“Let it be resolved that what you call ‘political correctness’ I call progress.”
The Munk debate of May 18th, featuring Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry on ‘con’ side and Michael Dyson and Michelle Goldberg on ‘pro’ side, barely even touched upon the nature of political correctness.
Nevertheless, though the resolution was not really debated or discussed, the ‘con’ side of the resolution was certainly very clearly demonstrated.
In expressing their own frustrations about the tone and substance of the Munk debate, both Robert and Danielle are ‘certain’ about one thing – the whole discussion dissolved into a non-debate – one now seen by well over two million viewers.
As “an example of just how far ‘intellectual’ debate has fallen,” the racist name-calling and identity politics that constituted the ‘pro’ side of the resolution should require no further comment.
But more frustrating than this was the persistent and continual attempt by all four speakers to avoid being labeled ‘too far’ to the Left or Right. In so doing, they ‘resolved’ nothing, and ignored the glaring reality that the ‘extreme right’ being referred to in their discussion is in fact just another manifestation of the Left.
It’s amazing how much anything that can be described as ‘Right’ is so avoided by all – even by those who are right.
Given that no one directly challenged Stephen Fry’s assertion that it is a human failing to ‘want to be Right’ rather than ‘effective,’ the Munk debate was very ‘effectively’ ended before it began.
Thanks to their mutual fear of ‘certainty,’ it was not possible for the Munk debaters to have the discussion that should have been Just Right.