Postmodernism exposed its hypocritical, Marxist heart in Canada on May 18, during a Munk Debate about “Political Correctness” (PC) between a team in favor of PC behavior and policy, and a team against it. The team in favor was composed of journalist Michelle Goldberg and Georgetown University sociology professor (and minister) Michael Eric Dyson (PhD), while the team opposed featured British actor and writer Stephen Fry and University of Toronto psychology professor and author Jordan Peterson (PhD).
The debate was about Political Correctness. But since Political Correctness was never really defined, the exchange expanded and touched on the collectivist underpinnings and goals of Political Correctness, especially goals such as controls over speech, and the tactical claim that American white males are the unwitting recipients of benefits from a paternalistic social and political order.
One of the most remarkable and revealing moments of the debate came when Professor Dyson accused Professor Peterson of exhibiting “rage” -- in his words:
Why the rage, bruh?
And he added:
You’re a mean, mad white man.
In fact, Dr. Dyson’s inappropriate and unrealistic attack on Dr. Peterson is part of a long-standing pattern within Postmodernism and its ugly scions, “Social Justice Warriorism” and “Critical Theory” (the academic habit of reading “undeniable hidden meanings” into literature when there is no overt, empirical, evidence to support the act). The tactic is employed to label the opposition as subconsciously malicious, to “read into” their “hidden motivations” or “unconscious biases” as a means of demonizing and shutting down debate. And this, in turn, is committed for political purposes, not for “social change.” In most cases, the Postmodernists allow for no distinction between society and the state.
If the Postmodernist can label your very thought as coming from a “sociologically predetermined place of privilege”, can claim that you are speaking due to unconscious biases, then they can stop anything you offer from entering the debate.
And this is precisely what Professor Dyson repeatedly tried to do at the May 18th debate, using the rhetorically potent sounding, but ultimately empty and self-defeating SJW argument from the outset.
We are challenging the refusal to see me as an individual.
Not at all.
Let's trace the circuit. Essentially, Dyson claimed that, for years, "White-Male-America" has stolen the individual identities of "people of color" (African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and more), gay and trans people, and women in favor of group identity.
So his opponent, an individual, is not an individual, but is unknowingly the beneficiary of this collective crime. That's phase one of the argument, and, as you can see, it is guilty of committing the same wrong against the individual white male as Prof. Dyson said the "White Patriarchy" is guilty of having done to individual minorities. This is a manifestly absurd self-immolation, and is only supported by a self-serving attitude that such a reciprocal wrong is acceptable because it is "making up for past wrongs". Of course, it is actually perpetuating the problem, and can be applied in so many divisible ways as to silence everyone, as a means to make up for some form of privilege over another sub-group.
The way to solve this problem of "White-Privilege-You-Never-Fostered-Overtly-But-Are-Part-of-By-Not-Allowing-More-State-Control-of-Your-Life-to-Make Things-Fairer-for-The-Non-Priveliged"?
From what Dyson implied, it appears to be that the "underprivileged" and "social justice warrior" minority individual must cast aside his own individuality in favor of the group, must push for group power at the expense of the individuals that comprise all groups. This is, of course, the same process that they accuse the former "Patriarchy" of applying to each individual, but you need to overlook that flaw in standards and forget Dr. Dyson’s words:
“We are challenging the refusal to see me as an individual.”
By.... negating all individuality.
This is a very Marxist form of "logic". It is a circular “process” of thinking that closes off all debate, labels "selfish" anyone who defends individuality, and foists group decision making, group "property", onto individual self-ownership and thought. It is self-negating as a form of logic, but powerful as a form of rhetoric, taking on the Marxist "David v Goliath" stance, and labeling anyone who stands for the primacy of the individual as an apostate to the group, which, of course, is subsuming the individual… all for the sake of the "individual".
There is no way to win against this form of closed circuit unless one exposes the titanic double-standard at its heart, and stresses that this kind of mentality always allows the "leaders" of the collective to marginalize, define as the enemy, and destroy the individual rights of anyone who stands for anything that the "group" leaders do not define as doctrine.
And it prevents human beings from learning one of the most important lessons of ethics: each of us, whether a “member” of a “put-upon” group, descended from one, or labeled the unwitting beneficiary of a dominant “culture” (as if that’s uniform itself and not dissectible into myriad sub-cultures, all with various interests, strengths, and weaknesses), must be allowed the freedom to act of our own volition. Racism, sexism, phobias, and biases cannot be disinfected by the acid of government, and to use the state to do so pits the largest majority against the smallest minority: the individual.
Dr. Dyson seems not to care about this. In his stream of consciousness, pseudointellectual haranguing style, he will hunt down any individual and try to stop him or her from being a person.
Individualism is destroyed for the sake of the group. And “the group” is really doing it for the sake of… individualism. Ideas O'Brien expressed to Winston Smith in “1984”.
Enjoy your Victory Gin, Social Justice Warriors and Postmodernists. You finally love Big Brother.