« Friday Ephemera | Main | Reheated (14) »

October 24, 2010

Comments

rjmadden

"Every time another class of person becomes 'radicalised', and encouraged to react personally, another area of cognitive activity has been successfully shut down."

Describes the 'diversity' industry in a nutshell. E.g.,

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/10/027445.php

David

rjmadden,

Yes, it’s remarkable just how easily some people can be outraged. Or rather, can *choose* to be outraged. The rush to be offended – ostentatiously, competitively offended - is a thing to behold.

As Fabian says, “There are certain issues that have become so ideologically loaded that not only are they taboo for discussion, but it is impossible even to come within a hundred yards of them, by alluding to them. Thought immediately stops, to be replaced by an emotional reaction. As the issues in question become more and more loaded, the radius of the area which is unanalysable increases.”

And this is a feature, not a bug.

ftumch

This is a test. The last time I tried to comment, computer said "No".

AC1

You passed.

ftumch

"As Fabian says, “There are certain issues that have become so ideologically loaded that not only are they taboo for discussion, but it is impossible even to come within a hundred yards of them, by alluding to them. Thought immediately stops, to be replaced by an emotional reaction. As the issues in question become more and more loaded, the radius of the area which is unanalysable increases.”

And this is a feature, not a bug. "

This is a feature of socialism/leftism. Think, but only correctly.

I am "working class", and as I grew I asked questions. It's a way of losing friends. After the recent election... um... I admitted to voting Conservative at a family function. I got a lot of rolling eyes, and, in one case, I got outrage. I, apparently, "betrayed my class". See, here in the North of England we have a duty to vote, and to vote Labour.

"Social Justice" aren't just words you hear from the lips of Guardianistas and cheap politicians, they come from the ignorant, the mediocracy. As Tassano points out, they are taught such things in state schools, as part of the curriculum. (The "Citizenship" lessons I found particularly scarey, straight out of East Berlin.)

I am constantly amazed at people's stupidity. Which is why I come here. I know I am not alone.

Thank you

ftumch

"You passed."

Looks like it... do I win a prize?

I'm easy, don't mind, so long as it isn't a years subscription to the Grauniad, or free tickets to see some art installation. (I don't mind them either, just doubt I will be able to flog them on ebay.)

newrouter

you get algore's truther dvd

RickC

This short essay by Richard Fernandez, on the return of the notion of blasphemy seems to fit here too. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/10/21/fear-and-loathing-in-the-21st-century/

David

“Think, but only correctly.”

It’s remarkable just how readily thoughts can be deemed improper, even scandalous. A while ago I posted some fairly light-hearted quotes on the subject of alleged male and female “privilege.” This led to an exchange with a commenter who claimed that the quoted lines of thinking were “contemptuous” and “misogynistic.” When pressed for an explanation, the commenter couldn’t quite say why. The accusation of misogyny was, it turns out, “somewhat intuitive.” Eventually we discovered that the alleged ambiguity of the quotes – as being *potentially* misogynistic if read in a certain way with a certain attitude - was sufficient basis for umbrage, dismissal and exasperation. A second commenter then suggested that intuition and feelings should be enough to determine the presence of misogyny or racism, regardless of intent or actual evidence.

A subsequent, longer exchange with a third commenter was also revealing. I was told, emphatically, that “women still get the short end of the stick by a wide margin,” that this is “just too obvious” to bother demonstrating, and that “poking fun at female privilege ain’t that bright.” Attempts to look at the idea of “privilege” in an unauthorised way were merely “being clever” and if I didn’t concede the self-evident wrongness of the exercise, the commenter wasn’t going to waste time trying to enlighten me. I asked if she would explain to me how she came to these rather prickly conclusions. There seemed to be a great deal of practiced indignation but surprisingly little to back it up. A spirited exchange ensued…

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/07/female-privileg/comments/page/2/#comments

Again, it’s this idea of taking things personally by default. It seems that quite a few people – generally students or former students – have been encouraged to identify emotionally with a set of propositions, and to react emotionally when those propositions are called into question. Thus, if you approach the notion of, say, gender “privilege” in ways that aren’t expected – that aren’t authorised – this can be taken as some personal affront or an assault on all womanhood.

By testing the premise, one becomes the enemy.

carbon based lifeform

David,

Sort of related- disagreement must be punished. http://fountain.blogspot.com/2010/10/quote-of-day_24.html

David

Further to my previous, there’s another illustration in a discussion about epithets and attempts to control language. A commenter – again, an educated lefty – found me notably “easygoing” because I didn’t rush to take umbrage over an utterly innocuous comment made by a 12-year-old.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/04/tuppence.html?cid=6a00d83451675669e201156f13e6d2970c#comment-6a00d83451675669e201156f13e6d2970c

Note the implicit assumption that one probably should take exception to this use of the word “gay,” if not personally then politically, and supposedly on behalf of some notional group. My own position – that possibly causing offence is much less sinister than attempts to control what others may say – was apparently controversial.

WTP

"Again, it’s this idea of taking things personally by default."

I had a friend of 14 years stop talking to me for 3 weeks because I supported the right of the nutjob preacher to burn his own Korans. Of course the moral outrage my friend felt toward me did not apply to a certain friend of take-a-picture-of-me-whilst-I-stand-on-the-American-flag Bill Ayers. And the guy simultaneously claims to hate all religions. The left's goal of making the political personal is simply their form of blaspheme. Every religion needs such a tool, and needs to introduce it at an early age.

David

WTP,

“The left’s goal of making the political personal is simply their form of blasphemy.”

There’s often an element of preening too. The rush to be outraged can be an attempt to assert one’s moral status. (“Look, everyone - look at how outraged I am. See how it makes me so much better than him.”) And the dishonest motive doesn’t usually lend itself to clarity of argument. See, for instance, this:

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/02/when-children-roar.html

Indoctrinate U features several memorable displays including a vehemently “pacifist” anti-military protest at San Francisco State.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/02/what-to-think-n.html

David

AC1,

Daniel Hannan is interviewed for the Uncommon Knowledge series.

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/

carbon based lifeform

David,

"To think or believe something is a strictly personal matter. Hence pursuing an argument is taken as very nearly an act of aggression."

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/mclemee/mclemee311

Really?

David

AC1,

This one pretty much sums it up:

“Can anyone explain to me the difference between a teacher voting Tory and a turkey voting for Christmas?”

Why, it’s… it’s inconceivable! [ Cue cries of apostasy, general pissiness and rattling of cutlery. ]

AC1

It really is all about the needs of the teachers and not about the children!

The most telling one was about saying no-one wants choice! What nonsense, most of the housing demand in this country is caused by getting into a catchment of a non-rubbish school.

David

But... but... teachers’ unions are noble, altruistic things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdqQTIQhn5A&

“For the children!”

svh

"Every time another class of person becomes 'radicalised', and encouraged to react personally, another area of cognitive activity has been successfully shut down."

Exhibit A:

"Let's be honest, she's a gift from the gods for the tories. She's a black, female, public servant, who's also a racist, msyoginist, who dislikes the poor, and who likes to speak out against the state! They love her because she can say what they are thinking, without being criticised... She just doesn't like black people or poor people"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/26/katharine-birbalsingh-tory-teacher-interview?showallcomments=true#comment-8148647

The comments to this entry are closed.

For Amazon US use this link .

Your filthy consumerism supports this blog.

Blogroll