Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Peter Boghossian discuss political correctness and the lack of discourse it causes
 |
| Stefan Molyneux, Freedomain Radiohost |
 |
| Dr. Peter Boghossian, Atheist writer |
In this conversation, Peter and Stefan talked about how political correctness has degraded our ability to discuss real world problems, and look for the solutions to them.
We have become a culture that is terrified of offending anyone for any reason, whatsoever.
This has done us a major disservice, by burying the truth. We have become trapped in various ideological boxes, cut off from one another.
Reality is: The truth hurts. No matter where it lies, somebody will complain about it. I myself, have been hurt by the truth numerous times, but I have usually learned from it, and it has made me a stronger person. You have to tear down the muscles, to build them back up.
I would attribute this to my kitchen training, to some degree. You have to learn how to handle criticism in order to become better. In the long run, it's good for you.
Look at any great political/religious movement or activist, past or present. They will always/have always come under fire no matter what. Regardless of the person or message, they face opposition. As Molyneux said, "if you're not pissing anyone off, you're not doing your job right."
I think that it is important for me to differentiate here, between philosophy and ideology:
Philosophy: The search for truth, guided by principle and the examination of empirical evidence, using critical thinking.
Ideology: Adherence (often blindly) to a set of ideals, based mostly on emotion and prior prejudice. Ideology usually seeks an echo chamber to reinforce itself. (Example: Conservatives that only watch Fox and listen to talk radio, Liberals that only watch MSNBC, The Daily Show, and read the Huffington Post.)
These two men were comparing political ideology( in this case, feminism) to the fanactism that some religious people have for their religion
As an agnostic, I'm somewhat neutral on the topic as far as a religious view is concerned. The two men are atheists. However, I have a friend that is a devout Christian and still agreed with much of what they said, but more from a politcal and philosophical viewpoint. For the purpose of this blog, I will discuss it more as it relates to political views, particularly feminism.
Silence the oppostion
We seem to have reached a point, where people won't even consider views that are different from their own. Hearing someone out and opposing a view is one thing.... refusing to listen, or even consider that it might have some truth to it is far more nefarious.
The two gentlemen talked about how some people threatened to bomb a place, that conservative writer, and Fox contributor, Ann Coulter was due to speak at. There have also been cases of activists coming and simply blowing bullhorns so the speaker can't be heard.
This is absolute insanity. Dr. Boghossian even admitted that he is 100% opposed to anything that Coulter says or does. Regardless, she should be free to speak her mind. I'm sure that if somebody that those activists wanted to hear speak was threatened, they would be up in arms.
Freedom of Speech is meant to be universal. It is there to protect unpopular speech. If we started applying it selectively, based on the preferences of the people in power, this will lead us to a very dark place.
This kind of thinking has become more and more common, sadly. This borrows from the Saul Alinsky: "Rule for Radicals" playbook. Don't discuss things freely. Just slander, libel, smear, character assassinate, and do whatever else it takes to silence anyone that opposes you. Make them look so bad that nobody will even consider listening to them. This usually comes from people that make very weak arguments.
Cases in point:
A few months back, Peter Schiff was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, to talk about why he opposed a higher minimum wage. He was interviewed for over an hour, but the show only took 2-3 minutes of footage, which was edited out of context and re-arranged to make him look bad. The fact that they wouldn't even show him making his whole argument, kind of tells me that they had trouble opposing it. The supporters of the show wold argue that it is just comedy, but I know for a fact, that many of the viewers get their information from it.
Walter Block (a libertarian writer) was smeared by the NY Times. They tried editing what he said out of context to make it look like he said he supported slavery. What a joke!! I knew that they were up to no good, I just worry that the average person that reads something like that doesn't think twice.
Thomas DiLorenzo was invited on PBS to talk about his book "The Real Lincoln." The book got a mix of praise and criticism, for portraying Abe Lincoln in a more brutally honest way, unlike what we're taught in school. (By emphasizing that he was never for racial equality, and that to his dying day, he believed that the freed slaves should be sent out of this country.). The crew interviewed him for an hour, and edited it down to a couple minutes and presented him as saying that he said the exact opposite of what he said.
See what I mean?
Let me demonstrate how this applies to one of the myths that the feminists love to push.
The "Women earn $0.77 for every $1.00 worth of work that a man earns" myth
This myth has been refuted so many times, that its ridiculous. The feminists love to present it as "proof that women are discriminated against."
Now it is true that there men do on average earn more, however there are various economic reasons for that..
Thomas Sowell has studied this in depth for several years. He is considered "right wing", so if you don't trust him, here's another one:
Warren Farrell, (despite being a man) was elected to the NYC branch of the "National Organization of Women", a whopping three times. Farrell wrote a book detailing this subject, and a former NOW president and current discrimination lawyer, Karen DeCrow wrote the forward to it. She even said "Men are not involved in a nefarious plot to keep female wages down."
Here are some reasons:
1) First, and most obvious: Women bear children, men don't. A woman that has a child will take at minimum, some time off from work. She may not even come back. A woman that is out of the workplace for 10 or more years, (as some women I know) is not going to become a president of a company. Time out of work, means loss of seniority. This is far different, from a man that works for 40+ years without stopping, or a woman that does the same. In the cases where a woman does it, they usually earn just as much, if not more than men.
2) Child bearing also affects the type of work chosen. Women that have children tend to go for part time jobs with flexible hours, or full time jobs that are also flexible. Being a librarian or elementary school teacher will pay less than a technology job, that requires a long term commitment. These sorts of jobs keep introducing new information, which the worker has to constantly be up to date on.
3) The trade professions are another factor. Welders, plumbers, electricians, and others usually get paid well, even starting out. These careers are nearly entirely male. Some start at as much as $80,000 a year. I used to know the son of an elevator repair man, and he told me that they start at $30 an hour!!
4) Purely from an economic standpoint... if this is true, why is our workforce not female dominated? I always hear about how "greedy the business owners are". Well if that's the case... why not fire all the men, replace them with women, and save 23% on labor costs? Or are the business owners just so sexist, that they will sacrifice profit to satisfy a prejudice? Doesn't make much sense.....
These are just a few reasons. There are many other factors too, such as hours worked, professions chosen, talked about in the research mentioned above.
The fact that this myth is still being spread around, and any debate to it is being shut out, tells me one of two things about the person saying it:
1) The person is lying. They want to appeal to the emotions of those that are uninformed or misinformed, in order to advance their agenda. A despicable tactic.
2) The person doesn't know what they are talking about, and they are afraid of what they know being questioned, at the risk that it will be turned on its head. They are so entrenched in their ideology to the point that they can't think outside of it anymore.
Where does this fanatical devotion to ideology actually lead us?
Truthfully, I want to be able to sympathize with the feminists. Women do have disadvantages that a man doesn't have to deal with. There are women that face discrimination, get abused physically and sexually by their husbands, get harassed at work, etc.
When we have real victims like described above, shouldn't we help them instead of inventing victims?
I'm sorry, but a guy saying "hi" to a random girl, or a coworker politely saying "your hair looks nice today", is not harassment. If a girl takes the time to make her hair look nice... why doesn't she want to be complimented on it? Using that logic, if you tell a painter that he made a beautiful portrait, you're "harassing" him.
The fact that some women are opposing this movement is very telling. I keep seeing those "Why I'm against feminism" memes on FB. Why are women opposing a cause that would seem to benefit them?
The problem is that they've lost their way. They have taken this cause to the level of fanaticism, to the point where it's become angry, vitriolic, illogical, hypocritical, and dishonest. In some cases, it even appears to be more about female supremacy, than gender equality. Wanting Hilary Clinton to be President because she's a woman is sexist, by definition.
The "Social Justice Warriors" attacked Richard Dawkins (an atheist writer, and friend of Boghossian's) because his favorite music was classical. Why did they attack him? "The music was all composed by old white guys." So what? Why is this an issue?
Take this conversation about Sam Harris, one of Dr. Boghossian's colleauges. Harris was being accused by a feminist, of being sexist, because most of his readers are male. The conversation went something like this:
Harris: "I'm not sexist. I was raised by a single mother. I'm happily married, with daughters that I love. Most of my editors are women. I have had more female leaders and role models that I have looked up to in my life, and have more respect for women than men in some ways because of it." (which actually is kind of sexist, but not in the way they mean.)
Feminist: "Men can oppress women without even knowing it!! The fact that you are saying all this means you're "internalizing" your sexism, which proves how sexist you really are!!!!"
We've now entered some sort of Monty Python: The Life of Brian world, where logic and common sense no longer apply.
The response: (and what I would have said)
"You're clearly a lunatic ideologue. You are going to call me sexist no matter what I say or show you. Empirical evidence doesn't matter to you at all, its all just about blind adherence to an ideology. You're not even capable of rational discussion."
This is where they made the comparison to certain religious fanatics. Just how some of them have the same, absolute answer to every question, (like: "God said so!" or "you'll go to Hell if you do it!") if the person can't come up with any other reason than "sexism!!!" as a knee jerk response to every single problem, you know that this person isn't philosophical, or open minded whatsoever.
(On a side note, I do find it kind of amusing how certain atheists, (not Boghossian and Molyneux, but others that I know personally) will mock religious people for believing in things on the basis of faith. Yet, they will believe certain political things, (like the myth I refuted above) on faith, just because it conforms to their ideology. They either reject, or refuse to even look at the evidence. Kind of hypocritical, no?)
Where do we go from here?
People say "Don't talk about politics or religion at work."
I think that's stupid. Just as goods compete together for buyers in a market, so should ideas.
Bad ideas will expose themselves for what they are.
Some have advocated that people allow racist groups like the Ku Klux Klan to speak, not to promote them, but to show how absurd and hate filled they are. People will stop listening, and the members will realize that their ideas are not worth fighting for. Those people will see the error of their ways, and search for the truth.
If you truly stand on principle, and believe you're right, you have nothing to fear. Like the old adage that I love: "The righteous man has nothing to fear". Your principles will stand out stronger.
I look at it like this: I can back up everything that I say. If I don't know about something, I will just admit it. If the person I'm talking to knows more than me, this is a chance to learn something. People need to put their egos aside sometimes. We need to apply the "Socratic method" to ourselves, and make sure that we really understand what we're talking about. Maybe then, we can actually fix things.
Thank you all for reading!! I will have more up soon!
-STK
