tv Munk Debate on Political Correctness CSPAN May 29, 2018 10:02am-12:01pm EDT
thomas, alind brewer, and nikki haley. eastern,at 8:00 p.m. tim cook, john kasich, kate brown, and released the tear us. guiterrez.- and luis >> next, a debate about political correctness hosted by the munk debate with georgetown university sociology professor michael eric dyson, "new york times" columnist michelle
goldberg, actor stephen fry, and clinical psychologist jordan peterson. this program contains language that some viewers might find offensive. ♪ >> you must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies. >> whatever you want to call our system, it is a disaster. >> that is hypocritical argument. >> it started in chinese policies. it can be described in management. ♪ >> science and religion are not
incompatible. >> religion forces nice people to do unkind things. >> are men obsolete? [laughter] >> i quoted -- >> the program -- you can keep screaming it, does not change the point. >> we do not want some of the p religion do not want pity. we want opportunity. i never said they were muslim in my commendation -- in my formation. restraint,at kind of obama represents. i am telling you he is sort of a closet canadian. but for him, for god's six. [laughter] [applause] [dramatic music] >> ladies and him and, welcome.
it is my privilege to have the opportunity to moderate tonight's debate and act as your organizer. welcoming anrt by audience tuning in right now cpac, c-span on across the continental united states. a warm hello to our online audience watching this debate over 6000 streams active at this moment on facebook live and bloomberg.com and munk debate's es.com.debat hello to you, over 3000 people who filled roy thomson hall for another munk debate. fork you for your support more and better debates on the big issues of the day. this debate marks the start of our 10th season. we begin the season missing someone who was vital to this debate series in every aspect.
it was his passion for ideas, his love for debate that inspired the creation in 2008. it was his energy, his generosity, and his drive so important in allowing us to win international acclaim as one of the world's great debating series. as for p, legacy -- his philanthropy, legacy -- remember his donation to cardiac health in toronto, transforming canadians at the top. and supporters of a terrific -- represented here. congratulations to you. [applause] also, in an generous endowment to this series that will allow
us to organize for many more years to 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 late peter munk. bravo, peter. [applause]
way to go, peter. [applause] i know he would have enjoyed that, and i want to thank melanie, anthony cheney for reading here tonight for part of peter's continued impact on public debate in canada. thank you for being here tonight. [applause] knowing peter as i did, the first thing on his mind at this point in the debate would be, rudyard, stop talking. get this debate underway. get the debaters out here. so, we are going to do that right now. we have a terrific debate lined up for you this evening. let's introduce first, our pro team, arguing for tonight's motion. resolved what be , you call political 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. michael, come on out. [applause] mr. griffiths: 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. michelle come on out. , [applause] mr. griffiths: 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] stephen's teammate is a professor of psychology at the university of toronto, youtube sensation come and the author of the big new international bestseller, "12 rules for life." ladies and gentlemen, toronto's jordan peterson. [applause] ok, we will get our debate under way momentarily. first, a quick checklist to go through. #munkdebate.htag,
those of you online, please weigh in. those of you watching online right now, we have a running whole at www.munkdebates/vote . itct to the debate as unfolds over the next hour and half. my favorite part aspect of the , show that was peter's billions and creation -- illiance, a br countdown clock. we have the clock when they go down to zero, we 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 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
-- correctness i call progress. , 36% agree, 64% disagree. so, a room in place. -- in play. we asked you, how many of you were open to changing your vote over the course of the debate? are you fixed 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 now. let's see those numbers now. 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. michelle would you like a sip of , water? ms. goldberg: sure. mr. griffiths: i will call on her first for her six minutes of opening remarks. ms. goldberg: thank you for having me here. as rudyard knows, i 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 do not like platforming or trigger warnings, like a lot of middle-aged liberals, there are many aspects of student social justice culture that i find offputting. although, 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. so, if there are social justice warriors in 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] but it's an assumption that is a worldview in which any challenges to the hierarchy are written off as political correctness. we should be clear this is in a debate about free speech. mr. peace -- mr. peterson talked about the evil trinity . 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 movie "frozen" is politically correct
propaganda. at one point, he floated the idea of students avoiding postmodern -- i sometimes hear sometimes -- sometimes purge to certain analytical categories that newer's the worst caricatures of the social justice left that want to get rid of anything that smacks of colonialism or patriarchy or white supremacy. i don't think we debating the value of the enlightenment. at least, not the way someone like mr. fry frames it. the effort to expand rights and privileges once granted to just land-owning white, heterosexual is the enlightenment. to quote a dead white man, john stuart mill, said despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance 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 think 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. -- calls enforced monogamy. when it comes to political correctness debate, we have been in fact the here before. the alan bloom, compared the tyranny of feminism in academia to khmer rouge. 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 1980s, 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 civthe western curriculum, not making gay jokes "retard" as the next set. new words stick in your throat the way we are used to talking and thinking natural and normal. -- normal by definition. the new terms and concepts that have social utility stick and those that don't fall away. if you go back to the 1970s, ms. stuck around and women with a y didn't. i hope that someday, we will look back and marvel that
gender-neutral pronouns ever seen like an existential threat. i also don't think it is clear that that might not happen because if you look around the world right now 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. -- 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 and political correctness. as someone who lives there, it feels nothing like progress. thank you. [applause] mr. griffiths: great start to ,o the -- to the debate michelle thank you. , i will now ask jordan peterson to speak for the con team.
prof. peterson: so, we should first decide what we are talking about. we're not talking about my views of political correctness, despite what you might have inferred from the last speaker's comments. this is how it looks to me. we essentially need something approximating a low resolution grand narrative to unite us. we need a narrative to unite us because otherwise we don't have these. -- have peace. 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? in the west, we 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 freer -- are freer 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 is individual to individual. they're both part of the process the psychological , process, by which things we don't understand can yet he be explored. the reason we are valuable as individuals, with regards to
rights and responsibilities, is because that is our essential purpose. that is our nobility. 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. of course, there's some utility in a collectivist narrative. but the collectivist narrative , that i regard as politically correct is a strange pastiche of marxism. it's claim is no, you essentially are a member of the group. that group may be your ethnicity, sex, race or any of the endless numbers of other potential groups that you belong to because you belong to many of them. you should be categorized along with those who are like you and -- you on that dimension in that
group. that is prepositioned number one. proposition number two is the proper way to view the world is as a battleground between two groups of power. you define the groups 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 maneuvers between different groups. also, any 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 by those on that radical left, it is that in that formulation there is no such thing as a speech. individualist, it is how you -- for an individualist, it is how you make sense of the world. for the radical left type when used become 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. not 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 western civilization 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 of women by men. well, look, no hierarchy is without its tyranny. that is an axiomatic truth. people have recognize that for thousands of years. hierarchies do tend toward tyranny and they tend toward the use of -- 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 perfectly well as i'm 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 voice of the left. that is not the same as for claiming the right level of analysis is that all of us are fundamentally to be identity 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. to the degree we play out that narrative will not be progress. we certainly haven't seen that progress in the university. we have seen situations what happened in wilfred laureate university. we will not see progress. what we will return to if the
tribalism that characterized the left. [applause] mr. griffiths: thank you, jordan. michael eric dyson, your six minutes starts now. prof. dyson: thank you very kindly. wonderful opportunity to be here in canada. thank you so much. i am going to stand here at the podium. i'm a preacher. [laughter] and i will ask for an offering at the end of my presentation. [laughter] this is the swimsuit competition of the intellectual beauty pageant, so let me show you the curves of my thoughts. [laughter] oh, my god, was that a politically incorrect statement i just made? how did we get to the point 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
-- for both 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 nation he has turned into his psychic commode. [laughter] [applause] y'all got justin, we got donald. what is interesting that is political correctness has transmogrified into a caricature of the left. the left came up with the term political correctness. shall i remind you? we were tired of our excuses and excesses and exaggerations. we were willing to be self-critical in a way i fear my con freres, my compatriots are
not here it take this -- don't take yourself too seriously. smile. the radical left is a metaphor -- mile. the radical left is a metaphor. i am on college campuses, i do not see much of them coming. when i hear identity politics, it amazes me. the invention of race was a driven by the demand of a dominant culture to subordinate others, patriots, right? patriarchy was the demand of meant of have their exclusive vision presented. the beauty of feminism is it will not resolve the difference between men and women. it says men automatically gets the last word. [laughter]
identity politics has been generated as a bete noire of the right. the right is not believe it is forced on people of caller from the beginning on women and trans-people. you think i want to be part of a group that is constantly a poured by people at starbucks -- constantly abhored by people at starbucks? i am minding my own black business, walking down the street. i have black identity thrusted upon me. nobody says, a ha, there goes a negro. him.ould not interrogate no, they could be as a part of a group. the problem is our friends does not want to acknowledge the dominance of the group has been so vicious, it is denied the opportunity to exist as individuals.
individual them is the characters and moment in -- mr. peterson is life, the development of the individual is predicated upon notions of intelligence. cartes, comes along, introducing knowledge is based on a reference to the golden intelligence, the reflective glass one possesses. he got rooted in the ground of our existence. knowledge has bases him. the knowledge i bring as a person of caller makes it different in my body because i know what people think of me. i know how they respond to me. that ate no theory -- that ain't no theory. the only one i want from a cop is, are you about to shoot me? not funny, in america, where young people die repeatedly, unarmed without provocation. for me, identity politics is very serious. what is interesting about safe
spaces i hear about the university. i teach -- if you are in a safe space in your body come you do not need a safe space. some of that is overblown. some of it is ridiculous. i believe a classroom is a robust place for learning. at the same time, some people ain't as equal as others. we need to understand. nobody be a bigger snowflake than white men who complain. mommy, mommy, they will let me have everything where we were right. yeah, you have to share. this ain't your world. this is everybody's world.
you member a story? she said, hello boys, how is the water? they swim, what the hell is water? when you're in it, you do not know what. nothing is more interesting than what the devil did is make people believe he did not exist. [applause] ms. goldberg: thank you, michael. stephen, you are up. mr. fry: if i miss a train, i will not hear it from a mother. in agreeing to participate in this debate and stand on the side of the argument, many people who choose incorrectly to
-- exploded terms, as i think they are well believe i am betraying myself with such causes and values i have espoused over the years. i have been giving grief because i'm standing near professor peterson, the very reason why i am standing here in the first place. i am standing next to someone differences ine and otherolitics things. all of this has got to stop. resentments, hostility -- resentment, hostility. -- the grandy canyon has open up in our world. the crack grows wider every day. neither on each side can hear it the other word the other streaks. while these clash, down below in
the enormous space, the people of the world try to get on with their lines, baffled come board, and betrayed by the horrible noises and explosions echoing all around. it is time for this toxic, binary, zero-sum menace to stop i-4 we destroy ourselves. [applause] before we story ourselves. [applause] have what i have been called a lefty, a soft lefty. not a burning man, the barricade, socialist, not a progressive with a name. i be on marches -- i beat on marches. am i am loath number of that sjw, a social justice
warrior? i characters myself as a social justice warrior. my intellectual heroes were liberal thinkers, writers like em foster. i believe in the sanctity of human relations, privacy of the heart, friendship, love, and common interest. these are more personal interior beliefs than they are political exterior convictions. more humanistic of a religious impulse. i trust in humanity. i believe in humanity. i think i do, despite what happened in the 40 years of my other heard. i am soft and i can be swept away by heart hearts. sometimes, i am surprised to be described as an activist. ay.rew up knowing i was g
is the lastthat time that our member when i was born, that is the last time i am going out of one of those. i am jewish. naturally, i want bullying of all humankind to end. that is a given amongst all of us. how can a golden egg be achieved? what i have spent a lifetime losing and opposing, preaching, with great respect. [laughter] self-righteousness, assertion without evidence, accusation, inquisition, censoring -- that is not what i
am incurring the wrath of my fellow liberals by standing on the side of the house. my objection is i do not think political correctness works. i want to achieve -- i want to get to the golden hill. that is not the way to get there. one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective. >> here, here. [applause] mr. fry: i relish transgression. i distrust conformity and orthodoxy. progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of paraphrase, byo madman, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and skeptics.
[applause] i may be wrong. i hope to learn this evening. i think i may be wrong. i am prepared to entertain the possibility political correctness would bring us more tolerance and a better world. i'm not sure. i would like this quotation from my hero to hover over the evening. one of the painful things about our time those who feel certainty are stupid and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision. let's doubt prevail. [applause] mr. griffiths: a great set of opening statements is that the steam. we will go through a round of rebuttals to allot each of our presenters three minutes to reflect on what they heard and to make additional points.
we will do that in same order we had in the opening statements. michelle, you are up first. we will put three minutes on the clock for you. the attempt to draw a dichotomy between individual rights and group rights is a little bit misleading. , there have been large groups of people who have not been able to exercise their individual rights. a lot of the claims being made on behalf of what we politically correct types called are marginalized groups are claims of people who have identities that have not traditionally been at the center of our culture or the top of our hierarchies have as much right to exercise their individual talents and realize their individual ambitions.
we say we want more women in 'swer or more people of color voices in the canon or curriculum or directing movies -- all of these things are not because -- at least on my part, i am interested in some sort of 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 movement was. that is what the civil rights movement was. y rightswhat the ga movement was. that is what the trans-rights movement was. 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 stephen fry said, particularly, his temperament were in agreement.
this inquisition, censorious on one hand, i see where he is coming from. it is a little bit virtual. who is censoring you? i understand what it feels like to be censored, on the wrong side of a twitter mob or get a lot of nasty comments. that is a bad feeling. it is a counterproductive tactic. that is not censorship. strange coming from a country where the president of the united states is trying to let the additional postal rates on the owner of the washington post in revenge for its reporting. people who have kneeled to protest police brutality at football games has seen their careers explode. or people -- women who have
challenged mr. peterson have been hounded by threats and proles and misogynists -- and trolls and misogynists. thank you. [applause] ms. goldberg: jordan, please been respond to what you heard. i would like to set out a challenge in the same way mr. fry did i study totalitarianism for a long time on the left and right. i think we have done a decent job of determining when right-wing beliefs have become dangerous. they become dangerous when when the people have notions of racial superiority. it is easy to draw a box and
place into one side. what i fail to see happening on the left, with regards to the sensible left because of -- because such a thing exists. here's an open question. if it is not diversity, thatsivity, and equity mark out the accepted left and equality ofed as outcome, which is how it is defined, then how do we demarcate the extreme left? what do we do? we say there is no such thing as the too extreme left? that is something that characterize much of intellectual think you for the 20th century as our high order intellectuals, especially in places like france, they bent everything.ds to do
we have done a terrible job of determining how to do market was useful from the left from what is pathological. it is perfectly ok for someone to criticize my attempts to -- especially equity, which is in fact equality of outcome, which is an outboard notion -- an abho rrent notion. i am open to hear reasonable alternatives. what i hear from people on the , construe every argument of the axis of group identification. it helps us differentiate the reasonable left, which stands , necessarily,sed from the pathological left, which believes in its structure. what i see in university campuses, where the left is the predominant, is
an absolute failure to make that distinction. have i seen the same thing go tonight? thank you -- same thing echoed tonight? thank you. [applause] ms. goldberg: michael, -- mr. griffiths: michael, your rebuttal. step up herelet me in mr. peterson land. mr. griffiths: feel free when you are ready. prof. dyson: i do not know mythological collectives mr. peterson refers to. i am part of the left. they are contiguous when they have a fire squad, usually in a semi circle -- [laughter] predicated upon the climate project, which says we will no longer be subordinate to skepticism, sufficient. we are -- skepticism.
we are going to think and think well. thomas jefferson thought of rationality, but he was a slave owner. how do you reckon can silent -- how do you reconcile it? he believed in a collective identity. at night, he got some luther vandross on, went out to the slave quarter, and engaged in sexual relations, and had many children with sally hemmings. his loins trumped his lemmings. i teach postmodernism. it is fun. michlle -- michelle about it in postcolonial theory. the reason these people -- theseand people grew up -- our group
identity was forced upon us if we were not seen as individual. babe ruth when he broke the home run record, he did not bat again st all the best players, he batted against the best white players. here we are, deriving our sense of identity from the culture we ignore. look at the indigenous names. timipeg, to importance -- horton's [laughter] nd of is an envy of the ki freedom and liberty people of, and other minorities bring because we bring the depth of knowledge in our body. it is the jealousy of it. living canadian
philosopher aubrey graham said, -- we should not be nasty and combative. i do not see nastiness and combativeness. i see them making a desire to have their individual identities respected. when i get shot down for another reason that i am black, when i get categorized then my caller, i am living in a culture that refuses to see me as a great individual. [applause] [laughter] it is interesting to hear there does not seem to be a problem. i think we know there is some kind of problem. there is not censorship, of course not in the way there is in rupture -- in russia. a homophobic man. there is political correctness
on the right. but you cannot say certain things on television. you cannot say fuck, for example, on television. it was -- some of what appear in say i am not offended. i am offended on behalf of others, young, impressionable, plastic minds. that is not good enough. notften, people say, i do mind being called a faggot. i do not my people insulting me. that is all right for you, because you are strong. i do not feel particular strong. i do not know if i like being called a faggot. advantageelieve the in my culture allowing me to marry, as i have for three years to someone of my gender, is a result of clinical correctness. -- howt is some sort of
do we squeeze it so it goes away? you will say, i'm not talking about this here do are talking about social justice. whether you want to call it the history of your people are my people, my people were slaves as well. british were slaves of the romans. we were all slave someone pointed we share that knowledge of how important it is to speak up. a friend of mine found in the american indian movement. call me, india -- said, an indian. a you call me. it is how we are treated. [applause] , -- words do matter. i will end with a quick story.
gay-rights came about because we slowly and persistently knocked on the door of people in power. we did not not shout and scream. when the clean signed in the royal assent for the bill, allowing the quality of marriage, she said, lord, you know, i cannot imagine this in 1953. really, it is extraordinary, isn't it? anded itderful and hi over. withes not have to do political correctness. it is human decency, it is that simple. [applause] ms. goldberg: some good rebuttals -- mr. griffiths: strong rebuttals. let's move into the moderated cross examination portion of this debate. guests on both sides engage in some of the key issues. what we have heard is a bit of
tension. let's draw it between the rights of groups to feel included to have your words, michelle for the opportunity for india agility. on the other side, there is something that is a threat when these groups are overly privileged through affirmative action or other outcome oriented processes. there harm done to groups by pillaging their group identity -- by privileging their group identity and not really treating them as individuals in a way toward an and stephen would like to see them first? prof. dyson: there was no arbitrary and random distinction people of caller and other minority groups made. when i talked about the invention of race, gender, groupthink, that was not done by those groups named as ms.
goldberg said. yet acknowledge the historical evolution of the reality and the concept of group identity and i began with them. he began with the group that do not have to announce its identity. when you're in control, you do not have to announce who you are. many white brothers and sisters do not see themselves as one among many other ethnicities or groups. i am american, canadian, can't you be like us? yet, the group identifications have been imprinted upon them by the very people who now -- their group power has been challenged. there is a challenge. i agree with mr. fry in a kind of motherland of how sweet it would be to have kingly and queenly metaphor of how it got result. that ain't the real deal, homie. in the real world, it is at stake.
what is at stake because of people's sexual identity? it is not that we are against being treated as individuals. that is what we are crying for. group,do not see me as a see me as an individual who embodies the realities. what michelle said is important. people who have individual rights do not have to fight for them in the same manner that people of caller and others have had to. the mr. fried talked about -- mr. fry talked about enslavement -- over 28 civilizations. the greeks and not have the same slavery as americans. in greece, you could buy back your freedom. you can teach the children of the people who enslave you. through intellect, you could
secure your freedom. that was not the case. you work punished and killed for literacy in america. ofm all for the celebration broader identities. often, those who are minorities and others are not celebrated for the degree -- in america, we have the confederate flag. i do not know if you're familiar with it. we have a confederate flag. we have white guys -- mostly in the south, flying the confederate flags, part of the itsh that refused to cede legitimate conquest at the hands of the north. there has been a politics of resonant. you are talking about politics of the knee. wearing that fly, not the american flag. they are celebrating secession, a move away from america. colin kaepernick saint i want to bring beauty to that flag has been deny opportunity. we have to set the terms of debate in order before we
proceed. mr. griffiths: thank you. [applause] jordan, they idea of what you see as a danger of groupthink when it comes to the city, gender. why do that is one of the primal since in your view of political credit -- primal sins in your view of political correctness? prof. peterson: it is on the right and left. this got personal at times. i am no fan of the identity. right. anybody who plays the game of -- conceptual game of group identity comes first and foremost risks and exams -- risks -- with the regard of group rights, there is a fundamental -- we have fallen -- the idea canada of group rights is extraordinarily problematic.
of interview rights and responsibly. you can hold an individual responsible and individual can be responsible. that is what individuals have rights. groups, how do you hold a group responsible? , tolda is not a good idea a group responsible. of the ideathe face of the justice systems in the west predicated on the ascension of individual innocence and individual guilt, not a group appeared we saw it happen in the 20th century. the idea of group guilt was enabled to get a foothold. it was catastrophic. ok, fine. group rights. how are you going to content to the alternative, opposite? where is the group responsibly? how are you going to hold your groups responsible?
we do not have to talk about that because we are too concerned about rectifying hypothetical -- historical injustices, hypothetical and otherwise. it is not to say there is no shortage of catastrophic in justices. that is not the point is how you view the situation of the most fun a mental level? group rights -- most fundamental level? group rights -- mr. griffiths: michelle, come in on that point. you have written about the idea in identity politics, and identity group is a valid part of the discourse and individuals could and should be seen and participate. ms. goldberg: i am not sure we necessarily have two analogize from the opposite of individual rights and individual response ability. i do not know is that analogy holds. in the united states -- one
thing complicated is the are talking about three different cultural contexts -- the histories, three legal regimes -- three histories, three legal regimes. in united states, a huge part of our politics has been groups struggling for rights for their individual members. statesn the united seeking the right to reproductive control of their body. african-americans in united froms seeking redress police brutality or dissemination or tenancy in america of what people to call people -- of white people to call police when they see an african-american in a place where they are not supposed to be. i do not see how you can contend with any of those social problems if you see society as an ocean of itemized individual -- of atomized individuals.
aboutis not any punishes -- toanything seek redress for determination and inclusion. it is everything best about our democracy. it is the definition of progress. i stumbling with the idea this orsomehow tyrannical stalinism. a lot of people who are opposed to political correctness talk --ut the concept of category category creep. failure to draw distinctions. you cannot see the difference wizard andkk grand
a conservative like ben shapiro. ec everybody to your right -- you see everybody to write as ascist -- to your right fascist. undergraduates often think in broad and slightly overwrought categories. i know i did when i was a kid. maybe still do. i hear a lot of category creed in the argument against political correctness or group address -- group redress. stephen, you came onto this. you are a category creep. mr. fry: i am lost why we are not talking about political correctness. we are talking politics. that is fine. [applause]
i showed jackie what you think about it. opponent of identity politics. how well is it working for you in america at the moment? you can ask me in a moment. trump, brexit, in britain and oliver europe is succeeding, it is the catastrophic failure of the left. my point is not that i have turned to the right anything like that. if you have a point of view, fight it in the proper manner, not language, you know? it is so silly.
best play in chess is the least wants you to play. you are recruiting servants for the right-knowing, for the right. political correctness is a middle course that simply doesn't work. you 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 about. >> i'm talking about the empirical results of this. >> 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? so for 300 years, you didn't have a job. the reality is for 300 years, you hold people insubordination and refused to give them rights. all of a sudden, you free them, and say you are 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 where enslavement has existed, but i speaking about the am repudiation of individual rights on people of color in america who were denied opportunities to be individuals. i agree 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 not acknowledge the 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 they have operated from the basis and benefited from group identity. the great american philosopher beyonce knowles -- [laughter] said, it has been said that racism is so american that if you challenge racism, you look like you are challenging america. we are challenging inequality. we are challenging the refusal to see me as an individual. when we overcome that, have at it.
>> [indiscernible] >> i have a couple of questions. >> let's assume i have benefited from my white privilege, so .et's assume that let's get precise. >> was that very individual with you? >> let's get precise about this. to what degree is my present level of attainment or achievement a consequence of my white privilege? i do not mean assorted. do you mean 5%, 15%, 25%, 75%? and what do you propose i do about it? how about the tax specialized for me so i can account for my damn white privilege so i can stop worrying about it. let's get precise about one
other thing. >> precise? >> yes, 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 define when the left they stand for has gone too far? you didn't like equity, equality of outcome, and i think that is a great marker. but if you have a better suggestion and will not sidestep the question, 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. this is what the debate is about, political correctness, the left has gone too far. i would like to figure out how and when so the reasonable left is going to make its ascent again so we can quit all this nonsense. [applause] >> i want to answer stephen fry 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. you couldn't 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 one hand, 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 reacting to, again, what they 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 goes too far, to me it is pretty 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 people, random people on the internet in particular are able to swarm individuals, and turn stray remarks into social-media campaigns. this is often 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 or 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. but right now, 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 ver the world, strike me with something that you can only literally believe if you spend your life on college show less -- on college campuses. michael precious point, get an equal voice
in this debate back, if it is implied his participation brings the baggage of white privilege that doesn't allow him to see clearly the issues before us? >> 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? something to tweet about me and my book. [laughter] 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. i have never seen so much whine and snowflaking. there is enough whine in here to start a vineyard. what i am saying to you decisively and empirically, when you ask the questions about
way youivilege, the asked it in the what you did, dismissive, pseudoscientific, non-empirical and without justification, a, 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, upon 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? are you an individual or part of a group? when america formed its union, it did so in opposition to another group. the reality is that those are -- those who are part of group identities in politics than i the legitimacy of those groups, and the fact that they have been created thusly and 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
and we tried arguments, hackneyed phrase, derived from the debate over affirmative action. are you looking for outcomes that can be determined equally or are you looking for opportunity? a few free a person after a long time of oppression and say, now, you are free to survive, if you have no skills or means of existence, what you have done is liberated them into oppression. all i am 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 an exaggerated sense of entitlement and resentment, and his own privileges invisible to him and it's manifesting itself in lethal ferocity here on stage. [laughter] [applause] to letan, i will have you respond to that. what i derived from
that series of rebuttals is twofold. the first is, saying the radical left goes too far when they engage in violence is not a sufficient response by any stretch of the imagination because there are sets of ideas in 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 poverty and violence. it doesn't address the issue in the least. regarding my privilege or lack thereof, i'm not making the case that i haven't had advantages in my life and disadvantages in my life. like most people. you don't anything about my background or where i came from. 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] [laughter]
-- [applause] [cheering] brief because i want to move on to men and women. >> the meeting, white man comment is not based on an observation of your past. it is based on the vitriol with which you speak against combatants in an arguments, so i am saying again, you are a mean , white man and the viciousness is evident. [cheering and booing] 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 a cultural panic, that the pendulum has swung too far, and there is a dangerous overreaction going on, where people's rights, reputations, due process has been thrown to the wind. how do you respond to that? michelle: people started saying that within two weeks of the first harvey weinstein stories breaking. the minute harvey weinstein, and 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 a couple of months old when my newspaper started running columns from people saying, why can't i criticize me too?
which they were doing in my newspaper. so on the one hand, yes, of course, is due process important? yes. obviously. when you look at who is actually losing their jobs and livelihoods, look around. it is not people in general on a mccarthyist rumor. it is people who took their dicks out at work. [laughter] [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 television show on a new network, so the idea that men everywhere cannot talk anymore and everybody is walking on egg shells, and maybe it is true in your offices, it is not true where i live. the me too movement has been
particularly active in media. know how much you read a womane list where started this open source documents, where women could list men in media that everybody knew about but nobody had done anything about. it quickly went public. and there was something disturbing about it, you don't like anonymous accusations floating around. most feminists i 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. they still have the jobs. i know men on that list. i work with men on that list. as far as i can think, in media, the people who have lost their jobs and lost their careers has -- have been for extremely serious misbehavior, documented
by multiple women who had corroborating witnesses. i understand this anxiety, that 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. >> let me get his view on this. are we in a cultural panic? is the response commensurate with the moments? >> i am very confused by this. of course i recognize the of -- beastiality of weinstein and this shocking behavior. he worked for me in script doctoring, i guess it is called. for pretty obvious reasons. it is grotesque, and i can't imagine how vile it must be from such a powerful man, and he was. i used to play a game at the cans film festival -- cannes 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. because harvey has the script, i have a meeting with harvey at the majestic -- he was immensely powerful. it is obvious that someone in that position abusing threatening and hindering the likelihood of women, it is grotesque in the extreme. but i have to say, there is genuine feeling amongst many people i know that we cannot speak our minds. we cannot actually speak to the ceo new ones and -- true nuan and true depth of sexual, romantic feeling between men and women. it's not a subject i am absolutely expert on, but i know when it is men and men. what you might say it is different because women have had different experiences than men
in history, and i do not want to enter that particular field. but i will say that there is real fear. in my business is where this all started, show business, acting and so people are rather afraid one. to speak about a piece of publicity that has come out or a statement that has been made. you just go yes, absolutely, and wait for people to leave the room before you speak with your friends. and i've never experienced that in my entire 60 years on this planet -- this feeling that -- and i not characterizing am feminists as east german, but with listening, you better be careful, there -- they are listening. it is worrying. the sexual misadventures is a and these worries are not solved. >> let's bring jordan in on this because you have written and commented a lot.
[applause] >> well, i think i'm going to point out two things. first, my question about when the left goes too far still has not been answered. the second thing i am going to point out is it is conceivable that i mean man. am a maybe i am meaner than some people and not as mean as others, i think that is probably thinkhe case, but i 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 possibly have happened. [applause] may i respond? imagine the hurt, the anxiety, the insult that you might genuinely feel, according to
what i felt was an appropriate comment at the moment, a description but imagine now, those hurt feelings -- >> not hurt. [laughter] >> ok, you feel great about it. >> i am not a victim. >> ok, what is interesting is whatever nontraditional feelings atempathy that you endured this point, the point is imagine then the horrors that others 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. you are not my inquisitionor. 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 man, white man, well, what is
interesting is that you may have felt you were ascribed to group identity, which you do not subscribes, and you may have felt you were unfairly judged according to your particular race, you may have felt your individual identity was besmirched by my characterization of you, all of which qualifies 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, people of color, first nation people and the like. my point simply has been the reason i talked about race in that particular characterization is because there is a particular way in which i have come to a city -- i do not know if there are a lot of black people out here, i am not sure -- but i constantly come to places that are not my natural habitat, other than intellectual engagement and the love and fury of rhetorical
engagement, yes, but i often go into hostile spaces where people will not vote in favor of my viewpoint because i'm interested as an individual and breaking down barriers, so people can understand how complicated is. iat i am saying to you is would invite you, to give a specific response, come with me to a black activist church. come with me to a historically black college. come with 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 other'' pains equally to the one they are presently enduring. [applause] as a human being i love you as a brother but i stand by my comments. >> i've seen the things 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 with regards to oppression. you don't know anything about me. >> you ask me a question, i gave you the response. >> you gave me a generic response. >> it was tailored to you. jordan peterson, i would like you to go with me to an historically african-american church. >> i would like to do that. >> i will hook you up. >> one more quick round and we will go to closing statements. i would like to get your response to why, a 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. that was a movement that 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 and communities 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 -- [laughter] [applause] i said it was slippery. it would be interesting to hear and talk about race, gender, and equality. it is something i have thought 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 theression of language and closing down, the rationalist idea that seems beguiling 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 orwell's new speak, for example. it seems to me as something that is implausible. it doesn't work.
that's what i mean by empirical. it doesn't stand an empirical test to validate it. as we see from the political landscape now, and i worry that we may in the future. so i'm disappointed the subject revolved just around academia, which is predictable because that is the sort of crucial in -- crucible which these elements are mixed, but in modest points, i have not heard from michelle or the professor what they think political correctness is. basically what they had talked is progress,ress and good on progress, but how it is that what we call political correctness, you call progress. that is what we are supposed to be arguing. i want to know what you mean by political correctness? [applause]
said, the reason a few months ago, you contacted me and we talked about the debate on identity politics and you presented a resolution. i said, there are a lot of things people called political correctness that i will not defend. i realized to i was evading and saw there were a lot of things that you call medical correctness that i called progress. to some extent, u2, stephen fry, that when -- stephen fry, when you talked about there should be no tearing down statutes and we should be throwing eggs at them. youe sorts of things, if call them political correctness, i called them progress. the feeling of being silenced, which i understand although it feels vague. you are not putting your finger silencing you except
for a day fear that if you say something, you are going to be the subject of -- >> [indiscernible] [laughter] >> i am scared. the point. what i am saying is that it is a feeling that is a result of this intangible result. >> we have all seen the show trial thing with a person them -- with a person then apologizing, i have so much to learn, i am really sorry, signed by the lawyer, costing out -- crossing out the name of the person. 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 not so cutting -- cunning and smart and so aware of our shortcomings. i fear that political
correctness is a weapon they value. the more we tell the world help -- how people and language should be treated, what actions acceptable, what hr meeting will tell you in a long list about how you look at people -- all of this is meat and drink to bad actors. i mean, bad actors in the other sense, not myself. [laughter] [applause] >> like i said, there are a lot of ways in which i agree with you. hearugh, i would like to you say what are the words that thatfalling into disrepute we should be resurrected. this is the area of hotly
contested social change right now where a lot of people feel, -- >> they are charting a stick slogans. they are just an insult. imagine you are a young student and someone is bombarding you with this preposterous nonsense from misread textbooks. we had a french phase in literature at cambridge, and there is value in that. it is interesting, and it is, but just really to say, the fact that you do not get the degree is nothing, but you never acquired what is sometimes called the university manner. oscar wilde said, i take that to
mean that ability to play gracefully with ideas. think that is disappearing from our culture and i think it is terrible. [applause] >> it is hard to beat a self-deprecating englishman. >> you have no idea. >> but i have a pretty good idea here today. what is interesting is i do not us have- and all of studied history -- these debates about political correctness happening when people were in absolute power. it becomes an issue, and what i mean by that is when people who used to have power, who still
have power but think they do not, get challenged on the little that they have and do not want to share, all of a sudden, it becomes an exaggerated grievance. the things that you name, the bullet points and the patriarchy, and that resurgence, and the interrupted knowledge and deconstruction, all of that it portrays what is still going on with french fries in america, but what is interesting is i did not hear many complaints of political correctness at the height of the dominance of one group or another, but when martin luther king junior who argued for a black personas to provide an opportunity for individual black people to come to the floor, they began to make that claim. they did not call it political correctness. you are siding with those who are against free speech.
you are siding with those who do not want me, as a white person, to be recognized in my humanity. what i mean by political correctness is the politics that result in modes. they are articulated by certain people of power. at various levels that -- one of the beautiful things about fo ucault, a seaside power breaks out everywhere. i would think someone like you would appreciate this, 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 this empowered. what is more politically incorrect than a black baptists preachers identifying with a palestinian jew as a loving atheist? what is more politically correct than a black individual going on and defending his ability to have his show despite using 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. >> [indiscernible] lap --nt to sit on your do not get excited. what i am saying to you -- [laughter] >> i see how you have been looking at me. that whenteresting is we look at the way in which we have societies, free societies, when i look at what is seen as political correctness, it to me has been a massive jumble that has been carved together out of the politics of resentment in held powers that were once
are no longer held. freedoms must not be shared. i agree with both of my gentleman to my right, who believe that political correctness has been discouraged scourged but not necessarily in the ways that you think so. it has been so because those who have been the beneficiaries of privilege have failed to recognize their particular way. 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. that is all i mean. [applause] >> before we get a closing statement, the final words to michelle and then you, jordan. >> part of the frustration is that both of you have radically different ideas of what we are talking about when we talk
medical correctness. it seems to me you are talking about political correctness and feeling of anxiety a lot of you mean this people feel because we all live now in this terrible crowd sourced world, where you worry any straight phrase you under might be used to disdain you, right? i think a lot of people feel that anxiety. i disagree that that is something that is being solely perpetrated against those in the left-wing 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 think that there is a way in which when it comes, that a
makesn set of complaints you feel criticized and silenced, which is different than being silenced. you call it political correctness. i would like the culture to also be free wailing. you are not going to get the left to -- i do not know, they cannot put an end to this because it is much more of a mob social media phenomenon. really, the only way to break through it is to say what you are afraid to say. that is the only way to pop this anxiety ornd of this diffuse it a little bit. what i hear mr. peterson talking about as political correctness is something much more broad and
much more fundamental to social change. you are talking about you want me to define for talk about when the left goes too far and i certainly do not want to put words in your mouth, but if i hear you correctly, but you are saying is you want me to renounce marxist categories. >> it is up to you. >> i want you to define how the left goes too far, you can do it anyway you want. >> i have said i think it goes too far when it is violent or censorious and tries to shut people down or platform then, or when it acts violently. i am not sure what you expect beyond that? something deeper, how? >> to contend with the set of left-wing ideas that produced all the left-wing pathologies of the 20th century and define how you think standard, left-wing
thinking, which has a valued place, goes too far? since it obviously does. >> has the right gone too far? >> of course. >> how? about about switch -- how -- >> more reasonably, what has gone wrong with the right? >> i do not like identity politics players. i do not care about the left or right. i am no fan of the right despite the fact that the left with a to -- would like to paint me that way because it is more convenient. >> where have they gone too far recently? >> it has gone too far in europe. too far in charlottesville too , far in norway. how long of a list do you want, and why is that required? i was asking you a question. your assumption is that somehow i must be on the side of the
right. the right has not occupied social sciences and the humanities, and it had, i would be objecting it. the left clearly has. the evidence to that is overwhelming. >> what about iq testing in terms of genetic inheritance? >> sir, we are here to talk about political correctness and we have done it damn poor job. see, i gave you an answer and you cannot respond. >> we will put three minutes on the clock and go in reverse opening for closing statements. >> i have been fascinated by this conversation. there has been an enormous flash clash a conversation
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 an underestimation of the fact that language does affect people. it does make the young, in particular, as they start on their work careers or education, it makes them very anxious, very angry, upset, and alienated to feel that they do not know anymore how to operate in the world. how to engage in relationships. theyo think honestly, so accrete more and more to their own mini groups and i think it is dangerous and unhappy in society. i think it is reflected in the
positing of cinema, literature, and art and the culture , generally, and there is a fear that is pervading it. while people can talk to academia and say, you can see our lectures, they are free, i'm sure that is true. but i do not think we should underestimate how much this feeling is prevalent in the culture of this strange paradox. the liberals are illiberal in their demands for liberality. they are exclusive and their demands for inclusivity. they are homogenous in their demand for heterogeneity. they are somehow un-diverse in the call for diversity. you can be diverse but not in opinions, language and behavior. that is a terrible feeling. [applause]
i am sorry yout got heated in places because i was hoping it would not and it would be an example of how people of all kinds of political outlooks can speak with humor and wit, and a likeness -- and a likeness. it was said, angels can fly because they take themselves lightly. us,s important for all of privileged to be here, to take ourselves more likely and not --lightly and not too seriously and not to be too certain at a time where i think it is time for engaging emotionally, fulfilling, passionate, and positive doubt. that is what i would urge. thank you. [applause]
>> michael, i will put three minutes on the clock for you. your closing? >> thank you for the compliment. i am used to nonexclusively white men who see black intelligence articulated at a certain level feeling a kind of condescension. a verbal facility assumed to be a hucksterism, i have not seen that -- i get hate letters every day from white brothers and sisters who are mad i am teaching your children. you're trying to corrupt our children. you are trying to correct them. yes, so they will be uncorrupted by the credibility they have been inherited from a society that refuses to see all people as human beings, to death threats i have received first speaking my mind. it is not about a politically correct society that is
open-minded and has consternation about my ability to speak. i have death threats that talk about killing me, setting up to hurt and harmony simply because i choose to speak my mind. i agree with my compatriots that we should argue against the vicious limitations against speech. i believe that everybody has the right to articulate themselves and the enormous privilege that we have come to a spot in a space like this means we have that privilege and we should be responsible for it. no matter where we go from here, me and brother peterson will go to a black church, i will hold him to that. we are going to a black baptist church and have an enlightening conversation about the need for us to engage in not only reciprocal and mutual advocation but criticism, even hard and tough criticism, but in a way that speaks to the needs and interests of those who do not usually get on television, whose
voices are not usually amplified, whose ideas are not taken seriously. when i get to the upper echelons and 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. [laughter] just has to give an egg. the unique -- the pig has to give up his ass. for breakfast. we have often been the pig. with start sharing everyone. thank you. [applause] >> i am not here to claim that there is no such thing as oppression, unfairness, brutality, discrimination,
unfair use of power. anyone with any sense has known that hierarchical structures tilt towards tyranny and we have to be constantly wakeful to be sure that all they are is not power and tyranny. it is interesting to hear for co-refer to foucault refer to. he essentially believed that the only basis within which hierarchies were established were power, and that is part of this politically correct doctrine that i have been speaking about. when an hierarchy becomes corrupt, the only way to ascend it is to exercise power, essentially the definition of tyranny but that does not mean the imperfect hierarchies that we have constructed in our relatively brief countries, which at least tilt towards complements and ability, as
evidence of the achievements of civilization we have managed to produce, it does not mean that the appropriate way of diagnosing them is to assume that they are all about power and as a consequence, anyone that occupies any position within them is a tyrant or a tyrant in the making. that is certainly the fundamental claim of someone foucault, and this ideological catastrophe 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 talents of everyone and to discriminate against them for arbitrary reasons unrelated to their competence is a boring and has nothing to do with the issue at hand. it is not that good things have not happened in the past and should continue to happen.
that is not the the point is we point. can agree on catastrophe and we can agree on historic inequity but there is no way i am going to agree that political correctness is the way to address any of that and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary, some of which i would claim was displayed quite clearly tonight. [applause] >> i think one of the irresolvable issues we are coming up against is the role of feelings. us tory has asked recognize and empathize with this feeling of being silenced and threatened and i do. i get it. i feel it sometimes, too, in my columns. i hate it when i write something irate twitter mob
after me, but if i stood up here and said, 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 it women do not want the workplace to be sexualized, they should not be allowed to wear makeup. >> i did not say that. >> well, google it. if i say, i feel threatened, then, i'm being politically correct and hysterical. so much about the debate of political correctness and the condemnation of political correctness is about people saying, respect my feelings or accommodate my feelings and to
some extent, we can accommodate 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, 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 the primary spot. smear when these others groups that we can ask for us to take seriously their feelings of being threatened or 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 when they feel threatened or that their group
identity is at stake. as much as you want to blame the the rise of the rights, i think that when you say that rise of the right, the people who are questioning the fundamental ideals of pluralistic liberal democracy, the more those views are mainstream, the more people will shut down a response because they are actually scared. [applause] on behalf ofll, all of the debaters, we want to thank the audience. you were engaged, mostly civil. lots of uncivil ways in which we enjoyed. so on behalf of the debaters, thank you, ideas. it was a challenging topic. you did a great job. also, a big thank you to our debaters.
give regular speeches, but it is a different thing to come in front of a life -- live television audience and have your ideas contested in real-time. four -- to all four of you, thank you for accepting our invitation to come here tonight. [applause] >> a few final notes. first, thank you to the family.on and the munk we will do it all again this coming autumn. all of you have a valid in the hall to vote on your way out and we will have the results for you after 9:15. let's quickly review what your your opinions stood at the beginning of tonight's contest, what you call political
correctness, i call progress. 36% agree, 46% disagree. youaw a large percentage of willing to change your mind, so let's see how tonight's cut and thrust affected your boating. thoseve your ballots and we willatching online, have these results on our social media feeds around 9:15. enjoy the long weekend. thank you for coming out to the munk debate. [applause]
>> next, the first of two discussions on korea. shortly, future of u.s. forces in korea. at 2:00, the u.s.-north korea summit and if it will take place. heather wilson will talk about strengthening u.s. alliances. she is part of a forum on air force combat readiness and strategy. eastern,ing at 6:30 they look at race relations in
the u.s., hosted by arena stage in washington, d.c. watch our live coverage of the utah senator primary debate with mitt romney and mike kennedy, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and www.c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. >> commencement speeches this week in prime time. tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern,me too movement founder, starbucks coo, and nikki haley. wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton, rex to listen, james mattis, and justin trudeau . thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, tim cook, john kasich, kate brown, and congressman luis
gutierrez. >> on friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, jimmy carter, betsy devos, mark meadows, and atlanta mayor keisha lantz bottoms. this week in primetime on c-span and www.c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. >> sunday on "q&a," -- >> there is a huge psychological literature on wilson. i have read it, but i have a hime that it just reduced in to things i did not feel i could deal with on the strength of my own knowledge on the theory with his father, so some people have said that his stubbornness in later life was the reaction to
his father's strictness, and they can point to one story where his father made him revise a little thing he wrote a bunch sf times, and this subdivision are that wilson resented this, he was a good boy and put up with it. when you read every mention of his father, he never had an unkind word >> to say. a presbyterian minister. >> a presbyterian minister. >> tonight the koreare at economic institute, a discussion about the role of the u.s. military in south korea and how it could change if north and south korean leaders agreed to make these deal. the u.s. and south korea recently held their spring in military exercises involving 2000 troops according to the pentagon.