Skip to main content

tv   Munk Debate on Political Correctness  CSPAN  June 4, 2018 8:01pm-9:56pm EDT

8:01 pm
the event was moderated by month debate director rudyard griffith. this program contains language that some of youviewers might find offen. >> they operate better -- [ multiple speakers ] matt barack obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world and our willingns work through the security council. >> you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of the allies. >> whatever you call this, i mafia state or a futile empire, it is a disaster for ordinary russians. >> it started with the chinese.
8:02 pm
it is authoritarian management. >> sites a religious -- religion forces people tdo unnd things. >> i won't let you do this i quoted them. you can keep screaming that and that doesn't change the point. >> we do not want pity, we want opportunity. >> it is an appalling slander to me to be muslim religion. >> that kind of restraint, it is that kind of sober minded sensible and intelligent foreign policy that obama represents. what i'm telling you is that he is a closet canadian. [ laughter ] >> ladies and gentlemen,
8:03 pm
welcome. my name is rudyard griffith. it is my privilege to have the opportunity moderate tonight's debate. and to act as your organizer. i want to start by welcoming the north american audience tuning in right now. across canada on cpap, the public affairs channel. c-span across the continental united states and on cbc radio. a warm hello to the online audience. watching the debate over 6000 streams active at this moment. facebook live, bloomberg.com and munk debates.com. it is great to have you as virtual participants in tonight proceeding. hello to you, the over 3000 people who filled roy thomson hall for yet another munk debate. thank you for your support for more and better debates on the big issues of the day. this debate marks the start of the
8:04 pm
10th season. we begin the season missing someone who was vital to this debate series. it was his passion for ideas, hilo for debate that inspired a creation in 2008 and it was his energy, his generosity and his drive that was so important in allowing us to really win international acclaim is one of the world great debate series. his philanthropy is legacy, it is incredible. last fall we remember that $100 million donation to cardiac health. here in toronto, transforming the lives of tens of thousands of canadians. and millions to come. bravo. we are all big fans and supporters of the terrific school for global affairs on the uft campus represented here tonight by many students. congratulations to you.
8:05 pm
and also a generous and dominant last spring to the series that will allow us to organize many evenings like this for many more years to come. knowing the benefactor as we do, the last thing he would want is for us to mark his absence with a moment of silence. that wasn't his style. let's instead celebrate a great canadian, a great life, and a great legacy, of the late peter munk. bravo, peter. [ applause ] [ applause ] way
8:06 pm
to go, peter. [ applause ] i know he would have enjoyed that. i want to thank melanie, anthony cheney for being here tonight. to be part of peter's continuing positive impact on public debate in canada. thank you guys. [ applause ] thank you for being here tonight. first thing onismind at this point in the debate would be rudyard, stop talking and get it underway. get them out here. come on, get the show on the road. we will do that right now. we have a terrific debate lined up for you this evening. let's introduce first, the pro team, arguing for tonight's motion. be it resolved what you call political correctness, i call progress. please welcome to the stage he
8:07 pm
is award-winning writer, scholar, rod koester, on npr and sports networks across america, michael eric dyson., not. -- meon up. michael, debating partner is also an award-winning author, she is a columnist at the new york times. and someone who will bring a very distinctive and powerful perspective tonight. michelle goldberg, come on out. so, one great team of debaters deserves another. and arguing against the resolution, be it resolvedha you call political rrectness
8:08 pm
i call progress. is the emmy award-winning actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet and tonight's debater stephen fry. stevens teammate a prsor of psychology at the university of toronto and a youtube sensation. the author of the big new international the seller, 12 rules for life, ladies and gentle -- gentlemen, toronto's jordan peterson. [ applause ] we will get the debate underway momentarily. a quick checklist. we have a hashtag tonight, hash
8:09 pm
at munk debate. those of you in the hall and those of you watching online, please weigh in and let's get your opinions going. also for those of you watching online right now, we have a running poll. munk debate.com/boat. -- vote. we will show this over the next hour and a half. my favorite part is peter's creation, we have the countdown slot. it keeps the debaters on their toes and the debate on time. when you see these clocks on the screen go down to zero, i want you to join me in a warm round of applause. [ laughter ] we will have a debate that ends when it is supposed to end. now, let's see. we have the resolution tonight.
8:10 pm
we had the audience of roughly 3000 people here in downtown toronto and they voted on it resolved what you call political correctness, i call progress. let's see the agree disagree on that. 36 percent agree am a 64 rcendisagree. a room in play. we asked you how many of you are open to changing your vote over the course of the day? are you fixed or could you potentially be convinced by one or other of these two teams to move your vote over the next hour and a half? let's see those numbers. wow, a pretty open-minded crowd. this debate is in play. as per the agreed-upon order of speakers, i will call on michelle goldberg first. michelle would you like a sip of water? let's get your six minutes of opening remarks. >> thank you for having me. as rudyard knows, i initially balked at the resolution that we are debating because there
8:11 pm
are a lot of things that fall under the purview of political correctness that i don't call progress. i don't like no platforming, or twitter or twitter warnings or like a lot of middle-aged liberals, there are many aspects of student social justice culture that i find upsetting. i'm not sure articular generation gap is anything new. on the record about the toxicity of social media counterculture, i think it is up for debate on people whose ideas i don't like which is why i am here. if there are social justice lawyers in the audience, i apologize because i'm not your -- you will feel like i am not adequately defending your ideas. the reason i am on this side of the stage is that political correctness isn't just a term for west wing accesses on college compasses or being terrible on twitter. as mr. peterson, i think it is
8:12 pm
a way to delegitimize any attempt for women and racial and sexual minorities to overcome discrimination into arguing that the question of discrimination is real. mr. peterson says "the people who hold that their culture is an oppressive hierarchy, they do want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." it doesn't seem to me because i'm an american and the president is donald trump. it is an assumption that i think underlies the worldview in which any challenge to the current hierarchy are written off as political correctness. i also think we should be clear that this isn't really a debate about free speech. mr. peterson once referred to it as what he called the evil trinity of equity, diversity and inclusivity. he said those three words, which you hear people mile those three words, equity, diversity and inclusivity. you know you're dealing with and you should step away
8:13 pm
because it is not acceptable. he argues that some of these threw out the idea of creating a database of university content so they could avoid postmodern critical theory. and the criticism of this, i sometimes hear and urge or an attempt to purge the thought of certain analytical data that mirrors i think the word character of the social justice left that was to get rid of anything that smacks of colonialism or patriarchy or white supremacy. i don't think we are debating the value of enlightenment. at least not in the way that somebody like mr. fry would think of -- that expands the rights and privileges once granted just to land owning quite heterosexual men. is the enlightenment. or very much in keeping with the enlightenment. to quote a dead white man, door and -- john stuart mill, the
8:14 pm
justification -- to advancement. i think some of the opponents by contrast bring challenges to the system of customs as politically correct on a transistor national order. to quote mr. person again, each gender insect has its own fairness to al with. to think of it as a consequence of social structure is come on, really what about nature itself. there is an exception to this because he does believe in social intervention, some kinds of unfairness which is why in the new york times he calls for "enforcement death and forced monogamy" who don't get their distribution of sex. when it comes to political correctness, we had been there fo. al bloom who authored the closing of the american mind, compare the tourney of feminism is pera -- academia as the same
8:15 pm
as khmer rouge. it is worth looking back at what was idpolitically correct in the 1980s, the last time we this debate for having to ll or not being leo ca indigeno people quote indians. or having to use hyphenated terms like in the united states like african-american. adding women are people of color to the curriculum, not makingor ugajong retard as epithet. i get it. new concepts, wo sort of sticking your throat. the way were used to talking and thinking, seeing that girl as a normal -- by definition, and then the new terms and concepts that have social utility stick. and those that don't fall away. if you go back to the 70s,ms as an alternative to mr. or mrs. stock. women with the why didn't.
8:16 pm
so i think that someday we will look back d marvel at the gender neutral pronouns. maybe that is an existential threat to anyone. this might not happen sua because if you look around the wod now, there are plenty of places that have indeed dialed back cosmopolitanism and re-up --instatedtriarchy. they seem like terrible places to live. i come to you from the united states which is currently undergoing a monumental attempt to roll back social progress in the name of overcoming political correctness. is someone who lived there, i assure you that it feels nothing like progress. thank you. [ applause ] >> great start for the debate, thank you michelle. let's talk to jordan peterson.
8:17 pm
>>hello. we should first decide what we are talking about. we are not g abt my views of political correctness. despite what you might have been heard from the last speaker comment. this is how it looks to me. we essentially need something proximating a low-resolution grand narrative to unite us. we need narrative to unite us because otherwise we don't have peace. what's playing in the universities and in broader society is the debate between two fundamental low-resolution narratives, neither of which can be completely accurate because they can't encompass all the details obviously human beings have an individual element and a collective element and a group element. the question is what story should be paramount and this is how it looks to me. in the west we have reasonably
8:18 pm
funcalfree, remarkably productive, stable, hierarchies that are open to consideration of the dispossessed that the ies are r your and ly create functioning more effectively than any societies anywhere else in the world and en any society ever has. as far as i'm concerned, and i think there's good reason to assume this, it is the fundamental low-resolution grand narrative that we have oriented ourselves around in the west is one of sovereignty of the individual. it is predicated on the idea that all things considered, the best way for me to interact with someone else is individual to individual. to react to that person as if they are both part of the process because that's the right way of thinking about it, the psychological process by
8:19 pm
which things we don't understand can yet be explored and by things that aren't properly organized in society can be get set right. the reason we are valuable as individuals in regard to rights and responsibilities as because that's her essential purpose and that's our nobility. that's her function. what is happening as far as i'm concerned and the universities in particular and spreading rapidly to the broader world, including the corporate world, much to what should be its chagrin, is a colltive nearest desk narrative. and some utilities because we are part of the grou but the collective narrative that i regard as politically correct is a strange speech of postmodern marxism. and it claims no, you're not essentially an individual, you are essentially a member of the group. that group might be your ethnicity, it might be your cond it might be a race. it might be any of the endless numbers of other potential groups that you belong to. you belong to many. you should bessentially
8:20 pm
categorized along with those who are like you in that dimension in that group. that is position number one number two is the proper way to view the world is a battleground between groups of different power. if you define the groups first, then you assume you view the individual from the group context and you use the battle between groups from the group context and you view history itself as a consequence of nothing but the power of the different groups. that eliminates any consideration of the individual at a very fundamental level. also any idea for example of free speech. if you are collectivist at heart, there is no such thing as free speech. it isn't that it is debated by those on the radical left and let's say the rest of us so to speak. it is within that formulation, is no such thing as free speech because an individual is, free speech is how you make sense of the world and reorganize society in a proper manner. for the radical left type
8:21 pm
collectivist, that is associated with political correctness, when you speak, all you're doing is putting up our game on behalf of your grou there's nothing else you can do because that's all there is. not only is thanot on all there is, and how society should be viewed, it is also the fundamental narrative of history. for example, it is widely assumed in our universities now that the best way to conceptualize western civilization is an oppressive male-dominated patriarchy and the best way to have relationships between men and women across the centuries as one of oppression, when in by men. that is like well, no, no hierarchy is without its tyranny. that is an axc truth. people recognize that literally for thousands of years. hierarchies do tend to words that toward tyranny and they tend toward the use of patients with people of power. that becomes when they are corrupt but we have mechanisms to stop that.
8:22 pm
hierarchies from becoming entirely corrupt and they work pretty well. so i would also t this out. don't nking at this is a debate about whhethy is useful or not. or that the people on the con side of the argument are empathetic. i know perfectly well, and no hierarchy n be producing situations where people stack up at the bottom. and the dispossessed the hierarchy need a political voice which is the proper voice of the left. and the necessary voice of the left. that is not the same as proclaiming that the right level of analysis for the grand view narrative is that all of us are fundamentally to be identified by the groups that we belong to. and to construe the entire world as the battleground between different forms of tyranny in consequence of that group affiliation. so to degree that we play out that, play out that narrative
8:23 pm
thill beprogress, that will not be progress and we haven't seen that progress in the university can we have seen situations like what happened in wilfrid laurier university. we won't see progress, we will return to exactly the same kind of tribalism that characterize the left. [ applause ] >> your six minutes starts now. >> it's a wonderful opportunity to be here in canada. thank you so much, i will stand here at the podium and i'm a preacher. and i will ask for an offering at the end of my presentation. this is the swimsuit competition. let me show you the curves of my thoughts. oh my god, was not a politically incorrect statement that made? how do we get to the point where the hijacking of the discourse on political correctness has become a kind of
8:24 pm
distinction between us and them. his presents -- his comments were remarkable. what's interesting to me is that when we look at the radical left, and i want to say i want to join the. they are running us and i'm from a country where a man stands up every day to sweep the moral mendacity of his viciousness into a nation he has turned into a psychic commode. [ applause ] you've got justin, we've got donald what's interesting is that political correctness has transmogrified into a character of the left. the left came up with the political correctness. shall i remind you. -- my compatriots.
8:25 pm
or not. don't take yourself too seriously. smiled. take yourselves not tears at all but what you do with seriousness. this has transmogrified into artezing the l left. it is a metaphor for symbolism and articulation, they don't exist, the numbers are too small. i'm on college campuses and i don't see much of them coming. what hear about, it amazes me. the collectivist identity politicians, last time i checked, -- that was invention from a dominant culture that wanted groups to have their best. the invention of race was driven by the demand of a dominant culture that supports the others. patriarchy, patriarchy was the demand of men to have their exclusive vision presented, the beauty of -- it won't resolve differences between men and women. it just as men are likely going
8:26 pm
to get the last word. of course in my career they never did. so identity politics has been generated as the right and they don't have the same degree to which identity has been forced upon black people and brown people and people of color from the very beginning and women. you think that i want to be part of a group that is constantly abhorred by people at starbucks? i am minding my own black business. walking down the street. i have group identity thrust upon me. they don't think i how come there goes a [null]. highly intelligent, articulate, verbose. capable of rhetorical fury at the drop of a hat. we should not interrogate him as to the motives of his legal status. no they treat me as part of a group. and the problem is that our friends don't want to acknowledge this that the
8:27 pm
dominance of the group has been so vicious that it is denied us the opportunity to exist as individuals. individualism is the characteristic moments in my eternity. mr. peterson is right, the development of the individual is predicated on the notion of intelligence. the card comes along and introduced knowledge into the fray, saying that knowledge is based upon the kind of reference to the golden intelligence, the reflective glass that one possesses. and yet the very grounds of the existence of so now it has flexible bases. the knowledge that i bring as a person of color x a difference in my body because i know what people think of meand i know how they respond to me and that ain't no theory. the only trigger i want is from a cop, are you about to shoot me? not funny. in america, where young black people die repeatedly, unarmed. without provocation.
8:28 pm
so for me, identity potics is somethg seris. what is interesting about safe spaces, i hear about the university, i teach there. if you are in a safe space in your body, you don't need a safe space. some of that is overblown, some of it is ridiculous. i believe the classrooas a robust place for serious learning. i believe in the interrogation of knowledge based on understanding of enlightenment. at the same time, some people aren't as equal as others. we have to understand the conditions in which they have emerged and been united. and attacked by their own culture. i haven't seen anybody be a snowflake than the white man who complains. they hated gays and lesbians and transsexuals and yes, you have to share. this isn't your world, it is everybody's world.
8:29 pm
rumor that story from david foster wallace, to fisher going and the older sister comes down. he said hello boys, how's the water? they swim on they turn they said what is water? because when you're in it you don't know it. when you're dominant you don't know it. nothing is more interesting but the devils head and to make people believe that he we will put 6 minutes on the clock. >> if i missed the train to london i won't hear the end of it. in agreeing to participate in this debate and stand on this side of the argument, i am
8:30 pm
aware that many people who choose incorrectly in my view to seek this issue in terms of left and right, will believe that i am betraying myself in such causes and values which i have espoused over the years. i have given grace already because i am standing here next to professor peterson who is the very reason that i am standing here the first place. i am standing next to somebody with whom i have differences in terms of politics and other things. precisely because i think this has got to stop. this rage, resentment, hostility, intolerance, above all this with us or against us certainty. the grand canyon has opened up in our world. the crack and fisher grows wider every deep -- every day. neither can hear a word that
8:31 pm
the other shrieks, nor do they want to. while these armies and propagandists in the culture wars clash, down below in the enormous space between the two sides, the people of the world try to get on with their lives, eternally baffled, bored, and betrayed by the horrible noises and explosions around. i think it is time for this toxic, zero-sum madness to stop before we destroy ourselves. [applause] i had better nail my colors before i begin. all my adult life i have been a soft leftist. a sort of milquetoast bridie. not a burden the barricades socialist, i have been on marches but i have never quite dared to wave banners.
8:32 pm
am i a loathed member of the social justice warrior, i don't think unkindly of social injustice but i consider -- don't consider myself an injustice warrior. i believe and i still do believe in the sanctity of human relations. friendship, love, and common interests. it is a more personal interior belief then they are exterior political convictions. more humanistic versions of religious impulse i suppose. i trust in humanity. i believe in humanity. i think i do, despite all that has happened in the 40 years of my adulthood. i am soft and i can easily be swept away from harder
8:33 pm
intellects. i am sometimes surprised to be described as an activist, -- but i have involved myself in certain causes. i grew up knowing i was gay. when i was born i looked up and said, that's the last he -- the last time i am going in one of those. [laughter] i am jewish. i have experienced the horror of racism. naturally i want racism, misogyny, bullying, bigotry, intolerance of all humankind's to end. that is a given amongst all of us. the question is, how that is to be achi my ultimate object to -- my ultimate objection to political correctness -- this is not why
8:34 pm
i am incurring the wrath of my fellow liberals. my real objection is the -- that i don'think litical correctness works. i want to get to the golden hill but i don't think that is the way to get there. i believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective. [applause] political correctness is always obsessed with how right it is, without thinking about how effective it might be. i would not classify myself as a libertarian but i am instinctively distrusting of orthodoxy. progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality. but by
8:35 pm
mad men, hermits, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics. [applause] i may be wrong. i hope to learn this evening. i do think i may be wrong. but i prefer to entertain the possibility that political correctness would bring us more tolerance and a better world. but i'm not sure. i would like this quotation, one of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid and ose with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision. let doubt prevail. [applause] >> those are a great set of opening statements.
8:36 pm
we will know go to a round of rebuttals to allow each of our presenters three minutes to reflect on what they have heard and to make some additional ints. we will do that in the same order that we have the opening statements. michelle, you are up first. >> first i would say that the attempt to draw a dichotomy between individual rights and group rights is a little bit misleading. traditionally, there have been large groups of people that have not been able to exercise their individual rights. i think that a lot of the claims that are being made on behalf of what we politically correct types call marginal groups, are people who have identities that have not traditionally been at the center of our culture or been at the top of our hierarchies have as much x -- right to
8:37 pm
exercise their individual talent and realize their individual ambitions. when we say that we want more won power or more people of color, their voices in the canon or the curriculum or directing movies, all of th things are not because we are interested in some sort of crude equity, but because there are a lot of people who have not traditionally been able to realize themselves as individuals. that is what the women's movement was. that is with the civil rights movement was. that is what the gay rights movement was. far from a collectivist movement, this is liberalism, pushed to its extreme. these are people saying, i have the right to define my identity against the one that was collectively assigned to me.
8:38 pm
i would say, a lot of the things that stephen fry said, particularly his temperament, were probably in agreement. but this inquisition, on one hand i am, i can see for he is coming from. but i think it is a little bit virtual. who is really censoring you? i understand what it feels like to feel censored. i understand what it feels like to be on the wrong side of a twitter thread or get a lot of nasty comments. that is a bad feeling. it is a counterproductive live tactic but it is not censorship. it isespecially strange, coming from a country where the president of the united states is trying to levy additional postal rates on the owner of the washington post in revenge for its reporting and people who have kneeled to protest
8:39 pm
police brutality at the book games have seen their careers -- explode. mr. peterson has been hounded by threats and trolls and misogynist invective. [applause] >> jordan, we will have three minutes up on the screen. please respond to what you have heard. >> i guess i would like to send out a challenge in somewhat the same format as mr. fry did to people on the moderate left. i studied totalitarianism for a very long time. those on the left and on the right, in the various forms. i think we have done a ty decent job of determining when right-wing's beliefs become dangerous. i think they become dangerous when that people who stand on the right to evoke notions of
8:40 pm
racial superiority or ethnic superiority, something like that. it is fairly easy to draw a box around them. i think we have done a pretty good job of that. what i failed to see happening on the left, regards to the sensible left because such a thing existsfothe me thing to happen in regards to the radical left. here is an open question. if it is not diversity, inclusivity, and equity, that mark out the two excessive left, -- this is how it is defined, then how do we demarcate the two extreme the -- that is something that characterized much of intellectual thinking, especially in places like france . they did everything they
8:41 pm
could to bend over backwards to ignore everything that was happening in the catastrophic left world in the soviet union and china, we have done it terrible job of determining how to demarcate what is useful from the left from what is pathological. it is perfectly okay for somebody to criticize my attempt to identify something like a boundary. we can say diversity and equity, which is equality of outcome, which is an absolutely abhorrent notion. i am perfectly willing to hear some reasonable archer lives but what i hear continually from people on the left, to construe every argument on the access of group identification and to fail to help the rest of us differentiate their reasonable left which stands for the oppressed, necessarily, from the pathological left that is capable of unbelievable destruction. what i see happening in the university campus is in for --
8:42 pm
in particular, for the left is predominate, that is well documented, is an absolute failure to make that distinction. i say -- i e the same thing ago tonight. thank you. [applause] >> michael, give us your rebuttal. >> let me step out here in peterson land. i feel freer already. i don't know what mythological collective mr. peterson refers to. i am part of the left. they are cantankerous when they have a firing squad which is usually in a semi circle. part of the skepticism of rationality was predicated on the alignment project which says we will no longer be subordinate to superstition. we
8:43 pm
will think and we will ink well. thomas jefferson was one of the great offerors of rationality. he was also a slave owner. how do you reconcile that? that is the competition i am speaking about. that is not either or. that is not a collective identity. thomas jefferson believed in a elective identity. at night he had some luther vandross songs. he engaged in sexual relations and had many children with sally hemmings. his loins trumped his logic. when he talks about postmodernism, i don't know who he is talking about. i teach postmodernism. some talked about the insurrection of people who are marginalized. the talked about postcolonial
8:44 pm
theory. the reason these people grew up into existence and had a voice is because they were denied. our group identity was forced. we were not seen as individuals. when babe ruth -- when it has been great from the beginning, it is hard to understand how much it has been rigged. here we are, driving our sense of identity from the very culture that we ignore. at the indigenous names. saskatchewan, toronto, etc. there is an envy of the kind of freedom and liberty that people of color and other minorities bring because we bring the depth of knowledge in our body. there is a kind of jealousy of that. the greatest living canadian philosopher says jealousy is
8:45 pm
just love and hate at the same time. for me, i think it is necessary. we should not be nasty and combative. yes, i don't see nastiness and combativeness from people. i see a desire for people to have their individual identities respected. when i get categorized for no other reason than my color, i am living in a culture that refuses to see me as a great individual. [applause] >> it is interesting to hear this. there doesn't seem to be a problem but we all instinctively know that there is some kind of problem. there is not censorship as there is in russia. i have been there and faced off
8:46 pm
with a deeply homophobic man. it is just political correctness on the right. that's what i grew up with. that means you couldn't say certain things on television. it was incorrect to do so. as always, the same reason was that somebody would appear and say i am not shocked. of course i'm not shked or offended, i am offended on behalf of others. that is not good enough. so often, people are saying, i don't mind being called names, i don't mind people insulted me and people say, that is all right for you because you are strong. i don't feel particularly strong. i don't like been called names. but i don't believe that the advances in my culture that allows me to marry, i have been married to 70 for 3 years of
8:47 pm
someone from my gender, maybe political correctness -- you will say, i am talking about social justice. if you want to call it identity politics, both the itish were slaves of the romans, all people were slaves at some point. but a friend of mine who is a american indian, call me a sioux or an indian, i don't care. it is how i am treated that matters. [applause] also, i have been in alaska and he told me to call him in eskimo because it's easier because you keep mispronouncing
8:48 pm
my name. with a quick story, gay rights came about because we slowly and persistently knocked on the door of glenn power. we did not shout or scream. we eventually got to see the prime minister and when the queen signed the bill allowing equality of marriage, she said, i couldn't imagine this in 1953. it really is extraordinary, isn't it. just wonderful. >> it's a nice story and i hope it's true but it has nothing to do with political correctness. it has to do with human decency. [applause] >> there are some great rebuttals. let's move on to the moderated cross examination portion of the debate. let's get both
8:49 pm
sides engaging in some of the key issues. what we have heard here is some attention. let's draw it out more between the right of groups to el included and have the opportunity for individuality and a belief on the other side that there is something at threat here when these groups are overly privileged through affirmative action or other action oriented programs. why isn't there harm done to groups by privileging their group identity, whether it be a group identity of rick -- of race or gender and not treating them as individuals? >> first of all, there was no arbitrary and random distinction that people of color and other minority groups made. what i talked about the invention of race or gender or
8:50 pm
groupthink, that was not done by those groups that have been so named. first of all, you have to acknowledge the histor evolution of that reality and the concept of group identity did not begin with them. it began with a group that did not have to does announce its identity. when you are in control, u don't have to announce who you are. many white people don't see themselves as a member of a group. they see themselves as american. those group identifications have been imprinted on them by the very people who now, because their group pallet -- their group power has been challenged, i agree with mr. fry in a neverland of how sweet it would be to have a kingly and queenly metaphor of how it got resolved. that is not real world. in the real world, there is
8:51 pm
stuff at stake. what is at stake is in their bodies, their lives, people still being lynched and killed. i am suggesting to you that it is not that we are against being treated as individuals. that is what we are crying for. please don't see me as a member of a group. see me as an individual who embodies the reality, what michelle said was extremely important, the people who have individual rights did not have to fight for them in the same manner that people of color and others have had to. when mr. fry talkedut enslavement, he namethem. the greeks did not have the same kind of slavery that americans did. it was channel slavery. in greece you could buy back your freedom. you could teach the children of
8:52 pm
the people who enslaved you and because of your display of intellect, you could secure your freedom. that was not the case. you are punished and killed r literacy in america. i point is this, i am all for the celebration of broader identities. i think that often, those who a not celebrated for the degree that we are saying that in america, we have the confederate flag. we have a confederate flag where white guys, mostly, in the south but others as well, fly those confederate flags that are part of the south that refused to cede its legitimate conquest at the hands of the north. you talk about politics of identity, wearing that flag and not the american flag, they are not american. they are celebrating a secession. a move away from america. a man named colin kaepernick, saying i want to bring beauty to that flag has been denied
8:53 pm
opportunity. we really need to set the terms of the debate in order -- before we proceed. [applause] >> jordan, let's have you jump in on this idea as what you see as the pernicious danger of groupthink when it comes to ethnicity and gender. >> i think it is one of the primal sense of identity politics on the left and the right. i am no fan of the far right. i think anybody who plays the conceptual game of where group identity comes first and foremost, risks tribalism. it doesn't matter if it is on that left or the right. with regards to the idea of group right, there is a fundamental, this is something we have fallen into terribly in canada because we have had to
8:54 pm
contend with quibec separatism, it is problematic. individual rights need individual responsible is. responsible. an individual that is partly why individuals have rights. groups, how do you hold a group responsible? the whole idea is, it's not a good idea to hold a group responsible. it flies in the face of the idea of this sort of justice system we have laid out in the west that is predicated first on the assumption of individual into the -- innocence but also individual guilt. not group guilt. he saw and the 20 century when the idea of group guilt was enabled to get a foothold, in the justice system, it was catastrophic. how are you going to contend with the opposite of group
8:55 pm
rights, where is the group responsibility? how will you hold your groups responsible? well we don't have to talk about that because we are too concerned with rectifying the hypothetical historical injustices. that is not to say there weren't any shortage of absolutely catastrophic historical injustices. that is not the point. the point is, how you view the situation at the most fundamental level. group rights are and absolute catastrophe in my opinion. >> is this something you have written about? >> the identity of the group is absolutely vad part of the discourse and individuals could and should be seen and principate in groups as they enter into the civic space. >> i'm not sure that we necessarily have to analogize from the opposite of individual rights is individual ron
8:56 pm
smiley. i'm not sure that that analogy ho in e united states, one of the things i think is complicated about this discussion is that we are talking about three different cultural contexts, three different histories, three different legal regimes. in the united states, a great part of our politics has been groups struggling for rights for their individual members. women in the united states, seeking the right to reproductive control of their body. african-americans in the united states seeking redress from the police brutality or discrimination or simply the kind of tendency in america of white people to call the police every time they see and american -- african-american in a place they don't think they should be. i don't see how you can contend with any of those social
8:57 pm
problems if you see society as just an ocean of itemized individuals. i don't think there is anything pernicious about people banding together on the basis of their common identity, to seek redress for discrimination and exclusion. i think that is everything that's best about our democracy. that is the definition of progress. i keep stumbling with the idea that this is somehow tyrannical or like stalinism. a lot of these people who are opposed to political correctness talk about the concept of category creep which is a concept that was originated in australia and it is a failure to draw distinctions. you can't see the difference
8:58 pm
between a [ null ] grand wizard and a conservative like schapiro. you see everybody to your right as fascist, sexist, to tell her aaron -- totalitarian, etc. undergraduates often think in the broad and slightly overwrought categories. i know i did when i was a kid. maybe i still do. but i hear a lot of category creep in the argument against political correctness or against seeking group redress, the idea that one minute you -- >> you are a category creep. what do you say about that? >> we are talking about politics.
8:59 pm
that is fine. [applause]. i know exactly what you think about it. i see where it goes wrong and where it is annoying. how well is it working for you in america at the moment? not well at all. it really isn't. you can ask me in a moment. the reason that trump and breaks it in britain, it's not the -- it is the catastrophic failure of the left. it is our fault. my point is not that i turned to the right -- i am saying fight political correctness.
9:00 pm
it is so silly. the best move in playing chess is not the best chest move it is the move the opponent most want to to play. you are recruiting sergeant for the right by being annoying and upsetting and -- rather than persuading. political correctness does not work. >> you said the empirical. as far as i know, that is a worried that cannot be falsified in the census. the reality is, the people don't have equal access to the means to articulate the moment you are talking about. >> i am talking about the empirical results of this political attitude. >> i am suggesting to you that the people use the weapons at hand. it was a rabbi who said that everybody is not guilty but everybody is responsible. that is the distinction there. everybody is not guilty but
9:01 pm
look at the flipside, if you have benefited from 300 years of holding people in servitude, thinking that you did it all on your own, quite these people work harder? for 300 years, you have had not your job. so you hold people insubordination and refused to give them rights and all of the sudden you free them and say you are now individuals, not having the skills, i'm talking about american society. i am talking about the northern hemisphere. i am talk about every society where enslavement has existed but specifically that repudiation of individual lights among people of color in america who were denied the opportunity to be individuals. ideally, i agree with the insist on individuals. what we are saying to you is that we have not been permitted
9:02 pm
to be individuals. we have not been permitted to exercise our individual autonomy and authority and the refusal to do so, to recognize me as an individual means that when you roll up all josh roe up on me in a park and you shoot first, you are not treating that person as an individual. if we are living in a society where women are subject to abhorrent forms of patriarchal sexism, you're not acknowledging the centrality of the individuality of women. you're treating them according to a group dynamic. if we get beyond the ability of people on the right understand the degree to which they have operated on the basis of benefit from group identity without -- it has been said that racism is so american that if you challenge racism, you look like you are challenging american -- america. we are challenging inequality.
9:03 pm
we are challenging the refusal to see me as an individual. >> i have a couple of questions. >> let's assume that i have benefited from my white privilege. let's assume that. that's what you would say. let's get precise about this. to what degree is my present level of attainment or achievement a consequence of my white privilege? i don't mean sort of, do you mean 5%, 15%, 75%, what do you propose i do about it? how about a tax that is specialized for me so i can account for my privilege?
9:04 pm
let's get precise about one other thing let's get precise about one more thing. if we can't agree that the left can go too far, which it clearly can, how would my worthy opponents precisely define when the left that they stand for has gone too far? you didn't like equity. if you have a better suggestion , let's figure out how i can dispense with my white prile so you can tell me when the left has gone too far since they clearly can. this debate is about political correctness. it is about the left going too far. and i think it has gone too far in many ways. i want to know how and when so the reasonable left can make some sense again. [applause] >> you mind if i answer?
9:05 pm
you talked about this is how we got trump. this is the failure of the left. i am a journalist. i went to a ton of trump rallies during the campaign in different parts of the country. everywhere i went, i heard complaints about political correctness. far more than i heard complaints about other things. when you ask people what they meant by political correct this , they called it women they worked with girl and they got mad at them. you couldn't in public wonder aloud whether the president of the united states is really a muslim. they didn't like that they couldn't make gay jokes anymore. on one hand, you are right. when you try to, when people have these prejudices and you try to suppress them, it can create a kind of dangerous counter reaction. but i also think that what they
9:06 pm
were reacting to, to go back to the title of this debate, what they called political practice, the fact that they had to have this urbain back present who they felt talk down to them, i don't see a way around that because that is progress. to the question that when has it gone too far, it would be violence and censorship. i am against violence and censorship. but looking arou the world right now, the idea that there is -- i understand that there is a problem of left-wing annoyance. there are a lot of things that people, random people from the internet in particular, are able to swarm individuals and turn straight remarks in two
9:07 pm
social media campaigns. this is a bad phenomenon. i wish there was a way to put an end to it. i don't think there is a way to put an end to it simply by having reasonable liberals or bets de it. if you want to have a debate whether social media is terrible for democracy, i will be on the yes si. but right now, where i really disagree, the idea that the radical left poses a greater threat than the radical right when you see actual fascism all over the worl, that strikes me as something you can literally only believe if you have lived your life on college campuses. >> i want to come jon jordan's point about, how does he get an equal voice in this debate back
9:08 pm
if it is implied that his participation brings with it this package of white privilege that doesn't allow him to see clearly the issues that are before us. hat complicit in problem itself. you are beginning at a point that is already controversial. you're saying, n he get his equality back? what are you talking about? i want him to tweet something out about me and my book. this is what i am saying to you. quite the rage? you are doing well. but you are a mean white man. i have never seen so much wine and snow flaking. what i am
9:09 pm
saying to you is, when you asked the question about white privilege, the fact that you asked that in the way that you did, and without justification, the truth is that white privilege doesn't act does -- it is the degree to -- what is interesting to me, you are not those talking about not having a collective identity, what you call a nation? are you canadian? are you canadian by yourself? are you an individual are part of a group? when america formed its union, they did so in opposition to a group. the fact that groups have been created and then have resentment against others, all i am asking for is the opportunity.
9:10 pm
the quotation you talk about, the difference between equality of outcome and opportunity, that is a retired argument rived from the debate over affirmative action. are you looking for outcomes that can be determined equally or are you looking for opportunity? if you free a person after a whole long time of oppression and sate now you are free to survive, if you have no skills, quantifiable means of existence, what you have done isliberated them into oppression. all i am suggesting to you is, if you start a man in a race 100 years behind, it is awfully difficult to catch up. i don't think jordan peterson is suffering from anything except an exaggerated sense of entitlement and resentment at his own privileges are not visible to him. [applause] >> what i ivfrom that
9:11 pm
series up rebuttals is, saying that the radical left goes too far when they engage in violence is not sufficient by any stretch of the imagination. there are sets of ideas in radical leftist thinking that led to the catastrophes of the 20th century. that was of the dose at the level of ideas and not violent action. that's like being against poverty. it is generically speaking. that doesn't address the issue in the least. in regards to my privilege or lack theream not making the case that i haven't had advantages in my life or disadvantages in my life. you don't know anything about my background because to you, i am
9:12 pm
a mean cough white man. that is a hell of a thing to say in a debate. [applause] >> i want to move on to men and women. >> the mean man comment was not -- it was about the vitriol with which you speak. i will say again you are a mean, quiet man. -- white man. >> let's talk about another factor of the politically correct movement. let's talk about the me to movement. we have seen this resurgent --
9:13 pm
resurgence of -- we are in a cultural panic now. the pendulum has swung too far now. there is a dangerous reaction where due process had been thrown to the wind. >> the minute harvey weinstein and other men started losing their jobs over this, which is really quite new. suddenly they wereing their jobs. everybody had known about it for a long time and there had been an implicit impunity and suddenly that was taken away and it created this cultural earthquake. as soon as it did it created a lot of anxiety. what if this goes too far? that movement was only a couple months old when my newspaper
9:14 pm
started running columns from people saying, why can't i criticize me to which they were doing? on one hand, is process important? obviously. when you look at who has actually lost their jobs and who has lost their livelihood, look around. it is not people in general on a mccarthy's rumor, it is people who behaved inappropriately at work. it was owh, had $10 million of settlements and they lost their jobs. bill o'reilly is about to get a new tv show on a new network. the idea that men everywhere feel like they can't talk anymore and anybody is walking on eggshells, maybe that is true in your offices but it is not true where i live.
9:15 pm
the movement has been particularly active in media. there was this thing, where a woman started this document where women could list men in media thateverybody knew about but nobody had ever done anything about. it very quickly went public. there was something disturbing in it. you don't like these anonymous accusations floating around. most feminists i know were freaked out by it and thought it was unfair to have people's reputations held up like this. but if you look at what happened to the men on the list, nothing. they still have their jobs. i know men on that list. the people who -- as far as i can think, the people who have
9:16 pm
lost their jobs and lost their careers had very serious misbehavior for long periods of time that had corroborating evidence. i don't know if the anxiety is rooted in anything real. >> are we in a panic? >> i recognize that bcla is a monstrous behavior. i can't imagine how vile it must be for a powerful man. i used to play a game at the cannes film festivalwhere men
9:17 pm
of power were walking from one hotel at the end all the way up to -- and you get 10 points every time you heard the word harvey. usually in a 10 minute walk you have 300 points. i've got a meeting with harvey. he was immensely powerful. obviously, somebody in that position, abusing and threatening and hindering likelihood of women is grotesque in the extreme. but, there is genuine feeling amongst many people i know that we can't speak our minds. we can't actually speak to the true nuance and depth of sexual romantic feelings between men and women. or between men and men as well. between man and man they would say that is different because
9:18 pm
women have had a different experience in history. but i would say that there is real fear. in my business, show siness, is where it all started. people are rather afraid to speak about publicity that has come out or a statement that has been made. people leave the room before you can speak honestly with your friends. i have never experienced that in my entire 60 ars onhis planet. this feeling that, and i am not characterizing feminists as east german, but you'd better be careful because they are listening. i am not saying that to make a point other than it is true and it is worrying. the sexual misadventures exposed are also worrying.
9:19 pm
>> let's bring out jordan on this. >> i think i'm going to point out two things again. the first is that my question about when the left goes too far still has not been answered. the second thing i will point out is, it is conceivable that i am a mean man. maybe i am meaner at this dose than some people and not as mean as others. but i would say the fact that race got dragged into that particular comment is a better example of what i think is wrong with the politically correct left than anything else that could've possibly happened. [applaus >> imagine the hurt, the anxiety , the insult that you might
9:20 pm
genuinely feel according to what i felt was an appropriate ment of its expression. but imagine those hurt feelings >> i'm not hurt. >> you feel great about it. >> i'm not hurt, i am appalled. >> whatever nontraditional feelings of empathy you indoor at this point, the point is, imagine then the horrors that so many others have put up with for so long when they are refused to acknowledge their amenity. i take your point seriously. let me finish.
9:21 pm
what i am saying to you, is that when you said you were upset that i added the element of race there when i said mean white man, what is interesting is that you may have felt that you were being ascribed a group identity to which you do not subscribe. you may have felt that you were being unfairly judged according to your particular race, you may have felt that your individual identity was besmirched by mike careless characterization of you. all of that qualifies for a legitimate response to me. but also, the point we have been trying to make about the refusal to see our individual existence as women and people of color, my point simply has been that the reason i talked about race in that particular characterization is that there is a particular way in which i have come to a city, that is not my natural habitat other
9:22 pm
than intellectual engagement and the love and fury of rhetorical engagement, that i often go into hostile spaces where people will not vote in favor for my particular viewpoint because i am interested as an individual of breaking down barriers so that you can understand just how complicated it is. what i am saying to you is that i would invite you, in terms of the surrender of giving you a specific response, come with me to a black baptist church. come with me to a historically black college. come with me to an indigenous and -- community where we are able to engage in some of that lovely conversation but also to listen and hear and went i added race to that i was talking about the historical events inability to acknowledge others pain equally to the one that they are presently enduring. as human beings -- >> i happen to be in honorary
9:23 pm
member of an indigenous family so don't tell me what i need to go see in regards to oppression . you don't kn anything about me. you gave me a generic response. a generic, race-based response. >> i will hook you up. >> we will go to closing statements after one last round. why, looking back on this debate, we are not going to see this political correct movement in the same way that we understand the positive contributions of the civil rights movement. that advanced a series of ideas about human dignity. we are now having another social debate about different
9:24 pm
groups and communities that we are trying to convey a sense of dignity to them. why won't this be looked back upon as something positive a generation fro >> i think we will look back on this debate and wonder why lyrical correctness was not discussed. [applause] it will be interesting to talk about gender and race, it is something i have thought about a lot and i can learn a great deal about but that is not why i came to this debate. i was interested in what i have always been interestedn which is a suppression of thought and speech. if you limit people's language it may somehow teach them a different way of thinking, something that would have delighted the people -- it is
9:25 pm
just implausible. it doesn't work. that is what ed by -- mean by empirical. as we see from the political landscape now, i'm worried we may inthe future. i am so disappointed that the subject has just resolved around academia which is projectable. -- predictable. but my mother's point is, i have not heard from these people about what political correctness is. they saprogress is progress. i agree. good on progress. but how is it that what we call political correctness, you call
9:26 pm
progress. that is what we are supposed to be arguing. i want to know what you mean by political correctness. >> the reason a few months ago, i was contacted to talk about identity politics and then you presented me with this resolution. i said there are a lot of things that people call political correctness that i will not defend. then i realized who i was debating and saw that there was a lot of things that you call political correctness that i call progress and to some extent, use stephen fry as well. when you talk about it being an -- that we should be tearing down statues of notorious races and we should instead exit them. those sorts of things, if you call them political correctness, i call them progress. this feeling of being silenced, which i understand although it seems very vague.
9:27 pm
you're not quite putting your finger on who is silencing you except for a vague fear that if you say something untoward you will be the subject of, i'm not even sure. >> i'm scared. that's the point. it is a culture of fear. >> what i'm saying is, it is a feeling that is this in tangible result -- >> then the person apologizes and says i have so much to learn i am really sorry. let's call a lawyer. the real mistake of our left is that we underestimate the right. the right is not as stupid as we would like them to be. if only they were.
9:28 pm
if they were not so aware of our shortcomings. i just fear that political correctness is a weapon that they value. the more that we tell the world how people should be treated, how language should be treated, what is acceptable and what attitudes are acceptable, all of this is meat and drink to bad actors and malefactors. i'm not counting myself as one of those. [applause] >> like i said, there are a lot of ways in which i agree with you. i would like to hear you say, what are the words that have fallen into the disrepute that
9:29 pm
you think we should be resurrecting. to meet there is this area of highly contested social change right now where a lot of people -- >> it is very often framed with slogans, those kinds of things. imagine your youna student wog in a university and 70 is bombarding you with nonsense from mr. red textbooks. i was at cambridge -- there is value in that. it is an interesting game. i could just really say that -- the fact that you did not get a degree is nothing. if you never got the iversity
9:30 pm
manor, i take that to mean the ability to play gracefully with ideas. i think that is wonderful from my culture. [applause] >> the self-deprecating englishmen. you have no idea. i got a pretty good idea today. i don't recall in all of us who have studied history, i don't recall these debates about political correctness happening when people who were in power were in absolute power. political correctness comes an issue, and what i mean by that is that people who used to have
9:31 pm
power, who still have power but think they don't, who get challenged on just a little bit of what they have and don't want to share toys in the bofeall of a sudden it becomes a kind of exaggerated grievance. the things you named, the bullet points and the gender and the patriarchy and the capitalist resurgence and the instruction of subjugated knowledge, all of that stuff. the french phase is still going on with the french fries in america. what is interesting is that i did not hear many complaints about political correct this at the height of the dominance of one group or another. but when martin luther king jr. who argued for group identity as a black person to provide an opportunity for individual black people to come to the fore , they began to make that claim. they didn't call it local
9:32 pm
correctness. they said you are siding against those who defend free speech. what i mean by political correctness is that kind of politics that are articulated by various holders of power. at certain levels, one of the beautiful th is that power rakes out everywhere. i would think that somebody who is worried about political correctness would know about this. power ksutamong people who are disempowered. you can hurt somebody in your own community. what is more politically incorrect than a black baptist preacher identifying with a palestinian ju and still loving atheists? how about going on bill marr and defending him still ring able
9:33 pm
to have his show even though he used that letter and word. that goes over like a brick cloud. when i come into arenas like this, i understand that my back is up against the wall. >> i want to sit on your left as well. don't get excited. >> i see how you have been looking me. what's interesting is when we look at how we as a society, when i look at what is seen as political correctness, it cut to me, has been a mass of jumbled that has been card
9:34 pm
together out of the politics of resentment that powers once held no longer are held. items once exercise absolutely must now be shared. i am in agreement with both of my gentleman to my right who believe that local correctness has been a scourge but not necessarily the way you think so. i think it is been a scorcher has no have been that the players of power and the beneficiaries of privilege have failed to recognize their particular weight. at the end of the day, i think that those of us who are free citizens of this country and of america should figure out ways to respect the humanity of the other, to respect the individual existence of the other, and also to respect the fact that there have been barriers placed upon routes that have prevented them from flourishing. [applause] >> before we go to closing statements, the final words on this topic to michelle and jordan. >> part of the for station here
9:35 pm
is that both of you have radically different ideas of what we are talking about when we talk about political correctness. it seems to me that you're talking about political correctness and you mean this kind of feeling of anxiety that a lot of people feel because we all live in this -- at you worry about any phrase you utter may be used to defame you. i feel like a lot of people feel that anxiety. i disagree that that is something that is being solely perpetrated against figures by left-wing cord because it is coming from all directions. this phenomenon which sucks, is all over the place. i get it when i write something critical of the way that the ivf behaves in gaza. it is coming at everyone and i think that there is a way in
9:36 pm
which, when it comes at a certain figure and there is a certain set of complaints and you feel unjustly criticized and feel silence, which is different than being silenced, you call it political correctness. i would like the culture also to be more freewheeling. i think -- you will not get the left to put an end to this because it is much more of a mob of social media in norman on. -- phenomenon. the only way to break through it is to say what you mean to say. that is the only way to pop this bubble or and this anxiety or at least diffuse it a little bit. what i hear mr. edison talking
9:37 pm
about asp local correctness is something much more broad and much more sentimental to social change. you are saying you want one of us to talk about when the le goes too far and i don't want to be somebody putting words in your mouth but if i hear you correctly, what you're saying is that you want me to renounce marxist categories >> i want you to define when the dust goes too far. you can do it anyway you want. >> i think the blood goes too far when it is violent or trying to shut people down or when it acts violently. i'm not sure what you expect beyond that. >> i would like you to contend with a set of left-wing ideas that produced all of the left- wing pathologies of the 20th
9:38 pm
century and to define how you think standard left-wing thinking ich developed goes too far because it obviously does. has right gun too far? >> of course it has. how about auschwitz? >> more recently, what has gone wrong with the right? >> i don't like identity politics players. i don't care whether they are on the left or the white. i have him no fan of the right despite the fact that the left would like to paint me that way because it is more convenient for them. it is threatening to go too far in europe. it has gone too far in charlottesville. it went too far in norway. how long of a list do you want and why am i required to do
9:39 pm
that? >> you asked me that's why i asked you. >> your assumption is that somehow i must be on the si of thrit. the right has not occupied the humanities in the social sciences. it is as simple that for me. if they had i had -- i would be objecting to them. the right has not occupied the social sciences and the humanities. the left clearly has. the statistical evidence for that is overwhelming. >> what about the testing for genetic inheritance? >> we are here to talk about political correctness. >> i see, i gave you an answer and you can't answer it. >> we are going to go in the reverse order of the opening or closing arguments. >> i will hide behind here. i have been fascinated by this
9:40 pm
conversation. there has been an enormous class -- clash of cultures. it is a mode of disurse. it is a style that i find refreshing in design. i'm not sure we actually focused on the point in question. my objection has always been towards orthodoxies. i can't help myself. i think there has been an underestimation of the fact that language does affect people. it does make the young in particular that are starting out on their work careers, it makes them very anxious. it makes him very angry and upset and alienated to feel that they don't know anymore how to operate in the wod or how to engage in relationships or think honestly so they
9:41 pm
retreat more to their many groups. i think if that is dangerous and unhappy for society. i think it is reflected in the paucity of cinema and literature and the arts generally. pervading. fear that is talk to academia and they say that their lectures are open and free and i'm sure that's true. but i don't think we should underestimate how much this feeling is prevalent in the culture of this strange paradox that the liberals are liberal in their liberality. they are exclusive in their demand for exclusivity. they arehogenous in their demand for heterogeneity. they are somehow un-diverse in their cause for diversity. you can be diverse but not in your savior or your opinions.
9:42 pm
i would say that i am sorry it got a bit heated in places because i was hoping it wouldn't. i was hoping it would be a shining example of how people of alfferent kinds of political outlooks can speak with humor and wit and a lightness of touch. angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. we are all privileged, all four of us. to be here. it would behoove us to not be so pompous and serious. and not to be too certain. it is the time for engaging emotionally and -- in positive doubt. thank you.
9:43 pm
>> michael, we will put three minutes on the clock for you. >> thank you. thank you for e compliment. i am used to not exclusively white men who see black intelligence articulate it at a certain level feeling a kind of condescension. if i came up here with an accent, i have seen that. i get hate letters every day from brothers and sisters every day. you are trying to corrupt our children. yes, i am trying to crop them so they will be uncorrupted from the credibility they have inherited from a society who refuses to see all people as human beings. i
9:44 pm
am trying to speak my mind and it's not about a politically correct society who is open- minded and has some consternation about my ability to speak. i am getting live. if you get empirical death strap -- death threats threatening to kill me simply because i insist on speaking my mind. we should argue against divisiveness against speech. everybody has the right to articulate themselves and the enormous privilege we have to come to a space like this means that we have that privilege. we should be responsible for it. no matter where we go from here, me and brother peterson will go to black baptist church. he said it on national tv. we will go to a black baptist church and have an enlightening conversation about the need for us to engage in reciprocal and mutual edification but criticism . in a way that speaks to the
9:45 pm
needs and interestthose who don't usually get on tv, whose voices are not usually amplified. whose ideas are not usually taken seriously. when they get to the upper echelons of the ability of a society to express themselves, they are equally subject to vicious recrimination and hurtful resistance. there is a story about the pig and the chicken gog to the street and saying let's have breakfast the chicken just has to give up an egg. the pig has to give up everything in order to make breakfast. we have often give the pigs giving up everything. let's start sharing that with everybody else. >> i am not here to claim that there is no such thing as
9:46 pm
oppression, unfairness, brutality, discrimination, unfair use of power, all of those things. anyone with any sense knows that hierarchal structures tilt towards tyranny. we have to be constantly mindful to make sure that all they are isn't power and tyranny. it's interesting to hear and in fortunate but interesting, because it -- the only basis that hierarchy was based on is power. that is politically incorrect doctrine. when hierarchy becomes corrupt, the only way to ascend it is to exercise power. that is essentially the definition of attorney. that does not mean that the imperfect hierarchies that we have constructed in our relatively free countries, at least tilt somewhat between
9:47 pm
mpceability as evidenced between -- in the staggering achievement in civilization that we have managed to produce. that does not mean that the -- that they are all about power and as a consequence everybody that occupies any position is a tyrant or a tyrant in the making. that is certainly the fundamental claim of somebody like this. what would you call this, and ideological catastrophe that is political correctness. i am not here to argue against progress. i am not here to argue against quality of opportunity. even -- are best served by allowing yourself the -- it is abhorrent and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. it isn't that good things
9:48 pm
haven't happened in the past and should continue to happen. that is not the point. the point is that what we can agree on is that jeffrey and the inequity but there is no way i will agree that political correctness is the way to address any of that. there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, some of which was displayed quite clearly tonight. [applause] >> one of the irso issues that we are coming up against is the role of feelings. stephen has asked us to recognize and empathize with his feeling of being silenced, being threatened, and i do. i get it. i feel it sometimes in my columns. i hated when i write something
9:49 pm
that gets an irate twitter mob after me. but let's say i stood up here and said, recognize how threatened so many women feel when for example, one of the be-selling and pmi intellals in the world right now says in an interview that may be the me to amend shows that this whole experiment of men and women working together is not working. maybe if women don't want the workplace to be sexualized, they shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup. >> i didn't say that. >> google it. if i say i three -- i feel threatened, then we are being politically correct and hysterical. so much of the debate about political correctness or so much of the condemnation of
9:50 pm
local correctness is about people saying, respect my feelings. accommodate my feelings. to some extent we can't accommate everybody's feelings. there is one group that does think it'slings should be accommodated. that is what we keep coming up against is that, there is a group of people, and to some extent i am part of it, that feels uniquely that our feelings of being silenced, marginalized , censored, that those feelings need to take primacy. that we can feel smeared when these other groups ask for us to take seriously their feelings of being threatened or their feelings of being marginalized. we call those demands political correctness. i would finally say that there is a fair amount of research that people become more close minded, more tribal,
9:51 pm
when they feel threatened. when they feel that their group identity is at stake. as much as you want to blame the left for the rise of the right, when -- the rise of people who are questioning the fundamental ideals of pluralistic liberal democracy, the more those views are mainstreamed, the more people are going to shut down in response because people are really scared. [applause] >> on behalf of all debated, i think we want to thank the audience. you were engaged and mostly several. on behalf of the debaters,
9:52 pm
thank you audience. this was a challenging topic and you did a great job. [applause] >> a big thank you to our debaters. i want to thank all of these who give regular speeches. it's a different thing to come on stage in front of a large audience and a television audience and have your ideas contested in real time. to all four of you, thank you for accepting our invitation to come here. [applause] a few final notes. thank you to the foundation and the family for helping us meet here. all of you have a ballot in the hall where you can vote on your way out. we will have those results for you after 9:15. let's quickly review where your
9:53 pm
opinions stood at the beginning of tonight's contest. on the motion be it resolved, what i call political corres 36% agreed and 36 percent disagreed. large percentages were willing to change their mind. as 87%. let's see how this debate affected your viewpoint. you have your ballots. for those of you who are watching online, we will have all of these results on our social media feeds around 9:15. enjoy the long weekend. y victoria day. [applause]
9:54 pm
coming up tuesday morning, nelson coming young -- cunningham -- be sure to watch them on tuesday morning. join the discussion.
9:55 pm
that the divorce testifies against the senate, preparations senate committee about president trump's 2019 budget request for her department. you can see it live starting at 10:15 a.m. eastern on c-span . later on tuesday, a hearing on sexual abuse and athletics. former usa gymnastics president joins the former michigan state president to testify on sexual abuse of athletes during the 10 years. we will be live with the senate commerce committee starting at 3 pm eastern on c-span . christopher wylie and whistleblower took questions from members of the senate judiciary committee on the alleged misuse of data by the now-defunct british data firm.
9:56 pm
he was joined by a political science professor from tufts university and the director of telecommunications studies at the university of florida. this is two hours and 15 minutes.

102 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on