Munkying about, part II

As if I haven’t give the bugger enough space, there are just a couple more things I have to get off my chest.

            During the Munk debate of May 18, 2018, Jordan Peterson identified his evil trinity of the extreme left as diversity, inclusivity, and equality (of outcomes, as opposed to opportunities).

            I have to take issue with these benchmarks one by one.

            1) Diversity. He had the nerve to proclaim this in a great big hall in Toronto, one of the most diverse cities in the world. People from all over the world living side by side in complete peace. On what planet could this be considered a bad thing? But never mind ethnic diversity – diversity of anything, of language, of opinion, of dress, cuisine, art, tends to be an incredibly enriching, positive thing. How could this be considered an extremist or totalitarian situation?

            2) Inclusivity. Are we to take from this that “exclusivity” must be a reasonable state of affairs? We were taught in Kindergarten not to exclude anyone, not to exile little Johnny to the corner because we thought he was weird. We took this lesson into adulthood as we try to build (or at least idealize) a society where everyone is welcome. Sorry Jordan, not giving that up.

            3) Equality. Peterson took pains to differentiate equality of outcomes with equality of opportunity, which he admitted was “laudable”. He didn’t seem to notice that equality of opportunity was exactly what his debating opponents, Michelle Goldberg and Michael Eric Dyson, were clamouring for. What most movements are clamouring for. How can he call something a “laudable goal”, then denounce anyone trying to achieve it?

            But let’s look at equality of outcomes, which he insists is how equality is defined. My first question is “by whom”? Who made that declaration? I didn’t. Did you?  Let’s grant for a moment that this is how it’s defined, my second questions is: so what?

            Equality of outcomes may be impossible, impractical or dangerous, but I don’t think it’s the mark of extremism. Why not? Because it’s largely an abstraction. It doesn’t refer to any particular policy or program. Are we talking economic outcomes? Physical? Emotional? Sexual? It feels more like a caricature of an idea than an idea anybody seriously pushes for. It is something we can discuss, debate, and abandon drunk and happy afterwards. A person pushing for such a thing may be deluded or mistaken, but not necessarily an extremist.

            To determine if a person is an extremist, you don’t ask whether that person believes in equality of outcomes. You ask by what means they wish to achieve it. There is the acid test. A person pamphletting their neighbourhood trying to win it over to equality of outcomes may be a kook, but hardly a extremist. A person willing to bomb, assassinate, torture and kill, is. A person who would suspend habius corpus. A person who would burn books. These, I think, are much more useful warning signs than Peterson’s unholy triumvirate.    I can hardly believe I’m the first person to suggest them.

            More likely, Peterson has heard them and doesn’t like them. They’re not all-encompassing enough. They alone would not allow him to portray himself as a hard-done by martyr. They would have no cache with internet trolls. The problem is not that the left won’t lay down parameters for tyranny. It’s that it won’t accept his parameters.

            What would adjusting them cost him?

 

A letter to Thanos (because life has just been too serious lately)

Dear Sir,

I wish to discourage you most vigorously from your stated plan to destroy approximately half the living things in the galaxy. I think this is a badly short-sighted plan and bound to cause more harm than good.

Before I begin, I must assure you that I am not entirely unsympathetic to your concerns. Indeed, anyone who has been recently stuck in 401 traffic, or struggled to find a seat on the GO-Train would probably find themselves tempted by your plan. Yet at times like this it is important not to let our emotions get the better of us, and not do anything rash.

 To begin with, it is not your decision who lives and who dies. Every person has an equal right to live, and it is not up to you to decide which is which. You can decide for your fate, but not anyone else’s – if you’re concerned about overcrowding, you may start with yourself.

More importantly, you cannot be sure who you will be eliminating. There will be no guarantee that you would get the right half. You could be getting rid of some of the world’s best people, doctors and scientists and artists, and people who could do great good.

Furthermore, people are needed to run the world and organize the planet. It will fall into chaos if half of everyone just disappears. Schoolboards in Ontario are already having a devil of a time finding qualified French teachers as is. It is already next to impossible to get a human being on the phone when you ring any customer service department, and I am having a great deal of trouble finding a qualified electrician to rewire my home. Following your plan, there will be an even more acute shortage of supermarket cashiers, and I shudder to think what it may do to local garbage collection. Furthermore, there is currently an election going on in Ontario, and my party needs all the votes that it can.

I also suggest that you could not guarantee that your purge would not include my neighbour before he returns my rake, which he has had now since November.

You have probably not considered either, that your plan would place nearly impossible demands on this community’s funeral parlours, and lengthen their waiting lists intolerably.

But ultimately, it shouldn’t matter who is chosen for culling, as every person has a right to live out their lives and waste them in the manner they see fit. It would be an act of unspeakable barbarity and cruelty to simply murder every second man, woman, and child on the planet, especially before they’ve seen the new season of Doctor Who.

In hope that you will reconsider, I remain humbly yours,  

Steve AJ Dylan

Munkying around. . .

So. . .
I tried to sit down and watch the latest Munk debates:

https://www.munkdebates.com/The-Debates/Political-Correctness

I couldn't get farther than half way. It was too. . .hostile. I'm afraid it very much turned into what I was afraid it would: a no holds barred grudge match between four people arguing four different things. With the moderator egging them all on.

Perhaps, things transpired later that would change my take, or throw it out the window completely, but here's what I took from what I saw:

At no point was the supposed subject of the evening actually defined: what did any of them mean by "political correctness"? What was actually being debated?
Of the four speakers, I think Fry was closest to my own temperament and philosophy. But even he refused to explain what it was he was railing against, and how it differed from what the other speakers were discussing. 

But I think Fry, Dyson and Goldberg could have had a civilized discussion if not for:
Jordan Peterson.

So this is what the fuss is all about. This is the cult leader commanding the hearts and minds of millions (no exaggeration). I'd never heard him speak at this length before. 

At first, it's not hard to understand his appeal. He's a captivating speaker, almost hypnotic. He speaks softly, effortlessly and rhythmically, unfolding philosophical points like musical notes. Like a gentle piece of orchestral music, it almost lulls you in. . .until he gets to his point. Then like a sour note in the middle of the symphony, he dumps a cold bucket of water on the whole illusion.
Here's the thing: he says the right and the left are capable of tyranny. True. He says the parameters of right tyranny are fairly well demarcated. True. He says the parameters of left tyranny need to be demarcated. Also True. He says the left refuse to demarcate such parametres. Uhm. . .debatable. He says that Equality, Inclusivity, and Diversity are what demarcate that parameter. . .

Uhm. . .what???

Here the whole edifice comes down. He's set the bar for leftist tyranny so low that anyone of even mildly liberal sentiment is no better than a Pol Pot. In Peterson's worldview, there's apparently no distinction.

Whatever point you thought he was going to make, or wanted him to make, as you were lulled along by the pulse of his words, melts like a snowflake. It's not going to be a universal argument after all, but a strictly partisan one.

"If not diversity, inclusivity, and equality, how do we demarcate the too extreme left?" he asks. And then goes on to insist no one will answer him.

Oh for God's sake Peterson, can you be serious? It's when they refuse to recognize the sanctity of human life! When they're willing to torture and kill for the cause! When they use the end to justify any and all means, including brutality. When they refuse to condemn murder. When the reserve the right to cause harm and inflict pain. Surely these are demarcations any reasonable person can agree to, and surely I can't be the first person to mention them.

The problem is not that the left won't demarcate; it's that they won't accept Peterson's demarcations. And doesn't he just hate that!
Then he loses his professorial demeanour and starts pouting about his "white privilege", a phrase nobody else invoked up 'till then. The whole of Michael Dyson's eloquent denunciations of slavery and police violence went straight over his head: "never mind all that, what about my white privilege?"

As if it was all about him.

Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times spoke of "category creep", whereby (I think) categories become too broad and encompass too many people. It's a charge leveled against the left, whereby moderate conservatives are held to be no better than the Grand Marshal of the KKK. Some people fail to make this distinction, fair enough. But isn't it just as bad if not worse on the right, especially in the US, where calling for a health care system is a call for the GUlag? And doesn't it show up in Peterson, who's definition of the "sensible left" doesn't include anyone to his own left?

Peterson claims to be of the centre, but his venom is mainly for the left and his category of "excessive left" includes just about everybody on the left, so his message will be (and has been) most comforting to those on the right. You don't need to be a Bolshevik to refuse to buy it.

Meanwhile, the sleazy moderator egged and prodded everyone on so that the audience could have its bloodbath.
Peterson started smooth and elegant, but soon got shrill and petulant, like a whiny teenager. He may have picked apart the rather timid and nervous Goldberg (she got better), but he was no match for the majestic Michael Eric Dyson, who, frankly, tore him to shreds.

Still though, it was Fry I most related to. Despite his throwing away his decorum too early on (why Fry, when you were doing fine?). Make of that what thou wilst.