Placeholder Image

字幕表 動画を再生する

  • Okay.

  • Brilliant minds.

  • Even mediocre minds operate better under stimulus.

  • Canadian A visual is a Canadian, and you can't take someone.

  • Barack Obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through the Security Council and other incendiary.

  • You must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies.

  • Whatever you wanna call this system a Mafia state of feudal empire, it's a disaster for ordinary Russians.

  • Okay, brilliant minds, even mediocre minds operate better under stimulants.

  • Canadian officials is a Canadian and you can't take way.

  • Someone Barack Obama has systematically rebuilt the trust of the world in our willingness to work through the Security Council and other memory.

  • You must not talk to anybody in the world, any of our allies.

  • Whatever you wanna call this system a Mafia state of feudal empire, it's a disaster for ordinary Russians.

  • I think that's the kind of hypocritical argument that, if I were tiny, that find quite annoying for historical Chinese.

  • Foreign apology can be described if Barry and management, science and religion are not incompatible.

  • Religion forces, nice people to do unkind things are men obsolete?

  • My conclusion to this question is No, I won't let you be.

  • Show me to work.

  • Pretext!

  • I quoted them saying, Show me a free program.

  • You can keep screaming that and it doesn't change the point way.

  • Do not want sympathy.

  • We do not want pity.

  • We want opportunities.

  • It's an appalling slander to me, too.

  • The Muslim religion.

  • I never said the word Muslim.

  • In my culmination, it was a Muslim free fulminations.

  • It is that kind of restraint.

  • It is that kind of sober minded, sensible, intelligent foreign policy that Obama represents.

  • So I guess what I'm telling you is he sort of a closet Canadian.

  • Vote for him, for God's sake, Please, gentlemen, welcome.

  • My name is right.

  • You're Griffis.

  • Since my privilege to have the opportunity to moderates tonight's debates and to act as your organizer, I want to start by welcoming the North American wide television audience, tuning in right now across Canada on CPAC Cannons, Public Affairs Channel C span across the continental United States and on CBC radio ideas a warm hello, also to our online audience watching this debate over 6000 streams active at this moment on Facebook Live Bloomberg dot com and Monk debates dot com.

  • It's great to have you as virtual participants in tonight's proceedings and hello to You, the over 3000 people who filled Roy Thompson Hall for yet another monk debate.

  • Thank you for your support form or and better debate on the big issues of the day.

  • This debate marks the start of our 10th season, and we begin this season missing someone who was vital to this debate.

  • Siri's in every aspect.

  • It was his passion for ideas, his love for debate that inspired our creation in 2008 and it was his energy.

  • His generosity and his drive that was so important in allowing us to really win international acclaim is one of the world's great debating.

  • Siri's, his philanthropy, its legacy.

  • Wow, it's incredible.

  • Last fall, we all remember that $100 million donation to cardiac health here in Toronto, transforming the lives of tens of thousands of millions Canadians to come.

  • We're all big fans and supporters of a terrific school for global affairs on the U of T campus, represented here tonight by many students are in its master's program, Congratulations to you, and also in a generous endowment last spring to this Siri's that will allow us to organize many evenings like this for many more years to come.

  • Now, knowing our benefactor as we d'oh the last thing he'd 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, a great life and a great legacy of the late Peter Munk.

  • Bravo, Peter, Go Peter!

  • All right.

  • I know he would have enjoyed that.

  • And I want to just think Melanie Anthony Cheney for being here tonight.

  • Thio be part of Peter's continuing positive impact on public debate in Canada.

  • Thank you guys for being here tonight.

  • Now, knowing Peter is I did the first thing on his mind at this point in the debate would be right.

  • You're stop talking.

  • Get this debate underway.

  • Get our debaters out here.

  • Come on, get the show on the road.

  • So we're going to do that right now because we have a terrific debate lined up for you this evening.

  • So let's introduce First are pro team arguing for tonight's motion, be it resolved what you call political correctness I call progress.

  • Please welcome to the stage.

  • He's an award winning writer, scholar, broadcaster on NPR and sports networks across America.

  • Michael Eric Dyson, Michael Come on Out.

  • Michael's debating partner is also award winning author, she's columnist at The New York Times and someone who is gonna bring a very distinct and powerful perspective tonight.

  • Michelle Goldberg, Michelle, Come on out.

  • So one great team of debaters deserves another and arguing against our resolution, be it resolved.

  • What you call political correctness, I call Progress is the Emmy Award winning actor, screenwriter, author, playwright, journalist, poet and tonight debater.

  • Stephen Fry Stevens teammates, is a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, a YouTube sensation and the author of the big New International bestseller 12 Rules for Life.

  • Ladies and Gentlemen, Toronto's Jordan Peterson.

  • Theo.

  • Okay, we're gonna get our debate underway momentarily, but first, a quick check list to go through.

  • We've got a hashtag tonight hash at Monk debate.

  • Those of you in the hall and those of you watching online please weigh in.

  • Let's get your opinions going also, for those of you watching online right now, we haven't running pole WW Monk debates dot com ford slash votes reflect input.

  • React to this debate as it unfolds over the next hour and 1/2.

  • My favorite part aspect of the show, that was Peter's brilliance and creation.

  • We have our countdown clock.

  • What this does is it keeps our debaters on their toes and our debate on time.

  • So when you see these clocks on the screen go down to zero, I wanted you to join me in a warm round of applause.

  • And, uh, we'll have a debate that ends when it's supposed to end.

  • Uh, now, let's see.

  • We had our resolution tonight.

  • On the way in.

  • We have this audience of roughly 3000 people here in downtown Toronto vote on be it resolved what you call political correctness I call progress.

  • Let's see the agree disagree on that number.

  • 36% agree, 64% disagree.

  • So a room and play now we asked you how many of you were open to changing your vote over the course of debate.

  • Are you fixed?

  • Agree, disagree.

  • Or could you potentially be convinced by one or other of these two teams to move your vote over the next hour and 1/2?

  • Let's see those numbers now.

  • Wow.

  • Okay, Pretty open minded crowd.

  • This debate is very much in play.

  • And as per the agreed upon order of speakers, I'm gonna call in Michelle Goldberg first.

  • Michelle, would you like a sip?

  • But what are you gonna sip of water where you start calling Michelle Goldberg first for her six minutes of opening remarks, Michelle.

  • Okay, well, thank you for having me a CZ regular knows.

  • I initially bought a little bit at the resolution that we're debating because there are a lot of things that fall under the rubric of political correctness that I don't call progress.

  • I don't like no platforming or twitter or trigger warnings.

  • You're like a lot of middle age liberals.

  • There are many aspects of student social justice culture that I find off putting.

  • Although I'm not sure that that particular generation gap is anything is anything new on the record about the toxicity of social media?

  • Call out culture, and I think it's good to debate people whose ideas I don't like, which is why I'm here.

  • Um, So if there are social justice warriors in the audience, I feel like I should apologize to you because I'm probably not.

  • You're probably gonna feel like I'm not adequately defending your ideas.

  • But the reason I'm on this side of the stage is that political correctness isn't just a term for left wing excesses on college campuses or people being terrible on Twitter, especially, is 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.

  • Israel.

  • In The New York Times today, Mr Peterson says, quote the people who hold that that our culture is an oppressive patriarchy.

  • They don't want to admit that the current hierarchy might be predicated on competence.

  • That sounds particularly in scene to me because I'm an American and our president is Donald Trump.

  • But but it's an assumption that I think underlies worldview in which any challenges to the current hierarchy are written off his political correctness.

  • I also think we should be clear that this isn't really a debate about free speech.

  • Um, Mr Peterson once referred to what he called quote the evil trinity of equity diversity and inclusivity and said those three words.

  • If you hear people mouth those three words equity diversity and inclusivity.

  • You know who you're dealing with.

  • You should step away from that because it is not acceptable.

  • He argues that the movie frozen is politically correct propaganda, and at one point he floated the idea of creating a database of university course contents.

  • The students could avoid postmodern critical theory.

  • So in the criticism of political correctness, I sometimes hear an urge or an attempt to purge our thought of certain analytical categories that mirrors.

  • I think, 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 really think we're debating the value of the Enlightenment, at least not in the way that somebody like Mr Fry, I think, is a champion of enlightenment.

  • Values springs it.

  • The efforts to expand rights and privileges once granted, just tow landowning white heterosexual men is the Enlightenment or is very much in keeping with the Enlightenment.

  • To quote a dead white man, John Stuart Mill, the despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement.

  • I think that some of our opponents, by contrast, frame challenges to the despotism of customs as politically correct attacks on a transcendent natural order.

  • Um, to quote Mr Peterson again, each gender, each sex has its own unfairness to deal with.

  • But to think of it as a consequence of the shoulder of the social structure, it's like, Come on.

  • Really?

  • What about nature itself?

  • But there's an exception to this because he does believe in social interventions to remedy some kinds of unfairness.

  • Which is why in the New York Times, it calls for quote enforced monogamy to remedy the woes of men who don't get their equal distribution of sex.

  • Um, when it comes to the political correctness debate, we've been exactly here before.

  • Allan Bloom, the author of The Closing of the American Mind, compared the tyranny of feminism in academia to the Khmer Rouge.

  • And he was writing at a time when women accounted for 10% of all college tenured faculty.

  • It's worth looking back at what was considered annoyingly, outrageously, politically correct in the 19 eighties.

  • Last time we had this debate, you know, having to call or not being able to call indigenous people, quote Indians or having to use hyphenated terms, at least in the United States of terms like African Americans, you know, adding women or people of color to the Western Civ curriculum.

  • Not making gay jokes or using retard is an epithet, and I kind of get it right.

  • New concepts, new words sort of stick in your throat the way we used to.

  • Talking and thinking seem natural and normal, you know, by definition.

  • And then the new terms, new concepts that have social utility stick and those that don't fall away.

  • So if you go back to the 19 seventies, Miss Umms as an alternative to Mr Mrs Stuck Around and Women with A Y didn't, um and I think that someday I hope to Someday we'll look back and marvel at the idea that gender neutral pronouns ever seemed like an existential threat to anyone.

  • But I also don't think it's clear that, you know that might not happen, because if you look around the world right now, there are plenty of places that have indeed dial back cosmopolitanism and reinstated patriarchy in the name of staving off chaos, and they seem like terrible places to live.

  • You know, I come to you from the United States, which is currently undergoing a monumental attempt to roll back social progress in the name of overcoming political correctness.

  • And as someone who lives there, I assure you, it feels nothing like progress.

  • Thank you.

  • Great.

  • Start to the debate, Michelle.

  • Thank you.

  • I'm now gonna ask Jordan Peterson to speak for the con team.

  • Hello.

  • So we should first decide what we're 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 and we need a narrative to unite is because otherwise we don't have peace.

  • What's 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 because they can't encompass all the details.

  • Obviously, human beings have an individual element and a collective element, a group element.

  • Let's say the question is what story should be paramount, and this is how it looks to me 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 freer and functioning more effectively than any societies anywhere else in the world, and that and then any society's ever have.

  • And as far as I'm concerned, and I think there's good reason to assume this, it's because the fundamental low resolution grant narrative that we've oriented ourselves around in the West is one of the sovereignty of the individual.

  • And it's predicated on the idea that all things considered the best way for me to interact with someone else's individual, to individual and to react to that person as if they're both part of the process.

  • Because that's the right way of thinking about the psychological process by which things we don't understand can yet be explored and buy things that aren't properly organized in our society can be yet set right.

  • The reason we're valuable as individuals, both with regards to our rights and responsibilities, is because that's our essential purpose.

  • Announce our nobility, and that's our function.

  • What's happening as far as I'm concerned in the universities in particular and spreading very rapidly out into the broader world, including the corporate world.

  • Much too, it's, uh, much to what should be its chagrin is a collectivist narrative.

  • And of course there's some utility and a collectivist narrative because we're all part of groups in different ways.

  • But the collectivist narrative that I regard as politically correct is a pastiche of a strange pastiche of postmodernism and neo Marxism in its fundamental claim is that no, you're not essentially an individual, you're essentially a member of a group, and that group might be your ethnicity.

  • And it might be your sex might be a race.

  • And it might be any of the endless numbers of other potential groups that you belong to because you belong to many of them and that you should be essentially categorized along with those who are like you on that dimension in that group, that's Proposition number one.

  • Proposition Number two is the the proper way to view The world is as a battleground between groups of different power.

  • So you define the group's first, and then you assume that you view the individual from the group context.

  • You view the battle between groups from the group context and you view history itself has a consequence of nothing but the power maneuvers between different groups that eliminates any consideration of the individual at a very fundamental level.

  • And also any idea, for example, of free speech.

  • Because if you're collectivist at heart in this manner, there is no such thing as free speech.

  • It isn't that it's debated by those on the radical left and let's say the rest of us, so to speak.

  • It's that in that formulation, there's no such thing as free speech because for an individualist free speech is how you make sense of the world and reorganize society in a proper manner.

  • But for the radical left type collectivist that's associated with this viewpoint of political correctness, when you speak, all you're doing is playing a power game on behalf of your group, and there's nothing else that you can do because that's all there is.

  • And not only is that all there is in terms of who you are as an individual now and how society should be viewed, it's also the fundamental narrative of history.

  • For example, it's widely assumed in our universities now that the best way to conceptualize Western civilization is as an oppressive, male dominated patriarchy, and that the best way to construe relationships between men and women across the centuries is one of oppression of women by men.

  • It's like, Well, look, no hierarchy is without its tyranny.

  • That's a That's an axiomatic truth.

  • People have recognized that literally for thousands of years, and hierarchies do 10 towards tyranny, and they tend towards the use of patient by people with power.

  • But that only happens when they become corrupt.

  • We have mechanisms in our society to stop hierarchies from becoming intolerably corrupt, and they actually worked pretty well, and so and so I would also I would also I would also point this out.

  • You know, don't be thinking that this is a debate about whether empathy is useful or not, or that the people on the con side of the argument are not empathetic.

  • I know perfectly well, as has insured Mr Fridays that hierarchies tend to produce situations where people stack up at the bottom and that the dispossessed and hierarchies need a political voice, which is the proper voice of the left, by the way and the necessary voice of the left.

  • But that is not the same is proclaiming that the right level of analysis for our grand unifying narrative is that all of us are fundamentally to be identified by the groups that we belong to and to construe the entire world has the battleground between different forms of tyranny in consequence of that group affiliation.

  • And to the degree that we play out that narrative, that won't be progress, believe me.

  • And we certainly haven't seen that progress in the university's.

  • We've seen situations like what happened in Wilfred Laurier University.

  • Instead, we won't see progress.

  • What will Reese turn to is exactly the same kind of tribalism that characterized the left.

  • Thank you, Jordan.

  • Michael.

  • Eric Dyson.

  • Your six minutes starts now.

  • Thank you very kindly.

  • Wonderful opportunity to be here in Canada.

  • Um, thank you so much.

  • I'm going to stand here at the podium.

  • I'm a preacher, and I will ask for an offering at the end of my presentation.

  • This is the swimsuit competition of the intellectual beauty pageant.

  • So let me show you the curves of my thought.