It’s worth checking out the YouTube video of this year’s semi-annual Munk Debate held in Toronto this spring. The proposition at hand: Be it resolved, what you call political correctness, I call progress…. For the pro position: Michael Eric Dyson, sociology prof from Georgetown U, and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg; on the con side, Jordan Peterson, psychologist and U of Toronto prof, and Stephen Fry, British actor and screenwriter.
The debate quickly beat a path to identity politics, which make up the actual substance of PC, itself only a method of conveying the substance. PC acts as a filter for sifting out thought that doesn’t conform to orthodox ideology, and for punishing those who dare to express the filtered-out ideas. So, PC only allows for a narrow range of expressed opinion on identity politics. PC is literally thought-policing. It’s hard to imagine anyone being in favor of that, which is exactly why PC behavior is so odious to those of us who value free speech.
The orthodox view in identity politics these days is that “white male cis-heterosexual patriarchal privilege” is responsible for the discontents of women and “people-of-color” — a squishy, mischievous category which obviously doesn’t count Chinese grad students at Harvard or the Asian-Indians in the Silicon Valley C-suites — and demands reparations of one kind or another.
The Law of the Jungle:…
Buy New $7.50
(as of 01:30 EDT – Details)
Mr. Peterson laid it out nicely: identity politics assigns everyone to ethnic, racial, and sexual groups, and all the human relations among them amount to never-ending battles for political power. Nothing else matters. Individuals especially don’t matter, only the group….