Share this page!

Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
Twitter logo
1 Feb, 11 tweets, 6 min read
🔥🔥🔥

#JordanPeterson: Everything is always and all about him. Buy his lobster socks!
“I do not think that it is mere thin-skinned sensitivity on my part to believe that I would have fared no worse had I discussed my affairs with an avowed enemy.”—#JordanPeterson’s reaction to the piece.

Perhaps, though, it is more than mere thin-skinned sensitivity?
#JordanPeterson on his website details his daughter’s exceptional medical history in a long paragraph as argument against the reporter crediting the source she used for information about Mikhaila’s medical history: “according to her website.”
#JordanPeterson really did not like that phrase: “according to her website.”

I have written in #JordanPeterson’s special relationship to citation here:

pyriscence.ca/home/2018/8/16…
His fans really loved him in the Cathy Newman interview. At the time, a student in one of my courses wrote an excellent paper on how Newman was trashed in the YouTube comments. Turns out, Peterson is not so fond of the interview. He prefers Rogan and Rubin.
#JordanPeterson's perhaps thin-skinned sensitivity to this interview is not the first time he objects to a journalist meeting him thoughtfully but not deferentially absorbing and boosting his perspective and points. Allow me to link some past threads.
Cathy Newman was publicly appreciative of him appearing on her show. Her treatment is not to blame for his thin-skinned-ness. His sexism might play a part, however.

My thread of some of #JordanPeterson's reactions after the Cathy Newman interview.

We might as well turn the question on him following his complaints to The Sunday Times: Is this how you want this to go, Jordan? Are you going to stand forth as a victim?

Summary thread of #JordanPeterson's GQ interview with Helen Lewis. She was calm and fair. He was not pleased. He'd much prefer his ego to be softly stroked by Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin. Boo hoo hoo.

Jay Caspian Kang probably also did not rise to level of care and absence of critical questions Jordan Peterson believes he deserves in an interview. My thread looking into JBP's outlandish claims from that interview.

And do not forget #JordanPeterson's love for lawsuits and threats thereof as a means to respond to measured criticism.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Dr. Katja Thieme 👀

Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Katja_Thieme

Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
31 Jan
A few thoughts on the writing and publishing strategy of McWhorter‘s piece. In the long tradition of such pieces, he details a few cases that have received much recent blog and Twitter discussion: Princeton, Bryn Mawr, Dalton School. 1/
But this is not a piece of reporting. Nobody at these schools has been contacted for comment. The people involved in the organizing of protest or are not asked. The evidence from on which very dramatic conclusions are drawn is wishy-washy. 2/ ImageImage
Every once in a while, students at a university or college will lose a few weeks of formal learning. That can be due to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a strike, or a protest. 3/
Read 11 tweets
Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
25 Jan
Helen lectures on systems of power and falls on her face.

You see, it's ridiculous that "critical social justice" or "the woke" believe that there are systems of power that are hard to see. That sounds like dew-pearled faerie webs, doesn't it. You say you see them? Really??? 1/
Balderdash, says Helen. Most people don't see such webs. Webs of power are therefore an ideological hallucination. There; done with that argument.

Now, as for racism more particularly. It does exist!, Helen assures. We'll know it when we see it is the implication, I suppose. 2/
When we see racism, springing like a predatory animal into the circle, we may recognize its bloodthirsty face, unsheath our individual swords, & individually slay it for the good of all. That's liberalism! Ra ra ra!

Or, slay it because you like slaying. You libertarian, you. 3/
Read 8 tweets
Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
25 Jan
I‘m not certain my nagging about foregoing a few hours of Roblox in order to pursue other projects—maybe even make something!—is to be credited.

But.

My child designed this set of cards.

And devised the rules to a game called *1...2...3...Page!*
The rules are meant to prevent players from holding onto cards „like a wall of rock,“ and instead make the game „flow like water.“ And they do.
One of the rules is that the card(s) with the higher number always beat the card(s) with the lower number. (This means that pigs always beat humans, unless one plays the human card combined with another card above 2.)
Read 5 tweets
Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
23 Jan
I'm glad Helen is saying this.
I'll note that her ongoing confusion about the concept of free speech is concerning. Nobody is limiting James Lindsay's right to speech. What is at stake in this case is how wrong and harmful his speech is. I hope she recognizes that. That is the point I hope she's making.
I'm not glad that she's deflecting from the point that she can't condone his views anymore. She does so by implying his right to speech has been limited (it hasn't) and that her help is needed to protect it.
Read 8 tweets
Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
23 Jan
Seize the means of race production!
To use Bo’s favorite emoji: 😃

Ted is correct.

Read 6 tweets
Dr. Katja Thieme 👀 Profile picture
13 Jan
This is pretty clear.
I would help us if we tried to be more disciplined in our use of these terms. If what we're talking about is the co-regulation of speech among participants in public discussion, we're talking about conditions for public discourse, not about questions for free speech.
Once we think of it as conditions for public discourse, it becomes much clearer that participants can indeed attempt to regulate each other. Including by shouting over each other. Or by telling someone else that they want them to stop speaking.
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @Katja_Thieme has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @Katja_Thieme!

Read all threads by @Katja_Thieme