Apr 122018
 

affirmative consentWhat do ‘affirmative consent,’ ‘indigenous knowledge,’ and the trial of Bill Cosby have in common? In addition to being our discussion topics of the day, each controversy revolves around an epistemological war of words.

It’s a battle of definitions, as efforts to change or affect the social and political environment stretch beyond the political sphere. From the world of TV fantasy, monsters, and superheroes, to the real world that sometimes seems more unreal than the fantasies, the promotion of anti-concepts like ‘affirmative consent’ has already produced a host of real world injustices, not the least of which have been those directed at Bill Cosby.

Just as ‘social justice’ is not justice, so too, ‘affirmative consent’ is not consent.

And so too ‘indigenous knowledge’ is not ‘knowledge,’ particularly in the context of being used as an argument that ‘scientific knowledge is offensive.’ Nor are ‘indigenous’ rights true rights accorded to the individual. Yet these are the very things being asserted by Quebec’s indigenous leaders, at least two Quebec cabinet ministers, and several university law professors. Continue reading »

Mar 292018
 

social media

The term ‘social metaphysics’ was coined by philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand to describe the philosophy of those who regard the consciousness of others as superior to their own – and to the facts of reality. Fascinatingly, the term ‘social media’ appears to describe much the same phenomenon.

Having passed away long before the evolution of on-line social media, Rand could never have guessed just how literal and visibly explicit her description of a social metaphysician would become. “It is only a social metaphysician who could conceive of such absurdity as hoping to win an intellectual argument by hinting: ‘But people won’t LIKE you!’”

Our experience with posters to Just Right’s Facebook page regarding our past two shows offered us a glaring illustration of just how impossible it is to have any meaningful dialogue with social metaphysicians – in this case, with Progressive Conservative and Doug Ford (‘Ford nation’) supporters. Their blatant (and proud!) dismissal of unequivocally accurate facts, of history, and of ideas goes a long way in explaining many other negative observations increasingly being made about social media.

The recent controversy involving Cambridge Analytica’s use of Facebook’s database to spread false news to millions of people during election periods is merely one of many scams made possible thanks to social metaphysicians. Continue reading »

Mar 082018
 

Pouring Steel

No good deed goes unpunished, especially if that good deed results in a win-win situation. That’s the lesson being enforced by the City of London’s crackdown on one driver who offered inexpensive rides to cancer patients.

It all began when a story broke that the city had carried out a ‘sting’ operation and fined a volunteer driver for offering a personalized two-way transportation service to these patients – because she charged a nominal fee ($12) to cover her own expenses.

Though strongly supportive of the driver, the community’s collective outrage unfortunately became misdirected against bylaw enforcement officers who were merely acting in accordance with bylaws established by an elected municipal council. That rage should have been directed at the city’s controlled and regulated taxi industry, which is the source of the trade prohibition being forced upon each side – both the driver and the driver’s passengers.

Called a ‘good Samaritan’ by many, the anonymous driver (referred to as ‘Nancy’ in some media coverage) was praised for her selfless service to others. It was widely expressed that without people like ‘Nancy’ available for those in need, the needy would have no other affordable transportation options. The outpouring of support from Londoners was expressed through open-line calls, letters to the editor, complaints to city hall, and thousands of dollars raised through public funding drives. Continue reading »

Feb 252018
 

Outraged by a November 15, 2017 NBC News editorial, Danielle and Robert share their incredulous reactions to a Leftist’s view of ‘morality.’

Written by Travis Rieder, the headline reads “Science proves kids are bad for earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.”

“But morality suggests that we SHOULD have children,” responds Danielle, as Robert cites the continuing death cult philosophy spouted by representatives of the Left.

In conflict are two entirely polarized and opposite views of morality.

The Right view on morality and ethics was perhaps best expressed by Ayn Rand when she wrote: “… the standard by which one judges what is good or evil – is man’s life – or that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival…” Continue reading »

Feb 112018
 

Even though there was never any cited complaint or concern expressed, the Toronto District School Board last October declared the word ‘chief’ as being an offensive term directed against aboriginal peoples.

“The word ‘chief’ is the world’s worst slur ever,” sarcastically jokes Danielle in this conversation with Robert Vaughan. After all, “the word means ‘leader’ – someone of honor – like the Commander in Chief of the United States!”

Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised that at a time when Donald Trump is Commander in Chief of the US military, that the term ‘chief’ should come under attack. It is precisely because it is meant as a term of honor and recognition, that the word is being expunged from the Toronto District School Board’s lexicon of acceptable terms.

One word at a time, the social engineers of the Left are destroying the essential principles of epistemology and the objective meaning of words and concepts.

“It’s a slow process calculated to erode our ability to think,” warns Danielle.

It so doing, the steady drip of irrationality becomes the means of wearing down our ability to resist all of the chiefs at the Toronto District School Board and in government.

There can no longer be any doubt that “the chief concern” of those manipulating language through prohibition is to prevent objective and rational thought. After all, only in this way is it possible to prevent the possibility of thinking – or acting – in a way that is Just Right.

Jan 182018
 

Saul Alinsky

As the author of 1971’s Rules For Radicals, were he alive today, Saul Alinsky would no doubt be pleased to see his own radical views and tactics resulting in progress for those on the Left – particularly his beloved Democratic Party.

Some of the Alinsky symptoms:

  • increased violence during political rallies
  • the growing intolerance of differing views on campuses
  • the polarization of political forces along lines of racism and the haves and have nots
  • the manufacture of fake news, and much more
  • All of these symptoms reflect the “rules” outlined in Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Many attribute today’s decline in civilized political discourse directly to Saul Alinsky. His book has been often cited as a reason for the successes of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

    As we share the opinions of Dinesh D’Souza, David Alinsky, and Ralph Benko as heard during a July 20/17 C-SPAN debate about Saul Alinsky’s radical rules, the controversy begins with the book’s opening epigram dedicated to the “first radical” – Lucifer. (After all, it is to Lucifer’s kingdom that the Leftward road of good intentions leads.) Continue reading »

    Jan 112018
     

    The Know Ledge

    At what point does it become necessary to actually “know” things about certain issues or topics? When is it ok just to leave the details to the “experts“? It’s a practical question that is fundamentally based on individual responsibility.

    It is also a question that has bedeviled Professor Christopher Essex, theoretical physicist and mathematician with the Department of Applied Mathematics at Western University. As one of the pioneers of climate change computer modeling, his skepticism about the political climate that has arisen around this field of study has fallen mostly on deaf ears.

    Understandably, when it comes to the details of science and technology, most people will defer to the experts. But there comes a point when leaving it to the experts may in fact be quite detrimental to those affected.

    Having reached the point at which the responsibility to know falls squarely on those who need to know, a decision must be made. Shall we continue to rely on opinions and “expertise” that does not seem to be consistent or realistic, or shall we finally take the leap from the ledge of ignorance and embrace the technicalities of knowledge? Continue reading »

    Dec 072017
     

    Truth

    It would be nice to believe that the unjust and unfounded inquisition experienced by Teaching Assistant Lindsay Shepherd at Wilfrid Laurier University was an isolated and bizarre anomaly.

    Unfortunately, her experience appears to have exposed but the tip of a poisonous ideology now rampant in all of Ontario’s educational institutions. It is an ideology that holds unsubstantiated opinions and feelings as superior to facts and truth.

    Just ask our guests Dave Plumb and Paul McKeever, who both have witnessed this phenomenon first hand – though from differing perspectives.

    Like Lindsay Shepherd, Dave Plumb was an educational instructor / teacher who found his job threatened by an anonymous complaint. Like Lindsay Shepherd, Dave was being held accountable for the “feelings” of the unidentified complainant while simultaneously being denied any way of directly addressing the complainant’s concerns. Continue reading »