tv Munk Debate on Political Correctness CSPAN May 26, 2018 9:35pm-11:33pm EDT
unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d c and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. next, a debate on the merits of political correctness and a free and open society. arguing in favor of the idea, georgetown university sociology professor michael eric dyson and new york times columnist mike -- michelle goldberg. his was part of the biennial .unk debates it contains language that some viewers might find offensive. brilliant minds, even mediocre minds, operate that are under stimulus. >> a canadian is a canadian is a
canadian. >> barack obama has systematically prebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through the security council and other >> you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies. >> whatever you want to call the system, a mafia state, a feudal empire, it is a disaster for ordinary russians. >> that is the hypocritical argument that if i were chinese i would find quite annoying. as chineserted foreign-policy and be described as barbarian management. nice peopleforces to do unkind things. >> are men obsolete? my conclusion is no, i won't let you beat useless. [laughter] >> show me your pretext. >> you can keep screaming that and it doesn't change the point. >> we do not want sympathy, we do not want pity.
>> it's an appalling slander, to me to the muslim religion. >> i never said the word muslim. >> it is that restraint, sober minded sensible, intelligible foreign policy that obama represents. i guess what i'm telling you, he is sort of a closet canadian. vote for him for god's sake. ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome. my name is rudyard griffiths and it is my privilege to have the opportunity to moderate tonight's debate and to act as your organizer. welcoming thet i american audience. he span in the united states and a warm hello to our online
audience watching the debate over 6000 streams active at this moment on i spoke life, bloomberg.com, and mu nkdebates.com hello to you, the over 3000 people who build roy thomson hall for yet another munk debate. thank you for your support for more and better debate on the big issues of the day. this bait marks the start of our 10th season. we begin this season missing someone who was vital to this debate series in every aspect. it was his passion for ideas and his love for debate that inspired our creation and it was his energy and generosity and drive that was so important and allowing us to win international acclaim as one of the world's great debating series. his philanthropy and legacy, are
incredible. last fall we remember the $100,000 donation. bravo. [applause] we are all big fans and supporters of a terrific school for global affairs represented .ere tonight by many students congratulations to you. [applause] endowmentn generous to this series that will allow more toganize a many come. knowing our 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. so let's instead celebrate a great canadian come a great life, and a great legacy of the
theing peter as i did, first thing on his mind at this point in the debate would be, stop talking. get the debaters out here. so we are going to do that right now. because we have a terrific debate lined up for you this evening. let's introduce first, our pro team, arguing for tonight's motion. politicalall correctness, i call progress. please welcome to the stage, an award-winning writer, scholar, broadcaster on npr, and the sports networks across america, michael eric dyson. come on out. [applause] rudyard: michael's debating partner is also an award-winning
author, she is a columnist at the new york times, and someone who is going to bring a very distinct and powerful perspective tonight. michelle goldberg. come on out. [applause] rudyard: so, one great team of debaters deserves another. arguing against our resolution, be it resolved what you call political correctness i call progress, is the any award-winning actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet, and tonight debater, stephen fry. [applause] rudyard: stevens teammate is a
professor of psychology at the university of toronto come a youtube sensation come and the author of the big new international bestseller " 12 rules for life." toronto's jordan peterson. [applause] rudyard: ok, we will get our debate underweight momentarily. first, a quick checklist to go through. we have a #tonight, @munkdebate. those of you online please wait in. or those of you watching online right now, we have a running nkdebates/voteu my favorite heart, aspect of the show that was peter
's brilliance, we have a countdown clock. clock when they go down to zero, we want you to join me in a warm round of applause. we will have a debate that ends when it is supposed to end. let's see we had our resolution tonight. on the way in we had an audience of roughly 3000 people vote on, be it resolved, what you call political correctness i call progress. 36% agree, 64% disagree. so, a room in place. we asked you, how many of you were open to changing your vote over the course of the debate? , or could you potentially be convinced by one or the 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 very much in play . as per the agreed-upon order of speakers, i will call on michelle goldberg first. would you like a sip of water? i will call on her first for her six minutes of opening remarks. michelle: thank you for having d knows, i as rudyard initially balked a bit at the resolution. there are a lot of things that fall under the rubric of political correctness that i don't call progress. i don't like trigger warnings, like a lot of middle-aged liberals, there are many aspects of student social justice culture that i find offputting. i'm not sure that particular generation gap is anything new. on the record about the toxicity of social media culture and i think it is good to debate
people whose ideas i don't like, which is why i'm here. there are social justice worriers and the audience, i feel like i should apologize to you. you will feel like i am not adequately defending your ideas. but, the reason i am one decide of the stage is because political correctness isn't just a term for left-wing excesses on college campuses or people being terrible on twitter. especially as deployed by mr. peterson, i think it can be a way to delegitimize any attempt for women and racial and sexual minorities to overcome discrimination or even to argue that such discrimination is real. in the new york times today, mr. peterson says " the people who hold that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy, they don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence." that sounds insane to me because i'm an american and our president is
donald trump. [laughter] michelle: but it's an assumption that is a worldview where any challenges to the hierarchy are written off. i'm sure we should be clear this is in a debate about free speech. mr. peterson talked about the evil trinity is. if you hear people not those three words, equity, diversity, and inclusivity and you should step away because it is not acceptable. he argues that the move in -- that the movie frozen is propaganda. at one point he floated the idea students avoiding postmodern tosometimes hear an urge certain analytical categories that newer's the worst caricatures of the social justice left that want to get that smacks of
colonialism or patriarchy or white supremacy. i don't think we debating the value of the enlightenment. someone like mr. fry frames it. the effort to expand rights and privileges once granted to just land owning white, heterosexual men is the enlightenment territories for a much in keeping with it. to quote a dead white man, john stuart mill, said despotism of custom is everywhere the standing interest to human advancement. i think that some of our opponents, by contrast, bring challenges as politically correct attacks on a transcendent order. to quote mr. peterson again, each gender has its own unfairness to deal with. but to take of it as a consequence of the social structure, it is like come on, really, what about nature
itself? but there is an exception to this because he does believe in social interventions to remedy some types of fair unfairness which is why he calls for forced monogamy. when it comes to political correctness debate, we have been in fact the here before. bloom, compared the tyranny of feminism in academia to -- he was writing at a time when women accounted for 10% of college tenured faculty. it is worth looking back at what was considered annoyingly outrageously politically correct in the 1980's, the last time we have this debate. having to -- not being able to call indigenous people " indians" or use terms like african-americans. adding women or people of color to the western curriculum, not
making gay jokes are using "retart" as the next set. new words stick in your throat the way we are used to talking and thinking natural and 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 1970's, ms stuck around and women with a y didn't. i hope that someday we will look thatand marvel gender-neutral protons ever seen like an existential threat. i also don't think it is clear that that might not happen because, there are plenty of places that have indeed dialed back cosmopolitanism and reinstated patriarchy in the name of staving off chaos. they seemed 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 and local correctness here to someone who lives there, it feels nothing like progress. thank you. [applause] rudyard: great start to the debate here it michelle, thank you. i will now ask jordan peterson to speak for the con team. jordan: hello. first decide what we are talking about. we're not talking about my views of medical correctness, despite what you might have inferred from the last speakers comments. this is how it looks to me. somethingally need
approximating a low resolution grant narrative. we need a narrative to unitas because otherwise we don't have these. what is playing out in the universities and in broader society right now is a debate between two fundamental, low resolution narratives. neither of which can be completely accurate. obviously, human beings have an individual and collective element. the question is what story should be paramount. have reasonably functional, reasonably free, remarkably productive, stable hierarchies that are open to consideration of the dispossessed that hierarchies generally create. our societies are rear and auctioning more effective way than any society anywhere else in the world. in any society ever has. as far as i'm concerned, and i
think there is good reason to assume this, it is because the fundamental low resolution narratives that we have oriented ourselves in the west is one of sovereignty of the individual. it is predicated on the idea that all things considered, the best way to interact with someone else's individual to individual. they're both part of the process. the psychological process by which things we don't understand can yet he explored. the reason we are valuable as individuals, with regards to rights and responsibilities, is because that is our essential purpose. that is our function. what's happening, as far as i'm concerned in universities in particular and spreading rapidly into the harvard world, much to what should be its chagrin is a collectivist narrative. course, there's some utility
in a collectivist narrative. but the collectivist narrative that i regard as politically correct is a strange pastiche of remarks. essentially are a member of the group. it might beer at the it might be your race or any of the endless numbers of other groups that you belong to because you belong to many of them. you should be categorized along with those who are like you and in that group. that is prepositioned number one. the proper way to view the world is as a battleground between two groups of power. you do the group's first and then you assume that you viewed the individual from the group context. you few the battle from the group context and you view history of health as a consequence of nothing but the power of maneuvers of different
groups. idea -- for example free speech. if you're collectivist at heart, there is no such thing as free speech. it is not that it is debated i , ite on that radical left is that in that formulation there is no such thing as a speech. for an individualist it is how you make sense of the world. but for the radical left type used become, when all you are doing is playing a power game on behalf of your group or there is nothing else you can do because that is all there is. ,ot only is that all there is it is also the fundamental narrative of history. for example, it is widely assumed in our universities now that the best way to conceptualize is as an oppressive male dominated
patriarchy and the best way to construe relationships between men and women across the century is one of oppression by -- oppression of women by men. no hierarchy is without its tyranny. that is an axiomatic truth. towardhies do tend tyranny and they tend toward the use -- is her patient by people with power. it only happens when people are corrupt. we have mechanisms to stop hierarchies from becoming tolerably corrupt. they work quite well. i would also point this out. don't be thinking that this is a debate about whether empathy is useful or not or that the people on the con side are not empathetic. i know perfect lay well, as i'm sure mr. fry does that hierarchies tend to produce situations where people stack up at the bottom and they need a political voice, which is the
proper voice of the left and the necessary force of the left. that is not the same as for right level of analysis is that all of us are fundamentally to be identity right by the groups that we belong to and to construe the entire world as a battleground between different forms of tyranny in consequence of that group affiliation. comeree we play out that at that won't be progress. we certainly haven't seen that progress in the university. we have seen situations what happened in wilfred laureate university. will return to if the tribalism that characterized the left. [applause] rudyard: thank you, jordan. michael eric dyson, your six minutes starts now. thank you very kindly.
wonderful opportunity to be here in canada. thank you so much. i will stand here at the podium. i'm a preacher. [laughter] and i will ask for an offering at the end of my presentation. [laughter] the swimsuit is competition of the intellectual beauty pageant, so let me show you the curves of my thoughts. [laughter] a my god, was that a politically incorrect statement i just made? the point get to where the hijacking of the discourse on political correctness has become a distinction between us and them? the abortive fantasy just presented is remarkable for its clarity and the muddiness of the context from which it has emerged. what is interesting to me, is that when we look at the radical left, i'm saying where are they at, i want to join them? they ain't running nothing. i'm from a country where man stands up every day to tweet the moral of his viciousness into a
country he has turned into his psychic commode. [applause] michael: y'all got justin, we got donald. correctness has transmogrified into a caricature of the left. the left came up with the term political correctness. we were tired of our excuses and excesses and exaggerations. we were willing to be self-critical in a way i fear my compatriots are not here it take take yourselves not seriously at all, but what you do, with deadly seriousness, not when it is transmogrified in an attempt to characterize the radical left. the radical left is a metaphor, assemble, and articulation. i'm on campuses and i don't see much of them. what i hear in identity politics
amazes me. of identityve nist politics, the last time i checked, white folks were not a race. the invention of race was driven by the demand of a dominant culture to subordinate others, iarchy. patriarchy was the demand of men to have their exclusive vision presented. feminism says men don't automatically get the last word. [applause] in my family, they never did. so identity politics has been generated as a word by the right, but the right does not understand the degree to which identity as been foisted on black people and people of color. do you think i want to be part of a group that is constantly -- by people at starbucks?
i am minding my own lack of business. street, peoplee don't say, there goes a niekro, a highly intelligent, articulate, verbose, capable at fury at the truck -- at the drop of a hat. no, they treat me as part of a group. no oneblem our friends took knowledge is that the dominance of that group has been so vicious it has denied us the opportunity to exist as individuals. individualism is a characteristic moment in modern achieve. the development of the individual is predicated on the notion of intelligence. descartes comes along and introduces knowledge and to the phrase and says knowledge is based on a reference to the
golden intelligence, the reflective glass that one possesses, and yet it got rooted in the very ground of our existence. ae knowledge i bring as person of color makes a ifference in my body, because know how people think of me and how people respond to me, and that ain't no theory. the only trigger up morning i want is from a cop, are you about to shoot me? america where young people die repeatedly, unarmed, without provocation. so for me, identity politics is something that is serious. and what is interesting about safe spaces, i hear about the university, i teach there. you don't need a safe space or in some of it is overblown. i believe the classroom is a seriouslace for learning. i am believe in the interrogation of knowledge based on our mutual understanding of
the proposition of enlightenment. at the same time, some people are not as equal as others and we have to understand the conditions from which they theird, and attacked by own culture. and i haven't seen anybody be a bigger snow flake that snowflake than the white men who complain. mommy, mommy, they won't let us have the things we used to have when we hated gays and lesbians and transsexuals. yes, you have to share. this is in your world. this is everybody's world. the remember the story by david foster wallace? down theare going river and an older fish comes up the river and says, hey fellows, how is the water? and they swing on and say, what the hell is water? on and say, what the hell is water? because they didn't know what it was.
[applause] thank you, michael. phen, your up. -- you are up. if i miss that trained to london i won't ever hear the end of it from the bridegroom's mother. i am fully aware that many people who choose, and correctly in my view, who see this issue in terms of left and right, will believe that i am betraying myself in such causes and values that i have espoused over the years. i have been given huge grief already simply because i'm standing next to professor peterson, the very reason i'm standing here in the first place.
someoneding next to with whom i have, you know, differences, shall we say in terms of politics and all kinds of other things, precisely because i think all of this has got to stop, this rage, resentment, hostility, intolerance. this with us or against us certainty. the grand canyon has opened up in our world, the crack grows wider every day, neither on each side can hear a word that the other shrieks, and 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 in the world try to get on with their lies, alternatively baffled come aboard, betrayed by the horrible noises and explosions that echo around. i think it is time for this toxic, binary, zero-some madness to stop before we destroy
ourselves. [applause] nailed my colors to the mast, but it would like to give you a sense of where i come from. all of my life i have been what you might call a liberal of the most hang drinking, milquetoast, milk-soft variety, not a burning man, barricade socialist, not even a progressive worth the name. i have been on marches but i never dared wave like cards or banners. placards placards or banners. i don't think highly of social injustice, i have to say, but i characterize myself as a mostly
social justice warrior. my intellectual heroes growing up work liberal thinkers, writers like em forster. i do believe in the sanctity of human relations, the primacy of the heart and friendship and love and common interest. interior more personal beliefs than they are political, exterior convictions, a more then impulse. i am soft and i can easily be swept away by harder hearts and harder intellects. i'm surprised sometimes to be ancribed by -- described as activist, but over time i have associated myself with causes. i remember when i was born and looking up and saying, that is the last time i am going up one of those. [laughter] i have a natural irror of racism, naturally
want racism, misogyny, homophobia, trans-phobia, xenophobia, bullying, bigotry, and tolerance of any kind to end. that is a given amongst all of us. the question is, how should such a golden age be achieved? my concern about political correctness is that it combines what i've spent a lifetime preaching with great denunciation,, association without evidence, inquisition, censoring, that is not why i am incurring the wrath of my fellow liberals by standing on this side of my house. my real objection is that i don't think political correctness works. i want to get to the golden hill, but i don't think that is the week 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 how effective it might be. i wouldn't class myself as a classical libertarian, but i do relish transgression, and i deeply and instinctively distrust conformity and orthodoxy. -- mad men, heretics, dreamers, rebels and skeptics. [applause] i may be wrong. i hope to learn this evening, i do think i may be wrong. that i'm prepared to entertain the possibility that political correctness will bring us more tolerance and a better world. but i am not sure.
and i would like this quotation from bertrand russell to hover over the evening. "one of the painful things of our time is that those feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and in decision. let doubt prevail. prevail." [applause] great set of opening statements. we are now going into a round of her bottles, to allow each presenter three minutes to reflect on what they have heard and make additional points. michelle, you are up first. we put three minutes on the clock for you. michelle: i think 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. and i think that a lot of the claims being made on what we politically-correct types call marginalized groups, are claims that 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 right to exercise their individual talents and realize their individual ambitions. when we say we want more women in power, or more people of color as the voices in the canon or the curriculum or movies, all of these are not because i am interested in some very 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 what the civil rights movement was. that is what the gay rights movement was. that is in some ways what the trends rights movement was. far from a collectivist movement, this is classical itsralism pushed to extreme. these are people saying, i have the right to define my identity against the one that was collectively assigned to me. a lot of the things the stephen fry said, particularly his temperament, were probably in agreement. but this inquisition, on the one hand i see where he is coming from, but i think it is a little bit virtual. who is really censoring you? i understand what it feels like be censored.
i understand what it feels like to be on the wrong side of a twitter mob or get a lot of nasty comments. feeling, anda bad it is a counterproductive tactic, but it isn't censorship. and it's especially strange coming from the company where, the president of the united levys is trying to additional postal rates on the owner of "the washington post" in revenge for its reporting, and people who have kneeled to brutality ate football games or they have seen their careers explode people -- explode. brutality at footballpeople who have challen. peterson have been hounded by misogynist invectives. [applause] jordan, we will have three minutes up on the screen. please respond to what you have
heard. todan: i guess i would like set up a challenge in somewhat the same format as mr. fry did, to people and the moderate left. i have studied totalitarianism for a long time, both on the left and on the right, in various forms, and i think we have done a decent job of determining when right-wing believes become dangerous. i think they become dangerous when the people who stand on the notions of racial superiority or ethnic your become a something like that. it is fairly easy to draw a box around them and place them to one side and i think we have done a good job of that. in regards to see the left, and this is regarding the sensible left, is that the same thing doesn't happen on the left. if it is not diversity,
inclusivity, and equity as a thatvirate that markup -- without the accepted left, the quality of out,, which is how do we demarcate the extreme left? do we say there is no such thing as the two-extreme left -- too -extreme left? that has characterized 20th century thinking among intellectuals in france the did everything they could to bend over backwards to ignore what was happening in the left world in russia and china. we have done a terrible job of demarcating what is useful from the left from what is pathological. so it is ok for people to criticize my attempts to identify something like a boundary. a qualityin fact about,, which is an abhorrent
notion, if you know anything about history you know that. i'm willing to hear reasonable alternatives, what i hear from people on the left is to construe every argument that is possibly able to be construed on the axis of personal identification. to help us fail to differentiate the reasonable left, which stands for the oppressed, from the pathological left that is capable of unbelievable distraction. what i see happening at universities, where the left is that's not mynd imagination, that's well documented by perfect the -- perfectlyople reasonable people is a failure to make that distinction. thank you. [applause] host: michael, give us your rebuttal.
michael: i feel freer already. [laughter] i don't know what mythological collective mr. peterson refers to. i am heart of the left. they are cantankerous. when they have a firing squad, it is usually in a semi circle. of the skepticism of rationality was predicated on the enlightenment project, which says we will no longer be subordinate to superstition. we are going to think and think well. was a greatrson arbiter of rationality, but he was also a slave owner. how do you reconcile that? that is the complication i'm speaking about. jefferson believed in a collective identity. that was during the day. at night, he got some luther vandross songs
[laughter] quarters,o the slave had sexual relations and had many children with sally hemmings. his loins trumped his logic. when he talks about postmodernism, i don't know what he is talking about. i teach postmodernism. it is fun. people who have been marginalized now begin to speak. the reason these people grew into existence and had a voice was because they were denied. group identity was foisted upon us. we were not seen as individuals. babe ruth, went he broke the home run record, he didn't that against the best all players, he batted against the best white ballplayers. you are born on third base and think you here a triple -- and think you hit a triple, at the
toronto blue jays game. look at the indigenous names and the first nation names, toronto, saskatchewan, winnipeg, tim hortons. [laughter] an i will tell you, there is envy of the freedom and liberty that people of color and other minorities bring, because we bring the depth of knowledge in our body. there is a jealousy of that. as the canadian philosopher said, jealousy is just love and hate at the same time. i agree with mr. fry, we should not be nasty and combative, and yet i don't seat nastiness and competitiveness from people. i see them making a desire to have their identities respected. when i get shut down for no other reason that i am black, when i get categorized for my collar, i am living in a culture that refuses to see me as a
great individual. [applause] stephen: i think we all realize there is some sort of problem. there isn't censorship in the way there is in russia. i have been to russia and faced off with a man. there is political correctness in russia. it is just political correctness on the right. that's what i corrupt with. it meant you couldn't say certain things on television. you couldn't say fuck on television because it was incorrect to do so. say, i'm notuld shocked, i'm not offended, i'm
offended on behalf of others, young, impressionable, plastic minds that are vulnerable. and that is not good enough. --t people say i don't mind you see, i don't mind being called a faggot or a kike. that's all right for you, stephen, because you are strong. i don't feel particularly strong, and i don't like being kike, a faggot or a particularly. i am been married for three years to a person of my gender, and i don't think it's the result of political correctness. maybe political correctness is just some life trout, and how we squeeze it will make it go away. we are talking about social justice, with which i agree. where the want to call it ty politics, all human beings have been slaves at
some point and we all in a sense share that knowledge of how important it is to speak up. russell means, who was a friend of mine and who founded the american indian movement, he or acall me an indian, lakota sioux, or russell, it doesn't matter, it matters how we treat the masses. [applause] man in barrow, alaska, said call me an eskimo because you keep mispronouncing my name. i will end with a quick story. in englandcame about because we slowly and persistently knocked on the door of people in power. we did not shout or scream. people like ian mckellen eventually got to see the prime minister. and when the queen signed the royal assent for the bill allowing a quality of marriage, he said -- she said, i couldn't mention this in 1953.
it is really extraordinary, isn't it? just wonderful. and she handed over. that's a nice story and i hope it is true but it has nothing to do with political correctness. it has to do with human decency. it's that simple. [applause] rebuttals, strong opening statements. let's move into the moderated cross examination portion of and get both sides and engaging on some of the key issues here. i think what we have heard is a bit of tension. more,draw it out a bit for the rights of groups to be included to have the opportunity for individuality, and a belief on the other side that there is a threat here when these groups are overly privileged through affirmative action or other outcome-oriented processes.
isn't there harm that is done to groups by privileging their group identity, whether it be a group identity of race or gender, and not immediately treating them as individuals, in the way jordan would like to see them first? michael: there was no random distinction the people of color and minority groups made. when i talked about the invention of race and gender in groupthink, that was not done by been sooups that have named. you have to look the historical evolution of that reality. the concept of group identity didn't begin with them. it began with a group that did not have to announce his identity. when you are control, you have to announce what you are. many white people don't thing they are part of an ethnicity or
group, what they do is see themselves as american. those group identifications have been imprinted upon them by the very people who now, because their group power has been challenged, let's make no mistake about it, there is a challenge. fry in a kindr. of netherlands, how sweet it would be to have a kingly and queenly metaphor about how we gather thought. that ain't the real deal in the real world. in the real world, there is stuff at stake. what is at stake our bodies, people's lives, people are being lynched and killed, because of their sexuality and sexual identity they are being harmed. are againstt we being treated as individuals. that is what we are trying for. please don't see me as a member of a group that you see as a nigger, a pathological person.
let me and with this. people who have individual rights did not have to fight for them in the same manner that people of colors and others have had to. when mr. fry talks about enslavement, read the history of race and slavery over 28 civilizations. the greeks did not have the same slavery americans did. it was chattel slavery. in greece, you could buy your freedom. you could teach the children of 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 for literacy in america. my point is this, i am all for the celebration of broader identities, and i think often those who are minorities and others are not celebrated to the degree. in america, we have the confederate flag.
we have white guys, mostly, in the south, but others as well, flying those confederate flags that are part of the south that refused to cede its legitimate conquest at the hands of the north. there has been a politics of resentment. you talk about politics of identity. wearing that flag, not an american flag, they are not celebrating america, they are celebrating a secession and a move away from america. and colin, a football player who wants to bring beauty to that flag, has been denied that opportunity. so we need to set terms to that, before we proceed. [applause] jump in on this idea of what you see as the danger of groupthink when it comes to at the city -- when it comes to ethnicity and gender? it is one of the
primal sense of politics on the left and the right. i am no fan of the identity area arian right. it risks of the exacerbation of tribalism. it doesn't matter if it is on the left or the right. rights,ards to group this is something we have followed into terribly in canada because of the threat of quebec separatism, but the idea of group rights is extraordinarily problematic. other side of the coin of individual rights is individual responsibilities. you can hold an individual responsible and an individual can be responsible and that is partly why individuals have rights. but how do you will they group responsible? hold a group
responsible? the face of justice symptoms in the west that are predicated on individual and distance and individual guilt, not group guilt. we saw what happened in the 20th century many times when group guilt was enabled to get a foothold, let's say in the justice system. it was catastrophic. ok, group rights. how are you going to contend with the opposite of that? where's the group responsibility? how are you going to holder yours responsible -- hold groups responsible? were too busy rectifying historical injustices. and that's not to say there is any shortage of catastrophic, historical injustices. that's not the point. the point is how you view the situation at the most fundamental level.
and group rights are an absolute catastrophe. [applause] host: michelle, it is something that you have written about, the idea that the identity of the group is absolutely a valid part of the discourse, and individuals could and should be seen participating in groups as they enter the civic space. michelle: i'm not sure we have oppositeize that the of individual rights is individual responsibilities. i'm not sure that analogy holds for groups. one of the things that is complicated about this discussion is that we are talking about three different cultural context's, three histories, three legal regimes. a hugethe united states, part of our politics has been groups struggling for rights for their individual members.
women in the united states, you know, seeking the right to reproductive control over their bodies. african americans and the united states, seeking redress from police brutality or discrimination or simply the kind of tendency in america of white people to call police whenever they see and african-american and a place where they don't think they are supposed to be. and i don't see how you can contend with any of those social problems if you see society as an ocean of atomized 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. that is everything that is best about our democracy.
that is the definition of progress. i keep stumbling with the idea that this is somehow to radical, or that way lies stalinism. a lot of people opposed to political correctness talk about the concept of category creep, a ancept originated by australian academic. it is basically a failure to drop this drink since -- to draw distinctions, so you can see the difference between a kkk grand wizard and a conservative like then shapiro. you see everybody to your right as fascist, sexist, totalitarian and intolerable. and i think that is a real thing that happens because broad andates in
--ghtly -- often under undergraduates often think in broad categories. but the argument against political correctness are seeking group address, and the idea that that way lies dehumanization. this was part of your opening remarks. you are a category creep, stephen. stephen: i don't understand what we are talking about politics. but that we were talking about political correctness. let's be empirical about this here it how well is it working for you in america at the moment? not well at all. trump and brexit in
britain and all kind of nativists in europe are succeeding, is not because of the right, it is the catastrophic failure of the left. it is our problem. [applause] my point is not that i have turned to the right, or that i'm nice and fluffy and want everybody to be decent. i am saying fight political correctness, resist, fight. if you have a point of view, -- uset in the property democracy as it should be, not language. it is so silly. language. it is so silly. and chess, the best move to play and chess is not the best chess move, it is the move your opponent least wants you to play. you are recruiting servants for -- for thenowing right. political correctness is a middle course that simply doesn't work. said the empirical, and
empirical as i know it is that which can be falsified or verified. so if we look at it in an objective way, people don't have equal access to the means to articulate the very moment you are talking up. stephen: i'm talking about the empirical results of this political latitude. michael: i understand but i'm suggesting to you that people use the weapons at hand. a rabbi said everybody is not guilty, but everybody is responsible. there is a distinction there. everybody is clearly not guilty, but what is interesting is, look at the flipside. if you benefited from 300 years of holding people in servitude, thinking you did it on your own, why don't these people work harder? years, you didn't have a job. you hold them in advance for 300 years and refused to give them rights. all of a sudden your free them and say you are now individuals, not having the skills, i'm
talking about american society, first of all, i'm talking about the northern hemisphere, i'm talking about every society as existed,ement but i'm speaking about the repudiation of individual rights on people of color in america were denied opportunities to be individuals. ideally with the agree on emphasis of individuals. what we are saying is that we have not been permitted to be individuals. we have not been permitted to exercise our individual autonomy and authority, and the refusal to recognize me as an individual , and it means when i'm a 12-year-old boy and a park and you shoot first in ways that you do to a black kid that you don't do to white kids, you are not treating that person as an individual. if we live in a society where women are subjected to forms of a tree article and sexist and misogynistic behavior, you would theacknowledge
individuality of women. you treat them according to a group dynamic. and if we get beyond the ability of people on the right to understand the degree to which the have operated from basis and benefited from group identity. the great american philosopher hasnce knowles said, it been said that racism is so american that if you challenge racism, you look like you are challenging america. we are challenging in a quality. we are challenging the refusal to see me as an individual. >> i have a couple of questions. let's assume i have benefited from my weight privilege -- white privilege.
michael: was that very individual of you? >> let's get precise about this. to what degree is my present level of achievement a whitequence of might privilege? 5%, 15%, 25%, 75%? and what you propose i do about it? how about a tax so i can account for my damn privilege. let's get precise about one other thing. michael: precise. hmmm. if we can agree, and we haven't, that the left can go too far, which it clearly can't, how would my opponents precisely defined when the left has gone too far? you didn't like equity, equality of outcome, and i think that is
a great marker. let's figure out how i can dispense with my white privilege so you can tell me when the left has gone too far, since they clearly can't. can.nce they clearly that's what this debate is about political correctness, the left has gone too far. and i want to know when the reasonable left is going to make its ascent again so we can quit all this nonsense. [applause] stephen fry answer first because you talked about how we got trump and this is a failure of the left. i am a journalist and went to a ton of trump rallies in different parts of the country and you are right. everywhere i went i heard complaints about political correctness, far more than i heard complaints about nafta. but when you asked people what they meant by political
correctness, they called a woman they worked with a girl and she got mad. in public wonder aloud whether the president of the united states was really a muslim. they didn't like that they could make gay jokes anymore. on the when head you are right and i have written about this. i think when you try, that when people have these prejudices and you try to suppress them, it can create a dangerous counter reaction. but i also think what they were what theyo, again, call political correctness, the fact that they had to have this urbain, black president who they felt talked down to them, which is really what they meant, i don't see a way around that. because that is progress. [applause] to the question of when the left it is pretty to me
easy. violence and censorship. i'm against violence and i'm against censorship. but i also, looking around the world right now, the idea that there is this, i understand that there is a problem of left wing annoyance. there is a lot of things that on the random people internet in particular are able individuals, and turn stray remarks into social-media campaigns. conflated with political correctness and it is a bad phenomenon. i wish there was a way to put an end to it. there is no way to put an end to it by having reasonable liberals are reasonable socialist denounce it, because it is just kind of an awful phenomenon of modern life. if you want to debate whether social media is terrible for democracy, i will be on the yes side. there is a couple
places i really disagree. the idea that the radical left poses a greater threat than the radical right, when you see actual fascism ascendant all of the world, strike me with something that you can only -- only believe literally believe if you spend your life on college campuses. how does he get any voice if it isebate back, implied his participation brings them baggage of white privilege that doesn't allow him to see clearly the issues that are before us? michael: that is reflected in the problem itself. you begin at a point that is productive and controversial. you say, how can he get his equality back. who are you talking about, jordan peterson, trending number
one on twitter? jordan peterson, with an international bestseller. jordan peterson? this is what i am saying to you. why the rage, bro? you are doing well but you are a mean, mad white man. [applause] e have never seen so much whin and snowflake in. in here toough whine start a vineyard. and when you ask the questions about white riblets, the we you asked it in the what you did, dismissive, pseudoscientific, non-empirical and without justification. the truth is the white privilege doesn't act according to quantifiable segments. it's about the degree to which we are willing as a society to grapple with the ideals of freedom, justice and equality, on which it is based. number two, what's interesting to me is, you are talking about
not having a collective identity. what do you call a nation? are you a canadian by yourself? when america formed his union, it did so in opposition to another group. the reality is that those are part -- in those who are part of group identities and politics deny the legitimacy of those groups, and the fact that they thus late, anded then have resentment against others. all i am asking for is the opportunity. the quotation you talk about, the difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, that is a staid argument derived 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 of person after a long oppression and say you are free to survive, if you have no skills or means of existence,
what you have done is liberated them into oppression. i'm suggesting to you, lyndon baines johnson said, if you start a man and a race 100 years behind, it is difficult to catch up. i don't think jordan peterson is suffering from anything except the next saturated -- except an exaggerated sense of entitlement and privilege. and it's manifesting itself in lethal ferocity here on stage. [applause] host: jordan, i will allow you to respond. what i derive from that series of rebuttals is twofold. the first is, saying the radical left goes too far when they engage in violence is not sufficient response by any stretch of the imagination because there are sets of ideas and radical leftist thinking that led to the catastrophes of the 20th century.
that was at the level of idea, not the level of violent action. it's a very straightforward thing to say you are against violence. it's like being against poverty. generically speaking, decent people are against being violent but it doesn't address the issue in the least. regarding my privilege or lack i'm not making the case that i haven't had advantages in my life and disadvantages in my life. you don't anything about my background and it doesn't matter to you because fundamentally, i am a mean, white man. that is a hell of a thing to say in a debate. [applause] host: i want to move on to men and women. michael: the mean man white cop -- the mean, white man comment is not based on an observation of your past.
it's this vitriol with which you speak against combatants and an argument. so i am saying again, you are a mean white man and the viciousness is evident. [applause] host: ok. ok. let's talk about another big factor of the so-called politically correct movement right now, the me too movement, and the extent to which we have seen this resurgence, this awakening around what had been a horrible series of systemic abuses and injustices toward women. some people would say we are in a cultural panic, that the pendulum has one too far, and there is a dangerous overreaction going on, where reputations,ts, due process has been thrown to the wind. how do you respond. people started saying that within two weeks of the first harvey weinstein stories breaking. andminute harvey weinstein,
men started actually losing their jobs over this, this was something quite new. that men with histories of really egregious predatory behavior were suddenly losing their jobs. everybody had known about it for a long time and there was sort of an implicit impunity and suddenly that was taken away, and it created this cultural earthquake. and as soon as it did, it created a lot of anxiety, like, what if this goes too far? the me too movement was only couple of months old when my newspaper started running columns from people saying, why whichi criticize me too, they were doing in my newspaper. so when the one hand yes, of course, is due process important? yes. obviously. when you look at who is actually lost the jobs, lost their livelihoods, look around. it is not people in general on a
mccarthyist rumor. it is people who took their dicks out at work. [applause] it's people who have paid tens of millions of dollars in settlements and then they left the job and now they are getting comebacks. bill o'reilly is about to get a new tv show on a network. that, men everywhere feeling they can't talk anywhere -- anymore ands everybody is walking on excel's, maybe that's true and your opposites it's not true were i live. the me too movement havs been particularly active in media. i don't know if any of you were shittyf the sh mentalist. a woman started to document the listed man that everybody knew about in the media, that nobody would talk about.
and it went public. and there was something disturbing about it, you don't like anonymous accusations floating around. know, including myself, 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. have the jobs. i know men on that list. i work with men on that list. media,as i can think, in the people who have lost their has and lost their careers been for extremely serious misbehavior, documented by multiple women who had corroborating witnesses. anxiety, thathis relations between men and women are changing. of course that causes a lot of cultural anxiety, but i don't know if it is rooted in anything real. >> are we in a cultural panic? is the response commensurate with the moment?
stephen: of course i recognize the beastie ali appoints dean and his shocking behavior. he worked for me in script doctoring, i guess it is called. it is grotesque, and i can't imagine how vile it must be from such a man. and he was. i used to play game at the con annes film festival during his years in power. you would get 10 points every time you heard the word harvey, and usually in a 10 minute walk you would have 300 points. the cousin was all, harvey has the script, harvey has the deal, i have a meeting with harvey. he was immensely powerful. and if they it's obvious that someone in a position of using
and threatening, hindering the likelihood of women, it is grotesque in the extreme. but i have to say, there is -- genuinefeeling feeling amongst many people and know that we can't speak our minds. we can't speak to the true new wants and true depth of sexual, romantic feeling between men and women. it's not a subject i am on, but i knowrt when it is men and men. what you might say it is different because women have had different experiences than men in that particular field. but i would say that it is real fear. ally business is where this started, shall business and acting and so on. so people are rather afraid to of publicity piece that has come out or a statement that has been made. yes, absolutely, and wait for people to leave the you speak with your
friends. and i've never experienced that in my entire 60 years on this planet, and i'm not characterizing feminists as east stman, but it is like the asi are listening. you better be careful, there listening. is aexual misadventures worry as well. and they are not solved. host: let's bring jordanian on this because you have written and commented a lot. [applause] jordan: i'm going to point out two things. too far, thatgoes question still hasn't been answered. and the second thing i'm is -- i am going out to point out is that, it's conceivable that i am a mean
man. ande i am meaner than some not as mean as others, but i think 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 possibly have happened. [applause] michael: may i respond? imagine the hurt, the anxiety, the insult that you might genuinely feel, according to what i felt was inappropriate comment, a description at the moment. but imagine now, those hurt feelings. jordan: not hurt. [laughter] [laughter]
ok.ael: jordan: not hurt. i'm appalled. michael: whatever empathy you might interest this point [laughter] is,, imagines a horrors that others have had to put up with for so long when others refuse to acknowledge their humanity. i take your point seriously. let me finish, sir. my inquisition are. what i am saying to you is that said you were upset that i added the element of race there, when i said mean man, white man. what is interesting is that you may have felt you were ascribed to group identity and were unfairly judged according to your particular race. you may have felt your individual identity was this mergedss was
by my careless characterization of you, all of which qualifies a legitimate response to me, but also the point we have been trying to make for the refusal to see our individual existence as women, people of color, first nation people and the like. i talked about race in that particular characterization, is because there is a particular way in which i have come to a city. i don't know if there is a lot of black people out there, i'm not sure, but i constantly come to places that are not my natural habitat, other than intellectual engagement and the love of rhetorical engagement, yes. but i often go into spaces where in favorll not vote of my viewpoint because i'm interested in breaking down barriers, so people can understand how complicated is. you, to give ate specific response, come with me to a black church.
come with me to a historically black college. me to an indigenous or first nations community, where we are able to engage in some lovely conversation, but also to listen and hear. and when i added race to that, i was talking about the historic inability to acknowledge others'pains equally to the one they are presently enduring. you as an being i love brother but i stand by my comments. [laughter] the thingse seen you're talking about. i happen to be an honorary member of an indigenous family, so don't tell me what i should go see. you don't know anything about me. michael: you asked me for a response and i give you a response. jordan: you give me a generic response. michael: jordan peterson, i would like you to go with me to an historically african-american
church. i would like to get your response to why, i generation from now -- a generation from now, looking back on this debate, we will not see this politically correct movement in the same way we understand the contributions of the civil rights movement. thatwas a movement advanced a series of ideas about human dignity to people who previously didn't have that dignity. we are now having another social debate about different groups that are trying to convey a sense of new dignity for them. why won't this be looked back upon as something positive a generation from now? i think people will look back on this debate and wonder why political correctness wasn't discussed. [applause]
it would be interesting to hear talk about race and gender and equality. thoughtmething i have about a lot and can learn a great deal about, but that's not why i came to this debate. i was interested in what i have always been interested in, the the rationalist idea that seems to be guiding, that if you limit people's language, it may somehow teach them a different way of thinking, something that would delight the inventors of george speak, for example. it seems to me as something that is implausible. it doesn't work. that's what i mean by empirical. empirical stand an test to validate it. as we see from the political landscape now, i worry that we so i'mthe future,
disappointed the subject revolved just around academia, which is predictable because that is the sort of crucial in which these elements are mixed. ofthe sort good ol' progress. what we call greatness, you call progress. i want to know what you mean by correctness. there are a lot of things of the local political christmas -- correctness. there are a lot of things that you call political correctness
is a feeling of this intangible result. >> we have all seen the show trial thing with a person them apologizes. the real mistake of our left is that we underestimate the right. as stupid as we want them to be. if only they were not so cutting and smart. that political correctness is a weapon they value. helpore we tell the world people should be treated, how language should be treated, what actions are acceptable. drink tois is meat and
bad actors. actors in the other sense. [applause] >> like i said, there are a lot of place in which i agree with you. turning it back on you, i would like to hear you say what are the words that we have failed to resurrect. this is the area of hotly contested social change right now where a lot of people feel -- >> slogans. they are just an insult. imagine you are a young student and someone is bombarding you misreads nonsense from
self-depracating english man. interesting is i do not recall these debates about political craft is happening powereople in absolute with -- it becomes an issue when people who still have power but they do , get challenged on the little that they had and did not want to share. all of a sudden it becomes an exaggerated grievance. , thehings that you name hetero picked iraqi in a capital derisionrchy, and the deconstruction.
what is interesting is i did not hear many complaints of political correctness at the height of the dominance of one group or another when martin arguedking junior who for identity and to provide an opportunity for individual blood people to come to the fourth, they begin to make that claim. they did not call it political correctness. whoare siding with those want free speech. what i mean by political correctness is the politics that result in modes. they are articulated by certain people of power. foucault says power breaks out
everywhere. as opposed to max weber who says power is over there in a hierarchical structure. foucault says power breaks down even with the people who are in power. what is more politically incorrect than a black baptists preacher identify with a jew. correctmore politically than a black individual going on martinrtin -- bill defending his right to use the n-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. [applause] do not get excited.
i see how you have been looking at a. -- at me. will we look at the way in which , and freecieties societies, when i look at what is seen as political correctness, it to me has been a mess of jumble that has been carved together out of the politics of resentment in which powers that were once held are no longer held. freedoms must now be shared. most -- both with of my gentleman to my right who believe that political correctness has been discouraged but not necessarily in the ways that you think so. those who have been the beneficiaries of privilege have failed to recognize their pro---
particular weight. those of us who are free citizens of this country and america should figure out ways to respect the humanities of the other but also, respect the fact that there have been barriers placed upon particular groups that have prevented them from flourishing. [applause] >> before we get a closing michelle, and you jordan appeared -- you jordan. are seems to me, you talking about political correctness and you made this feeling of anxiety a lot of people feel because we all live sourced world.wd i think a lot of people feel that anxiety. i disagree that that is
something that is being against those it in the court 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 idf behaved in gaza. it is coming at everyone and i innk that there is a way which when it comes, that a certain class and figure and there are a certain amount of complaints, you call it political correctness. i would like the culture to also be free wailing. you are not going to get the left, they cannot put an end to
this because it is much more of a mob social media phenomenon. really, the only way to break what you areto say afraid to say. that is the only way to pop this bubble or attend this anxiety. nxiety.this a what i hear is something much fundamental tod social change. you want one of us to talk about when the left goes to far. correctly, you're saying you want me to renounce
marxist categories. >> want you to defy when the left goes too far. >> i think it goes too far when it goes to violence or show people down. you expect.e what something deeper how? contend withke to the set of left-wing ideas that produce the pathologies of the 20th century and define how you think standard, left-wing thinking, goes too far. >> has the right gone too far? >> yes, but how about all schlitz. witz.sch more recently, what has gone
wrong with the right? >> i do not like political identity politics. right despite the the fact that the left with a to paint me that way because it is more convenient. >> where have they gone too far recently? >> it is hard to go far in europe. feeling too far in norway. how long the list to want and wildlife required to produce the? at?produce th >> your assumption is that somehow i must be on the side of the right. it is a simple set for me. if had, i would be objected to them. the right has not occupied social sciences and the humanities and the left clearly has. the evidence to that is
overwhelming. >> in terms of genetic inheritance? taught --rry, we are here to talk about political correctness. >> yes, i see. will put three minutes on the clock and go in the reverse opening. i have been fascinated by this conversation. enormous talk an that is a mode of discourse, a style i find endlessly, refreshing. i'm not sure that we actually focused on the point in question. my objection has always been towards orthodoxies. i am a contrarian..
i think there has been been under submission -- estimation that language does affect people. it makes the young very anxious. angry, upset, and alienated to feel that they do not know more how to operate in the world. how to engage in relationships. >> they create more and more to their own any groups. that is dangerous towards happiness in society. cinema,cted in literature, and art and the culture generally. there is a fear that is pervading it. people can talk to a day mia -- academia but i do not think we should underestimate how much this feeling is prevalent in the
paradox.f this strange their exclusive in their demand for inclusivity. they are homogenous in their demand for echogenicity. they are somehow a neighbors and their calls for diversity. you can be divers but not in your language and behavior. that is not a good way to think. [applause] >> i would say that i am sorry because i would hope it would be a shining example of how people of political of looks can speak with humor and wit and a lightness of touch. angels can fly because they take themselves lately.
-- lightly. all four of us are privileged to be asked to be here and to take ourselves a little more likely. not to be too certain. engage,time to really emotionally fulfill, and positive doubt. thank you. [applause] >> i will put three minutes on the clock for you michael. michael: thank you so much. white men who see black intelligence feeling a kind of condensation.
i have seen the -- htat. i get hit now everyday -- hate mail everyday. you're trying to corrupt our children. socitey thatm a refuses to see alll people as human beings. a politicallyt correct society that is open-minded and has some disability about the way i can speak. boyse death threats about that i speak. simply because i choose to speak my mind. i agree that we should argue against the vicious limitations. and speech i believe that everybody has the right to articulate themselves
and the enormous privilege that we have means that we have that privilege and we should be responsible for. here,ter where we go from i will hold him to that. we are going to a black baptist church and have an and lightning conversation about the need for us to engage and not only reciprocal and mutual advocation for criticism, even hard and tough criticism, in a way that speaks to the needs and interests of those who. usually get on tv. whose voices are not usually amplified. whose ideas are not taken seriously. when i get to the upper echelons of the ability of a society to express themselves, they are equally subject to vicious recrimination and hurtful resistance. the story about the pig and the chicken going down the street and say, let's have breakfast.
the chicken disaster give up on and. -- an egg. the pig has to give up his asked to be breakfast. we have often than the picks. -- been the pigs. as's start sharing the with everyone else. not here to claim that there is no such thing as oppression, unfairness, brutality, discrimination, unfair use of power. anyone with any sense has knowledge about the hierarchal structures and that they tear -- till till turning. -- towards tyranny. it is interesting to hear for co-refer to.
-- foucault refer to. he essentially believed that the only basis within which hierarchies were based his power. that is part of this politically correct doctrine that i have been speaking about. when an hierarchy becomes livingood do- bill is to exercise power but that does not mean that the imperfect hierarchies that we have constructed in our relatively free countries have at least, tilt towards compliments and ability. -- competence and ability. it does not mean that they appropriate way of diagnosing them is to assume that they are all about power and that everyone that occupies any position is a tyrant or a tyrant in the making. that is certainly the fundamental claim of someone like foucault. catastropheical
that is political correctness. i am not here to argue against progress. i am not here to argue against the equality of opportunity. anyone with any sense understands that even if you are selfish, you are best served by allowing yourself access to the teller to everyone and to discriminate against them for arbitrary reasons unrelated to their competence is a poor in spirit that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. it is not that good things have not happened in the past and should not continue to have. is we can agree on can agree onnd we historic inequity but there is no way i am going to agree that political correctness is the way to address any of the and there is plenty of which i would say was explained quite clearly tonight.
irresistiblee issues we are coming up against is the goal of feelings. andsked us to recognize empathize with this feeling of being silenced and threatened and i do. i get it. i feel it to. i hate it when i write something -- tyrantsome time in twitter mob against me. recognize how threatened so many women feel when for example, one of the best-selling and prominent intellectuals in a world right now says in an interview that maybe the me too movement has shown that it is
not working. maybe if women who do not want the workplace to be sexualized should not be allowed to wear makeup. if i say, i feel threatened, then, i'm being politically correct and historical. so much about the debate of political correctness is the condemnation of political correctness is about people oring, respect my feelings accommodate my feelings and to some extent we can accommodate to everyone's feelings but there is one group that really does think it's feelings should be accommodated and that is what we keep coming up against. there is a group of people and to some extent i am part of it, that feels uniquely that our silenced,f feeling
but those feelings need to take the primary spot. we can spirit -- smear when these others groups ask for us to take seriously their threats and feelings of being marginalized. then, we call those demands political correctness. i would finally say that i think there is a fair amount of research saying that people become more close minded and more tribal with a feels like. when they feel threatened. when they feel that their identity is at stake. as much as you want to blame the left or the right, i think that the you say, the rise of right, the people who are questioning the fundamental ,deals of pluralistic democracy
the more those fields are mainstream, the more people who -- will shut down and not respond because they are actually scared. [applause] >> on behalf of all of the debaters, we want to thank the audience. you are engaged in mostly civil. on behalf of the debaters, thank you audience. it was a challenging topic. also, a big thank you to our debaters. all of them give witness speeches but it is a very different thing in front of a life audience and have your ideas contested in real-time. to all four of you, thank you for accepting our invitation to compare -- come here. [applause]
if you final note. first, thank you to the foundation and the munk fmaily. -- munk family. vote on your way out. we will have those results from after 9:15. let's quickly review what your opinions stated at the beginning of tonight's contest. what you call political correctness, i call progress. 36% disagree. we saw a large percentage of you trying to -- willing to change her mind. let's see how tonight effectively. -- affected your voting.
the audience disagreed with the notion that political correctness is a sign of progress. that is a 6% drop in support based on the initial vote. you can find a book -- more online. on newsmakers this weekend, president of the senate majority pact. he talked about the messaging priority for democrats heading into the midterm elections and the money being spent in races like the one in florida. be one of the most expensive senate races ever. are you prepared to put up the money and how much money are we talking about? expensive, the most it is because governor scott will be writing a lot of checks.
we expect that we will win their. frankly, senator nelson has a long time and service for florida. is where we are. it will probably take money to topple him in this environment that we have the better considerablyhe outspent you. on, he isrly notorious for spending millions of dollars on television. i think we know what we are up against financially before the voters in this environment, it is about when the money. will have the resources we need to be able to communicate and get the center's message across. -- senators message across. i think the presidential and
senate resources are behind in communicating digitally. , pute cycle, we have made our foot forward in terms of showing a real field effort. alabama, a state that is not normally a democratic stronghold, we had aced -- a chance to be part of an effort that went to 1600 african-american businesses. ining a kind of field effort red states are pretty important. >> you can watch the rest of the interview tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. here on c-span. watch live coverage of the utah they -- debate.