Jordan Peterson’s must-watch takedown of SJW media maven Cathy Newman has gone viral, with over 2 million views on YouTube.

If you haven’t read my previous piece on the interview, shame on you! At least watch at least a few minutes of the video to get a sense of the totality of Peterson’s triumph.

Now, predictably, the left-wing media is trying to reframe Newman’s abject humiliation as a case of misogynist bullying by the “alt-right.” The aim, of course, is to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by implying that anyone who takes the side of Newman’s critics is anti-women and pro-abuse.

Now my attempts to moderate the discussion surrounding the channel 4 interview with are being used as proof that she is a victim. Is this how you want this to go, Cathy @cathynewman ? Are you going to stand forth as a victim? — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

According to the Guardian:

Channel 4 News has called in security specialists to analyse threats made to presenter Cathy Newman following her interview with a controversial Canadian psychologist who has attracted a following among the “alt-right.” Ben de Pear, the editor of Channel 4 News, said Newman had been subjected to “vicious misogynistic abuse”. Having to call in security specialists was a “terrible indictment of the times we live in”, he said.

“Security specialists.” Really? Speaking as a Channel 4 shareholder — as I guess all British subjects are, being as the channel is publicly owned — I’d be interested to see how solid the evidence is to warrant these drastic and presumably costly measures.

Does de Pear, I wonder, mean any of these?

https://twitter.com/NlNETEENElGHTY4/status/954709872666468354

https://twitter.com/LondonWasp/status/954710251919560704

I'm thinking about it pic.twitter.com/EZ7Nm4kFVP — James Slingsby (@luckyjimsling) January 20, 2018

Yes, I’m seeing lots of playful delight in Newman’s hopeless debating technique, especially her dependence on the Straw Man logical fallacy.

What I’m not seeing is evidence of any “vicious, misogynist abuse.”

a) because the tone of these responses is more jubilant and amused than hate-filled and b) because none of these memes is attacking Newman because she is a woman — it’s her SJW politics they’re laughing at, not her gender.

"Called in 'security experts' " does not constitute evidence of credible threat…. Let me repeat that: "called in 'security experts' " does not constitute evidence of credible threat. https://t.co/InuB1FsMIj — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

Not for a moment am I suggesting that Cathy Newman has not been through an unpleasant experience; nor that she doesn’t deserve a degree of sympathy. Even though her approach to Jordan Peterson was bullying, intolerant and narrow-minded, it must have been truly awful for her to lose face so publicly.

Nor am I ruling out the possibility that some of the tweets or emails she has been sent may indeed have been rude and foul-mouthed. That’s social media. If genuine, credible threats have been made then that is a matter for the police. But if, as I suspect, it’s just a case of a few inarticulate, angry men (or, indeed, women) using nasty language then, yes, it’s something to be deplored — but hardly something, I’d suggest, to merit the involvement of “security specialists.”

From reporter of dubious scrupulousity, to victim, to heroine in the panoply of martyrs in three rapid steps…. we are indeed in surreal, perilous times. https://t.co/ZigaqBsGLx — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

I can’t help thinking there’s something deeply dishonest both about Channel 4’s response and about the way the story is being reported in the left-wing media.

And this is happening in dozens of newspapers (with, by the way, no proof of credible threats, despite the allegations) (and this is not to say that the online discussion has been entirely civil). https://t.co/3GYKjHkpFH — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

Look at these weaselly paragraphs in the Guardian:

The combative Channel 4 interview led to praise for Peterson and criticism for Newman on some right-leaning sites. James Delingpole, a Breitbart columnist, said the interview marked a “pivotal victory in the culture wars” and that the “weaknesses of the regressive left have never been more cruelly or damningly exposed”. Douglas Murray in the Spectator said: “I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer.” Newman has faced a wave of abuse and threats online, including on Twitter. There is no suggestion that Peterson, Delingpole or Murray are behind the threats or instigated them.

Yes, I’m really grateful that — no doubt, at the instigation of the Guardian‘s lawyers — a self-exculpatory paragraph was included to stop any libelous smears.

Even so, the heavy hint is still there isn’t it? Newman, we are being invited to believe, is an innocent woman who has been abused by the bullying fans of Peterson, Delingpole, and Murray…

"In addition to the reported threats, Peterson’s followers suggested that Newman was 'putting words in his mouth'." My "followers" — not just people who watched the video and made up their own mind. Because what if the latter was true @cathynewman https://t.co/7mdXBe2WA8 https://t.co/RboDFJejyQ — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 21, 2018

This distraction is unlikely to be very effective, not least because all it does is to weaken Newman’s already very flimsy position.

Remember, the reason that this car-crash interview was such a landmark moment in the Culture Wars is that it demonstrated how quickly the SJW narrative crumbles when exposed to a dose of polite but unflagging reason.

Lots of people on the non-SJW side of the argument have taken heart from this because they’ve suddenly been shown how to win: don’t lose your cool; never surrender to any of the enemy’s terms — which are false terms; never be fooled by the enemy’s smears, straw men, or haughtiness into believing that they hold the moral high ground over you — because they don’t; and win by exposing the weakness and contradictions of their arguments.

And now Channel 4 and the Guardian are helping Cathy Newman lose her argument all over again, by pointing up the double standards of feminists and their pretense that all they want is “equality.”

On the one hand they claim that all they want is a level playing field, where women can compete on equal terms with men and everyone is treated fairly; on the other, as soon as the going gets tough, they want special rules to be applied because they’re more fragile and men are horrid and consequently as frail women they need special protection.

Equality? Pull the other one. It’s got bells on it.