“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. Continue reading »
As the last broadcast before next week’s Ontario provincial election, there is a sense of urgency in our sounding one last pre-election alarm about Ontario’s very alarming state of affairs. It is a situation not unlike that in many other jurisdictions around the globe.
What’s at stake is freedom itself, and freedom has no voice in the Ontario legislature, and a very limited voice in the current Ontario election as heard only through representatives of the Freedom Party of Ontario.
For those on the Right, Ontario’s political crisis boils down to one of IDENTITY. If ever there was a need to place ‘identity politics’ in a valid context, it is with regard to political parties. In particular, it is the failure to properly IDENTIFY Ontario’s Progressive Conservative Party as being on the Left, even as the party continues to be intentionally associated with values of the ‘Right’ by both the media and many ‘conservatives’ alike.
This is significant, because individual freedom itself IS a value of the Right, but the philosophy necessary to achieve individual freedom is not being either preached or practiced by any other party besides Freedom Party. Continue reading »
What 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 »
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 »
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 »
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 »
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.