had a colleague of hers
26:01contacted me and said that he would do
26:03what he could to put us an in touch and
26:05other people have you know been working
26:07behind the scenes and I suggested it on
26:10Twitter and you know I'm likely going to
26:14contact my press agents at penguin and
26:16see if they want to contact her and ask
26:18but because that's the right outcome the
26:22right outcome is we have a we have this
26:25bit of combat let's say it produced a
26:29scandal now we actually talk about it
26:32yeah no tricks just a conversation and
26:35then everybody wins right because I can
26:39admit whatever mistakes I made
26:41she can admit whatever mistakes she made
26:43we can drop the persona yeah which is
26:46what she had it was a animus possessed
26:48persona technically speaking she could
26:51drop that we could actually have a
26:53discussion yeah like I would open the
26:55discussion by asking her why she was
26:58taken aback when I asked her about her
27:02treatment of me in the interview you
27:05know and people have also been spinning
27:07that as my claims to have been
27:09victimized in the interview No so which
27:12is another sign of how pathological the
27:15discourse has become because pointing
27:17out what's happening and claiming some
27:20kind of victim status are by no means
27:22the same thing so what you're saying
27:25that although it might look as a as a as
27:28a victory for you and the the attention
27:30it is not a healthy victory it's not a
27:32healthy victory right and taking back to
27:35that you said that it's actually a sign
27:37of the times where things could go
27:38really wrong for all of us really soon
27:40yeah we're playing with fire yeah what
27:43do you mean by this can you can you
27:44elaborate
27:45well things go wrong in cultures all the
27:48time right you get you get the
27:50polarization increases until people
27:53start to act it out you know I mean I'll
28:01give you an example you know I always
28:02pay attention to what happens at the
28:05back of my mind to the bottom of my mind
28:07let's say and when I learned from Carl
28:11Jung for example one thing was that if
28:13you watch what happens in your
28:15imagination while you're speaking of
28:17where things are happening to you'll see
28:18little dreamlike fragments happening all
28:20the time they're not in words they're
28:22really more like they're more like brief
28:24dreams Jung thought we were dreaming all
28:26the time even when we were awake and you
28:29know today I was reviewing maybe 10 or
28:3211 of these newspaper articles that had
28:34played this twisty game and accused me
28:37of like seeking my internet trolls on
28:40the poor hapless journalists and I
28:42thought this was the dark part of me
28:44right that's the shadow part thought if
28:48I wanted to SiC my internet trolls on
28:50channel 4 then there'd be nothing but
28:52broken windows and riots
28:54and then there's a little part of me
28:55that thinks wouldn't that be fun right
28:58and that's where we're at it's like
29:00because I'm a reasonable person a very
29:01reasonable person even though I can yes
29:05and I pay attention to them because I
29:07know that they're they're part of the
29:09collective unconscious right they're the
29:11shadow part and when there's part of me
29:13thinking well wouldn't that just be
29:14perfectly goddamn delightful then
29:17there's lots of people who are not only
29:19thinking that way sometimes but thinking
29:20that way all the time and they're just
29:22waiting for that to be the proper
29:25response you see this with the anti feh
29:27violence in the United States and with
29:29the Charlottesville thing as well so but
29:31basically what you're saying is that
29:33when you have these dark thoughts in
29:35your mind in the back of your mind you
29:36you kind of tap into the collective
29:38unconscious of culture you're embedded
29:40in definitely definitely there's no
29:42there's no doubt about it is that like
29:44the dark part of me and the dark part of
29:45you is the same thing in some ways you
29:48know when we live in the same culture
29:49and so it's going to manifest itself in
29:51a similar manner yeah so you're saying
29:53the polarization that we're seeing right
29:55now that we are speaking out it's not in
30:00the future we will act out that
30:01polarization well if we don't if we keep
30:03accelerating it especially if we keep
30:05accelerating with lies yeah you know and
30:07and this this whole channel for rat's
30:13nest is like 90% lies maybe more and you
30:18know a lot of its ideologically
30:19motivated lies but it doesn't matter it
30:22still lies like Kathy as I said there
30:26was virtually nothing she said in that
30:28interview that was actually coming from
30:32her like like a deep part of her the
30:35soul of her it was all persona it was
30:38all persona and and and all use of words
30:41in a in a expedient manner as tools to
30:45obtain I think probably probably status
30:49dominant status and reputation

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Jordan Peterson vs Cathy Newman - Post Interview Analysis by TheAsianRepublican, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 5,132 words across 724 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.