What some on the far left (and the far right as well)
fail to understand is that the alternative to civil discussion and
debate is a descent into uncivilized behavior: shouting slogans,
slinging weaponized words, attacking ad hominem, denying a platform
to those you disagree with, abandoning the level playing field of
ideas in favor of animalistic noise-making and shows of strength.
They may not have fully considered where that path leads.
If your ideas are worth considering, then they are
worth formulating and presenting with care and civility and arguments
to back them up. Let them loose on the level playing field of free
speech where they can be tested on their merits. If you arrogate to
yourself the right to shut others down, you place yourself in a value
system, in an arena, where someone with more brute strength than you
can shut you down as well. Two sides engaging on this level set off a
cycle of escalating conflict that can only end tragically.
Healthy public debate isn’t a death match between
colliding interest groups. It’s the way we reach consensus as a
community and more whole understanding as individuals. It is a
natural and peaceful mechanism for achieving wisdom, balance, and inclusion in
our collective decisions.
We need not fear each others’ voices. In fact, we
desperately need to hear each others’ authentic voices so that we
can see where we agree and where we don’t and A. build bridges of
understanding and acceptance, B. approach the truth together, and C.
determine the path that will best serve us going forward. This
requires open, free, intellectually honest exchange between
individuals based on a shared sense of unity (our common humanity),
allowance for diversity (the breathing space for everyone to be,
express, and develop uniquely), and a common interest in discovering
truth (humility and openness to being corrected as well the integrity
to stand up for what we directly perceive as truth).
When we engage in true dialogue, we are tuning the
instrument of our mind to resonate with truth. That means changing
our ideas when they come into conflict with what is demonstrably true
and holding steadily to truth in the face of what is demonstrably
untrue. Post-modernism repudiates the very notion of truth and
therefore represents anti-logic. It is based on self-referential,
circular reasoning that collapses in the face of logic.
In this video, Dr. Jordan B. Peterson calmly explains
why we need free speech and why the best thing to do about the
anti-free speech activists is to let them play out their tactics
while we keep speaking our truth to the best of our ability and
defending everyone’s right to be heard.
The activists speak. We let them speak and make their
positions known. We weigh their ideas on the impartial scales of truth
along with every other idea. We let their behavior speak for itself
as all behavior does. As long as they do not engage in debate, they
render themselves irrelevant to the debate. You don’t debate a
child who’s throwing a tantrum. You can’t. You stand calmly in your
truth and don’t budge for any manipulative, bullying tactics. Don’t
give them the response they’re trying to provoke. Don’t feed the
monster that’s acting out through them by answering in kind. Feed
their better angel by setting an example through your own behavior.
As Matt Kahn advises, when faced with the fevered,
conflicting energies of a turbulent, fractured mind, we can
consciously choose to respond with the opposite vibration. Peterson
does an admirable job.
Activists chanting: “You are not a victim!”
Peterson: “That’s true. I'm not a victim.
“Once you start to regard yourself as a victim, you
look for a perpetrator. And the thing you look for in a perpetrator,
you look for someone that it’s OK to hurt. It’s really not a good
thing.”
Activists chanting: “Shut him down!”
. . .
Peterson: “As far as I’ve been able to determine,
this kind of protest is an expression of a philosophy that’s
grounded partly in post-modernism and partly in Marxism. Now, the
post-modern element is basically this: there’s no such thing as
genuine individual identity. What there is is group identity. And
you, like it or not, only have the interests of your group. And the
whole world is nothing but a battleground between groups of different
interests. There’s no dialogue. There’s no possibility of talking
between the groups. It’s just a power stage where combat has to
take place.
“And so the reason that speakers with whom the
radical post-modernists and the Marxists don’t agree are denied a
platform is because those people do not believe, from a philosophical
position, that dialogue can bring consensus. And all that’s left,
if you forgo that particular principle, is this. [Indicates the
protest.] And this is only where it starts.
“You know, the fact is that you’re all pretty
damn civilized. And thank god for
that. Because if there were enough fools in the crowd, especially
those who are intent on violence, this would turn out very
differently. We do not want to go down that pathway! It’s a big
mistake. We’ve been down that pathway many, many times.”
. . .
Peterson:
“The question was, had we called the police and had them removed,
would that have been a failure?”
“I
think the answer to that is there’s no point in it. There’s no
reason to assume that this [protest] is a bad thing. It’s noisy and
it’s annoying, but that’s fine. You gotta let things – you
gotta follow what you believe to be true. Right? And don’t worry
about it, and let things happen, and see what happens. Because it’s
perfectly possible that if you’re trying to do the right thing,
you’re trying to speak properly, that whatever happens around you
is [partially a] consequence of that and it’s a good thing. So
we’ll see. We’ll have weeks after this event to analyze its
consequences. And so far, all of you that are there to listen to the
talk, you’re peaceful and reasonable, and you got a chance to show
that to hundreds of thousands of people. So, good! This is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
. . .
Peterson: [Repeating a question from the audience]
“How do we get these people to understand that dialogue leads to
consensus?
“You cannot make people who don’t listen, listen.
You can’t. They have to decide to listen on their own. But you do
that by listening. You show them. You engage in dialogue yourself and
[seek] consensus among you. You lead by example. Because there’s no
getting through this. [Indicates the protest.] It’s an
ideological wall. And the harder you push against it, the larger
it’ll become.
“Don’t worry about it. But don’t get pushed
around. And don’t let people indoctrinate you.”
No comments:
Post a Comment