Apr 192018
 

Mark ZuckerbergIn attempting to live up to the ideals of free speech and free trade, the complexity of achieving each soon becomes apparent. That’s because in practice, neither of these ideals literally exists – even in the Western nations that rightly hold them as high virtues.

Given the best of intentions, it is highly doubtful that Mark Zuckerberg’s recent grilling before a US Senate hearing committee will actually pave the way towards any guarantee of ‘free speech’ on Facebook. His hauntingly welcome acceptance of government regulation on ‘privacy’ issues that would affect how he runs his Facebook business model may well open the barn door to the entrenchment of regulated speech – by government.

Said Zuckerberg: “Our position is not that regulation is bad. I think the Internet is so important in people’s lives and it’s getting more important, the expectations on Internet companies and technology companies overall are growing. And I think the real question is ‘What is the right framework for this?’ not ‘Should there be one?’” Continue reading »

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 »

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 182018
 

“So we’re saying that” Jordan Peterson’s infamous Channel 4 interview with Cathy Newman is just one of the issues that John Otis and Scott (the Brick Wall) Williams-Oakes found was generating a lot of outrage. That outrage went both ways: those who were upset by Newman’s twisting everything that Peterson said to fit her own narrative, and those who were blaming Peterson for the vitriol and outrage aimed at Newman following her outrageous interview.

Also on John and Scott’s outrage meter this week are Ontario’s new minimum wage laws. These laws also generated outrage in two directions: the outrage expressed by the businesses forced to cope with the additional forced and artificial expense and the outrage felt by those angered when some businesses cut back on voluntary staff benefits in response.

Or how about the more fundamental and universal outrage felt by the Left who shout versions of ‘make the rich pay’ and argue that those who earn millions of dollars should be robbed because “no one works for $60 million.” Now that’s really outrageous! Continue reading »

Feb 152018
 

Nunes Memo

Hot on the heels of the release of the ‘Nunes memo,’ Salim Mansur once again joins us to share an insight that both explains the incredible significance of its release, and offers a ‘who’s who‘ behind the illegalities and corrupt activities orchestrated by the Democratic Party against Donald Trump.

The ‘Nunes memo’ is named after Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) in the U.S. Congress, California representative Devin Nunes.

His January 18, 2018 memo to that committee summarized an “investigation update” on “significant facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the DOJ and FBI and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle.”

The memo was declassified by the order of the President on February 2, 2018. As always, the devil is in the details and with Salim connecting the dots, the story that unfolds tells a tale that dwarfs the infamous Watergate scandal, a story that compelled then-president Richard Nixon to resign. 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.

Feb 042018
 

The Last Jedi

Just Right Media is pleased to introduce THE AGE OF OUTRAGE, “a conversational look at selected topics in the news that most anger people,” featuring hosts John Otis and Scott (the Brick Wall) Williams-Oakes.

From the theater release of Star Wars the Last Jedi to the protests in Iran, John and Scott demonstrate that there’s plenty for people to get outraged about.

Calling the latest Star Wars saga “the most polarizing and divisive film” of the Star Wars franchise, Scott cites those who hated the film because the plot does not move in expected directions, which apparently upset a sector of the established fan base. The controversy rages.

Another outrageous circumstance has been the “deafening” Liberal media silence about the implications of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Christmas vacation trip, which now has led to his being found guilty of conflict of interest ethics violations. Continue reading »