Discussing the Munk Debate on Political Correctness

[ Sub-Title: A Perspective, a Thought, and an Opinion ]

Hello Gentle Reader

[ About The Debate ]

On Friday, May 25^th, Canada and the online world (who were aware) tuned in to see a debate presented by the Munk School of Global Affairs, about political correctness. The debate had two teams of debaters: (pro) Michelle Goldberg and Michael Eric Dyson; (con) Stephen Fry and Jordan Peterson. For those who have not seen it, you can find it on ‘youtube,’—but forewarning: it’s over two hours long, and I would be hesitant to call it a debate. If one were to be open and even honest (as two of the debaters were in the end) this was not so much a debate in the idealistic definition let alone a practical definition. Rather, the debate which you may choose to view or not view, was rather a heated exchange between two men primarily, which involved: personal insults, condescension, pontification, arrogant condemnation, and as usual with debates a personal exchange of views which veer off the topic of the actual idea or issue, which many had desired to see being discussed, but instead spiraled down into racial batting on one end, and on the other, pompous self-absorbed proclamations of the others inability to see beyond their nose. It’s not the most exciting thing to watch; in fact it’s more a quick digression which is perhaps more reflective of the usual Christmas Day dinner table political debate, which ends in hurt feelings, resentment, and a rather uncomfortable and awkward remaining evening. In other words: consider yourself adequately forewarned. 

[ What is Political Correctness? ]

Sadly, political correctness as a topic was only superficially discussed during this debate. When it actually was discussed (with some sense of civility and decorum) it was presented by: Michelle Goldberg and Stephen Fry. Everything else was a personal battle of insults and digressive comments aimed and fired by Michael Eric Dyson, and in retaliation by Jordan Peterson. So in the end what is political correctness? Some have it called it a millennial perspective that promotes censorship, limits freedom of speech, and seeks to essentially collar and gag (and not in the kinky way) the modern, rational, and free individual from thinking, speaking, acting and expressing themselves as they see fit. Others, however, view political correctness as an engaging tool and term (now with open promotion with social media) to help push for progress, push for change, and create substantial social adjustments for human rights. The actual definition of political correctness is as follows:

“Political Correctness – [Noun] the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.”

Or if that definition is offensive, the Cambridge Dictionary offers the following definition(s):

“Politically Correct – [Adjective] Someone who is politically correct believes that language and actions that could be offensive to others, especially those relating to sex and race, should be avoided.

[Or]

“A politically correct word or expression is used instead of another one to avoid being offensive.”

Given the three definitions of what political correctness is, the main goal of the idea or the concept or the ideology is: is it is the use of language or action that is edited or refined or an action which has been halted or refrained, due to the fact it may cause offense to a minority group, or a group who feels or perceives itself as being marginalized, in comparison to the majority. What or who is the majority? Apparently the majority Gentle Reader, is: white heterosexual men. If you are not a white heterosexual man, you are not discriminated against, you are not harassed or persecuted—in fact you are: privileged or princely or honoured or given advantages, based on gender, race, and sexual preference. Fate or the luck of the draw or genetics perhaps, has decided to shine on that individual and has graced them with these three most essential skills for being successful in today’s modern and progressive world. The privileged white gentile heterosexual man will be first in line for all: jobs, homes, cars, and other luxuries, based on these qualifications. Everyone else? They have to scrape, work, persevere and prove they are just as deserving for these necessities and luxuries, because they are not a: white, heterosexual man. They are not by admission: privileged. Seeing, however, the white heterosexual man is privileged and placed on given a social advantage, he must be cognizant and aware of how he: behaves, acts, speaks, and expresses himself, out of fear he will offend the much larger minority. The request itself sounds like: self-censorship, which I take issue with. Being offended is an aspect of life. Everyone will be offended, everyone will be discriminated against (even the white heterosexual man), everyone will experience inequalities, or an unfairly dealt hand. Some, however, will be fortunate enough to deal with them on a minimal scale, while others; will be forced to endure them on a more reoccurring basis. Political correctness, however, in its conception (roughly) has sought to mitigate or lessen the reoccurring and continual assault of discrimination against, those who experience on a more frequent basis. Political correctness, as it stands, has attempted to relieve and reconfigure social and societal conventions—linguistically and physically ||OR|| psychologically and sociologically—to lessen and create a more fair, understanding, and comfortable environment for all individuals who exist and co-exist within that environment. One can go a step farther and state: the ideal goal of political correctness is to remove all social barriers and blockades, surrounding discriminatory practices (external or internal), where all members of a society have the right to pursue equal opportunity be it economic or educational or health care related (et cetera). In essence if one wishes to look at the idea of political correctness through these lenses: it’s essential seeking to enact principles and ideals of socialism or perhaps more moderately social democratic institutions and on the extreme side communism. But, it does not seem like the political correctness is interested in enacting a more socially engage or equal playing field with regards to economics or education or health care; but rather it is more interested in turning society into this inoffensive ‘safe space,’ for all people to live, free of being offended by language or behaviors that have been redefined or propagated or proliferated as inconclusive or inadequate or combative of this ‘safe space.’ The goal is: the limit/mitigate and ultimately end offensive language, behaviours, conducts and perspectives, through renovated social norms, will create a society or environment where no one is offended or subjected to offensive behaviours. As a pragmatist and a realist: this is neither plausible nor possible. Emotional reactions and responses (‘feelings,’) are not empirical, they are not definitive or logical or straightforward. Somehow, someway, somewhere: someone will be offended. That is life.

Every day when someone watches the news, reads the news, or scrolls through some form of social media or wherever else they get the news (the stalls in the public bathroom are not reliable), they will inevitably see a world in duress and chaos, one that continually risks on a moment’s notice to falling to pieces. In recent memory we have had terrorist attacks, school shootings, sexual assault allegations and accusations, government’s failings, a royal wedding, global disasters, political upheaval, civil war—the list is endless, and quite frankly it is offensive(!)—thankfully though one has options and abilities: they can (a) change the channel or (b) turn the television off or (c) stop reading or (d) go to a different website. There is a wonderful individual and biological component about being a sentient human being, who has consciousness, who can exercise their own agency and autonomy by removing themselves from the equation which only equals their offensive manner. I mean I am a bit disappointed today, with the state of how the news is delivered. It’s a steady diet of hell. Where are those feel good stories?, such as: puppy saves a kitty from burning house fire; or Timothy successfully climbs out of a well. Now day’s it’s: puppy saves a kitty from burning house fire, only to eat the kitty; or Timothy successfully climbs out of a well, only to be pushed back into well by his evil tweeting twin Trump. There is no sun; just the piss and pour of dour rain. Thankfully though, I as a rational and logical human being often decide by choice, not to fixate on these events or allow them to consume a great deal of my attention. However, they do—by osmosis or collective societal social anxiety—become part of one’s own mental state in some manner or another. You see a hundred videos or snippets of police officers assaulting people, and you become concerned and even frightened by the idea of a police officer approaching you, even when all they want to do is ask you directions; or you’re worried about entering and shopping at Wal-Mart due to some vigilante loss prevention officer will chase you down into the parking lot and begin unlawfully assaulting you and attempting to falsely imprison you. If anything a media saturated world has created to a degree, this strange pantomime existential crisis of perpetual fear. So fearful in fact, that entering and shopping at a Wal-Mart makes me wish I had a therapist. Wal-Mart satire aside, this is not entirely the fault of political correctness. In some ways, however, it is.

It is not possible or probable or profitable or plausible to build an offensive free world. For generations people have worked on behalf of others—be it: children, religious groups, families, and now minorities—to provide a safe or offensively mitigated environment or entertainment free of offensive language, behaviour, or actions. Before HBO and Netflix, you couldn’t say a multitude of words on television (the big one being FUCK), in the eighties, the FCC wanted censor or ban or whatever, music which they saw as offensive or inappropriate to the youth of the time. A compromise was reached (and is more a badge of honour) placed on CD’s was: “Parental Advisory. Explicit Material.” This was done in the name of youth and families, and to save the good old nuclear family unit from the corrupting influence of heavy metal music and rap music. Before this it was rock’n’roll and the Beatles, before that it was Elvis Presley, and before that it was Jazz; and once again the list goes on and on. The end goal: to create (or save) someone from the corrupting influence of another, by applying essential censorship. This can go back to the beginnings of science and the church, fighting over absolute universally defined and accepted truths—such as whether or not the earth was the centre of the universe (or flat) or if the earth rotated around the sun.

Political correctness, however, always attempts to reaffirm and ironically, comfort and quell these criticisms by stating, they are not interested in censoring people or writers or musicians or artists or intellectuals or scholars or scientists—they merely wish to have the world progress beyond its current state of postmodern fragmentation, and create a world based on equality on a social level, which is free from derogatory (offensive) language, actions, behaviours, thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. What I still hear is: censorship. Political correctness, ideally has confessed or eluded to advertently or otherwise, admitted it seeks to have individuals in society self-censor themselves in order to avoid and evade causing offense to another person—specifically a member of a minority group or collective. One of the greatest principles I stand by as an individual, who apparently is privileged and lives a rather decent life (not easy, however) that one of the most important values which came from the Enlightenment Era, which spurred and has developed modern day democracy—with tweaks here and there—is the statement by Voltaire:

“I don't agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

As frightening as that sounds, it means despite my vehement disgust against racism, sexism, heterosexism, misogyny, misandry, ageism et cetera—people have the right to say it. They have the right to open their mouth and insert foot. Though I publicly denounce and will state it openly on the street that I disagree with their comments, I also inherently recognize that the individual has the right to state their contorted opinion or perception, however, unintelligible it is. I also reserve the right to walk away from that person and not engage them. I also reserve the right Gentle Reader, not let myself become offended. Always consider the source and how microcosmic and myopic it is, when compared to the macro surroundings. I believe people have the right to speak freely and the right to be offended freely, but we do not reserve the right limit ones freedom to speak when we choose or have become offended.

[ An Issue With Social Justice Warriors ]

Perhaps nothing is more nerve grating right now then the social media driven, social justice warrior. Yes those young, millennials, who have been indoctrinated by either friends, he internet, or school, or god knows what else—now feel the need it is their divine or otherwise inherent right, to fight over every issue they see as a social injustice. This includes but is not limited to: racism, sexism, heterosexism, islamophobia, Antisemitism (though on conditions), decimation of mental health and so on. I have profiled the social justice warrior as the following:

These are the strangest creatures to have come into social being of recent memory. Their smug self-importance is only rivaled by their self-serving sanctimonious conduct. These individuals view the world in a perpetual state of progressive purgatory. Armed with smartphones, twitter feeds, Facebook, Instagram, forums, websites, vlogs and blogs, as well as self-righteous fiery swords of fury; they seek out with vigilante vigor, the evil villains and perpetrators of people who willingly transgress against the ideas, concepts and ideals of political correctness. These villains refuse to acknowledge progress, they are agents of regress. They wish to either maintain the current status quo or worst push society back. These people—as the social justice warrior would claim—are supporters of slavery, serfdom, no equal opportunity, racism, and religious persecution; to list a few of the laundry list of charges. So what does the social just warrior do? They confront—or shame—and call out this person, their personal viewpoints, perspectives, opinions, and thoughts, and demean, attempt to humiliate, and strike down with this offender with their smug sanctimonious self-righteous haughty and arrogant manner, where they seek to forcefully harass the individual of the opposing viewpoint to make the appropriate adjustments in personal revelation, by publicly decrying and harassing them, before removing the saintly bleeding heart, and expressing their offense and their sensitive morality. All the while this is tweeted, recorded, vlogged, blogged, instagramed, and the rest of the social justice warrior community responds with equal rioting outrage, expects and implores the rest of society to be bamboozled and baffled and then outraged alongside them.

When I see a social justice warrior (and I do see them) I am always think of a chicken who believes it is somehow tapped into some universal divine thought, and believes it has awakened from its postmodern programming, and has seen some grander veracity beyond the tip of its beak, and begins to pontificate and cluck, usurping and upsetting the other chickens who in turn become some disorganized rabble riot of chickens clucking, but view themselves as a collective group of revolutionary who must spread the gospel of progress and political correctness. Prescribed advice: do not take them seriously and do not engage.

Perhaps the greatest failure on political correctness is the gospel according to the social justice warrior. Being offended and overtly sensitive does not equate morality. Shutting down and disrupting public discussions, speakers, and lectures, because you view them as regressive or offensive or socially inflammatory or unacceptable, is not taking the moral high ground nor is it act of intellectualism or having enlightened manners. To put it frankly: it is censorship, and a lack of self-control and self-awareness, to be able to take hold of your own autonomy and agency and respect another individual’s perspectives, opinions, and thoughts by allowing them to speak. If liberalism was once the idea of freedom, moving the world away from serfdom, feudalism, slavery, and other great advancements since the Enlightenment era; then the social justice warriors gospel and actions have been a complete breakdown and digression, where they wish to silence and restrain contrary opinions and thoughts of others, without having a debate (and no chanting repeatedly and filming yourself screaming and interrupting an opponent is not a debate). All the social justice warrior has sufficiently done has misapplied political correctness in any moderate or progressive terms, and contorted it into some juvenile propaganda based ideology based on language, and created a busybody—and ironically some would say: created a hostile (or unsafe) environment—where they reserve the entitled thought that they can openly accuse and convict others of being: insufficiently liberal or insufficiently progressive or fascist or a misogynist or a racist or a heterosexist or a transphobic individual; the list is endless. As a individual who identifies as a moderate liberal and more specifically a centrist on the political spectrum; I resent, refute, and disregard this entitled thought process that they believe they have the right to preside, judge, and convict me because I choose to disagree with their extreme perspective, because I stand on true liberal grounds, true liberal philosophies, and even true liberal ideologies, where I believe one can have freedoms—such as the essential one of speech—without consignment and without concessions. Partial freedom is not freedom. Rather partial ‘freedom,’ is merely the illusionary idea of freedom, presented in an authoritarian society. Social justice warriors are not interested in preserving freedoms, they are not interested in promoting rights, they are not interested in protecting people; they are solely concerned with defending feelings, and have decided and aggressively fight to continue to propagate this notion about defending feelings in this world, because somehow feelings all of a sudden matter—as long as they are the right feelings. Let me tell you something: the person walking down the street, the person sitting next to you on the bus or the train or the plane or in a cab, or at a hockey game or in a theatre or at a library cares or regards your feelings as having any worth—and frankly nor do I; and by the same logic no one regards my feelings as having any worth either.

One of the biggest issues social justice warriors have with regards to contrary thoughts and opinions is they lack the ability to listen. They lack the ability to listen, process, understand, and in return communicate their disagreement in a polite, civil, and graceful manner---but accuse everyone else of perpetrating and exhibiting these faults. How can you disagree with someone when you refuse to listen? How can you disagree with someone when you censor them? When you shut down their ability to host or have a public discussion or give a lecture? If you so strongly disagree with them, why is it impossible to be civil and hold yourself with the social grace, and debate them? Why must it always revert to accusations and harassment? Why must it take the form of poor chants, and disruptive behaviors? That is not debating in intellectual spirit, that is not communicating, that is not having a discussion or a conversation, that is being inflammatory and petulant, and quite frankly you may find yourself lacking the appropriate maturity to engage on any level of intellectual candor and communication due to your own stunted maturity to realize that there is a grander world out there beyond yourself, where other people are going to disagree with you—that is a fact of life—and if you cannot handle that, due to your lack of maturity or overt sensitivity, you are going to have a very difficult life. As someone once told me: when life gives you lemons you can either make lemonade or suck on it—but you do not reserve the ability or the entitled perspective to accuse someone else at being fault for being tossed lemons, opportunity exists, you just need to make it work.

It should be noted: that people have the right to proclaim strange, outlandish, provocative, and even cruel perspectives, thoughts and opinions. This should be left alone, whether or not you agree with it. As Fran Lebowitz stated, if she was in college and a Nazi was to present or lecture there, she wouldn’t go to the lecture; but she would not seek to stop it from happening, because it is important to let stupid people speak, so others can see how stupid they are, and of course prey and engage on the good nature of rational thinking of other people who believe it, to realize their thoughts and opinions and perspectives, are a bit out of touch with the world. Silence and censorship only creates reactions; and those reactions are sometimes more frightening and disturbing then we originally thought possible. For that I say: thank-you social justice warriors for creating a renewed, renovated, revitalized and reactionary far right, who find themselves spewing racism, sexism, heterosexism, and many other regressive comments, in order to refute, contest, and negate your ideals of censorship and your adamant desire to protect feelings in this world.

The rise of the reactionary right has only come from political correctness and its Sturmabteilung social justice warriors. It is one of the reasons it led to Donald Trump to use populism to get elected as he was able to tweet, orate, and say the nastiest, vicious, and hidden sentiments of the people who found themselves silenced and censored by the oppressive cloud of political correctness and social justice warriors. This is why see racism becoming more rampant; or sexual abuse or assault or sexism more prevalent; or why we see homosexuals once again being persecuted and demeaned by their nature. All because one sect of the political spectrum has decided to take it upon itself, to force feed acceptance and tolerance on to others, under the threat of punitive action, which has led to a militarized force which now propagates contrary and controversial statements that carry regressive components, while flying the banners of freedoms of individuality of absolute rights and discretions—the very same principles centuries before liberals had fought for. How frightening and even peculiar it is to see this slightly odd change of stances. But it comes down to the fact that political correctness, has attempted to institute social conventions which seek to ensure individuals, groups, and people edit, censor, and redefine their language, actions, opinions, thoughts and perceptions to ensure they do not cause offense to another individual or more specifically: myself [referring to a political correctness proponent or social justice warrior]. It has subsequently limited the exchange of ideas and ideals, and now it has forced a reactionary right to pick up that mantel, and twist that message into its own vitriolic statement(s) and ideals, only to combat the social justice warriors, and ironically, defend (on a superficial scale may I add) fundamental and monumental rights and definitions of freedoms which exist and belong in a democratic society.

A bit of wisdom for the social justice warriors as well: you must be open to all opinions, thoughts and perspectives, however contrary they are to your own; because having a diverse pool of knowledge or material at your disposal to work with, to understand, to empathize with, and to consider when forming an opinion, and becoming political literate, which means: being able to consider, review, ponder, and eventually concede or refute to the other side on certain issues. All because if you do not have disagreements, reasonable debate, and rational conversations: you are a one-sided fool.

[ Political Correctness & Social Movements: Do Not Supersede Established Institutions ]

In an opinion piece for the Globe and Mail, titled: “Am I a bad feminist?,” Margaret Atwood reflects, considers, and refutes the notion and the criticism presented to her by apparent new age or contemporary feminists or neofeminists, that she is a ‘bad feminist.’ The statement (or question) will most certainly raise eyebrows. If it is one thing Margaret Atwood, has always been referred to as (besides a poet, novelist, academic, intellectual, public speaker et cetera) is that she is a feminist. She has been criticized for it and satirized for it; which Atwood points out in her opinion piece, where she mentions a cartoon done up of her early on, dressed up as a dominatrix (whip boots and all), or in another cartoon standing on a pyramid of the decapitated heads of men. This time, however, it is not men who are scared or lambasting Margaret Atwood, it is women, who have stated that Atwood is a perpetrator of a War against Women; that she condones misogyny, and enables rape and sexual assault. All because Margaret Atwood viewed injustice and unjustifiable treatment of a former professor at UBC, who stood accused of sexually assaulting or coercing his female students into sexual engagements. Margaret Atwood makes it clear from the start of her article:

“My fundamental position is that women are human beings, with the full range of saintly and demonic behaviours this entails, including criminal ones. They're not angels, incapable of wrongdoing. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system.

Nor do I believe that women are children, incapable of agency or of making moral decisions. If they were, we're back to the 19th century, and women should not own property, have credit cards, have access to higher education, control their own reproduction or vote. There are powerful groups in North America pushing this agenda, but they are not usually considered feminists.

Furthermore, I believe that in order to have civil and human rights for women there have to be civil and human rights, period, including the right to fundamental justice, just as for women to have the vote, there has to be a vote. Do Good Feminists believe that only women should have such rights? Surely not. That would be to flip the coin on the old state of affairs in which only men had such rights.”

But to hold this position it seems in today’s world is inappropriate, unacceptable, and not politically correct, it is not true feminism now. Equal rights now must certainly mean one must remove rights from another group; in this instance: privileged white men; as their moral ineptitude, lack of ethical thought process, and sheer inability to control their loins and leanings, means they no longer deserve their freedoms and basic concepts of rights. Margaret Atwood takes issue with this. Equal rights for women, does not mean less rights for me. It means equal rights for both women and (as terrible as it must sounds) men. It means equal opportunity and equal social advantages. But the accusers of Margaret Atwood believe no one—or rather: no man—is allowed to experience or have the advantage of these rights at their disposal. In this case no man has the right to experience fundamental justice, including: the right of innocence until proven guilty.

The institutions of the courts, legal philosophy, legal precedence, jurisprudence, legal theories, and the very construct and concepts of the law—are above politics. These institutions that represent morality, ethics, and justice, are pinnacles of democratic societies; and thankfully (though at glacial paces—for good reason though), they do review and adjust to the changing social and societal environment in which they operate. This, however, does not mean that their principles, statutes, theories, philosophes and pillars of jurisprudence are pushed to the wayside either. Innocent until proven guilty, is a fundamental, monumental and spectacular pillar of the judicial system in Canada; and it is not discriminatory on any count. Evidence must be presented and reviewed before a court, before any verdict or conviction (be it innocent or guilty) is to be issued.

Social movements—such as the MeToo movement or political correctness—do not have the ability or the right or the entitled sense of self-worth, to supersede these institutions. They do not inherit or establish themselves as the newest legal fad, where they are able to preside over their own idea of justice, and administer it to anyone else. Their complaints, their accusations, their allegations, their concerns, their fears, must go through the appropriate channels, and this will include a formal investigation, as well as a formal review by the judicial system, which will examine the evidence presented, and cross-examine. The judicial system does not only prosecute, it defends—and social justice warriors take issue with the idea of fundamental ideas and concepts of defense during judicial proceedings. Before the MeToo movement took off as its brand of social media movement; in Canada there was a court case, where a CBC broadcaster, Jian Ghomeshi, stood accused of sexually assaulting women and aggressively portraying himself in a sexually inappropriate manner to women. His legal counsel was led by a defense attorney by the name of Marie Henein, who by doing her job as his defense attorney was tasked with examining the evidence and cross-examining the plaintiffs, with scalpel precession, to refute their claims. During this trial, Marie Henein became a centre of a social media controversy; she was accused of betraying her gender, and promoting sexual assault, misogyny, sexism and the degradation of women. Marie Henein was unjustly slandered, condemned, and yes, face unwarranted persecution reminiscent of a witch hunt; on the grounds that because she is a woman, she cannot or should not have defended her client, and she should have eschewed her professional principles, in order to comply with a still yet fetal social movement; but was still harassed, verbally assaulted, slandered, and defaced by social justice warriors, because she was a woman who was doing her job, but it was the complete contrary to their perspective of what justice looked like. Everyone in Canada (thankfully) is entitled for a fair trial; they are also entitled to have their narrative and story told in the court of law, which is free from external social and political interloping predilections; and of course they are presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law or a jury of their peers.

It is frightening, disgusting, and abhorrent to think, let alone witness, the sheer breakdown in rational thought, where people believe and promote that these cornerstones and principle pillars of a society, are wrong; because they believe it is based on the notion that justice, or equality, or fairness is based on gender, or sexual preference, or race, or creed, or source of income—this idea, this twisted and frightening ideology, is ludicrous. In fact its self-absorption to the point of: head up ones ass. How dare anyone think justice is conditional? How dare anyone think justice is to be selective? How dare anyone think legal principles and judicial philosophies should be based on gender or sexual preference, race, source of income, or creed? How can anyone think and believe that? Justice we are told is blind. Justice we are told is equal. Justice we are told is governed by its own strict conventions and statutes. Justice we are told is fair. Sadly in today’s world, social justice warriors and political correct proponents believe justice is only served in the trust terms of the idea, when it is in their favour. I do not accept or tolerate this view—and no it is not an opinion, it is a contorted and disturbing view. Justice goes two swings, like a clocks pendulum. Much like the pendulum is weighted one way or the other; so is justice and that is done by the trial and by proving innocence or proving guilt—beyond a reasonable doubt. If this simple principle is tossed out the window, then surely society will fall because it is no longer willing to accept the basic concepts and ideas of a true democratic governing society, when it cannot support or abide by its own pillar of judicial process. No social movement—be it MeToo or political correctness or feminism—has the right to supersede the established societal institutions such as the judicial branch of government and the courts. If you view them as unfair or unjust, you have the ability and the right to civil petition and work towards change via the established avenues and channels, however bureaucratic they are. Neither a tweet nor a troll should be allocated either the authority or the power to influence legislation or judicial proceedings; simply because it is popular on social media.

[ To Conclude ]

To be honest, the Munk debate about whether or not political correctness provided social progress, never really took place. The issue was barely discussed. In fact it almost seemed, like everything but the issue was discussed. I now have released my statements and my views and my thoughts on the idea, concept and ideal of political correctness and veered off into other areas. I will say, this has been an interesting and divisive subject. My research, articles I’ve read, there has been no real middle ground on the subject. Though I despise Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Bill O’Riely, Erza Pound, Jordan Peterson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Jason Kenney, and Doug Ford—I understand that it is important for them to speak. It is important for them to be able to express their views; even if I think they need professional help of a psychiatric kind. I also understand it is important to allow: Herta Müller, Janice Stein, Margaret Atwood, Fran Lebowtiz, Bill Maher, Stephen Fry, and Beverley Mclachlin, to speak and admire them for what they say. I don’t believe in making demands. I don’t believe in censorship. I most certainly do not believe that societal principles, rights, freedoms, and equality are conditional or based on consignments and concessions. It’s a frightening world Gentle Reader, one that has been pushed to polarizing dichotomous views, by what I would say is a minority on both ends. Where do moderate people exist? It’s hard to say. But I think they’ve done what we’ve always done: used our autonomy and agency and ability of a rational mind, to not engage on these issues or matters. Let them scream at each other, until their blue in face or knocked out on the ground. But keep an eye on them, as both sides: the politically correct social justice warriors and the reactionary right, are causes for concern.

Thank-you For Reading Gentle Reader

Take Care

And As Always

Stay Well Read

M. Mary


To watch the Munk Debate:

Political correctness: a force for good? A Munk Debate

To Read Margaret Atwood's Opinion:

Am I a bad feminist?