Towers and Statues…

Earlier today, I went out on an expedition to purchase a light-bulb and a couple of other stupidly small items. For this, I had to travel to the nearby town to mine, for my local shops couldn’t provide. Part of the journey took me past the pair of tower-blocks; which were looking particularly shabby, run-down and carbuncle-like. Moment’s hesitation – surely they weren’t that ugly – but then it struck me; they were missing their cladding. The council had finally got round to stripping that crap off it, it seemed (I don’t go to this town much).

I mention this, for quite ironically something reminded me of Grenfell on the very day of the anniversary of the fire which claimed the lives 72 people and injure hundreds more, some permanently.

The Towering Inferno

That fire – and the aftermath – was one of the defining events of the premiership of Theresa May; along with Windrush, the Vanity Election and naturally, Brexit. It highlighted a myriad of long-term issues with the country at that time; the economic inequalities, the ‘race-to-the-bottom’ contracting, the severe housing shortage (in quality, quantity and affordability) and the the tone-deaf ‘we’re sorry you feel that way’ bollocks from (particularly) Conservative politicians, be it local councillors or the then Prime Minister herself.

It is worth looking at the whole disaster again through the prism of Black Lives Matter; here we have a tower-block stuffed with human beings far above the capacity it was designed for in the 70s, which coupled with poor quality of finish and shoddy maintenance created obviously sub-standard living conditions. And that unlike the rest of the borough the majority of these people were from ethnic minorities.

That the Council – elected by the wealthy, white parts of the borough – had deliberately withheld funding for such things as fire safety and decided to not use fire-resistant cladding or fit sprinklers on cost grounds alone. That the money ‘saved’ was actually used to bribe the richest inhabitants via a tax refund just before an election. No guesses needed to work out that the inhabitants of Grenfell or the surrounding pocket of social housing were not amongst the recipients.

On the face of it, this looks like racism. But it wasn’t. At least in a conventional sense of the term.

At no point did the council deliberately decide to house minorities in substandard properties – for all their properties were substandard. There was absolutely nothing stopping a minority purchasing a property within the rich part of the borough – as long as they could afford the several million quid asking-price. The ‘stay put’ orders given wasn’t the callous orders from authority not caring about the lives of non-whites; it was the standard operating procedure regarding high-rise fires – not realising that the renovation had effectively destroyed it’s fire resistance. The shoddy response times from the emergency services wasn’t due to them not caring about minority lives; that was due to funding cutbacks due to Austerity and the fact the council had decided to allow the surrounding area to become overbuilt, thus restricting access.

No. Those folks lost their lives for they were poor. And after stripping out the recent migrants (both legal or not), in this country a higher proportion of minority groups are poor due to the legacy of discrimination. After all, we all know the term “it takes money to make money” and a larger proportion of white Britons grow up with said inherited wealth than minority groups do.

The Unfulfilled Promises

I’m mentioning this because now after three years since the disaster, we can look to see what changes – y’know, all the promised ones – actually bore fruit. Answer: not many.

Yes, some of the flammable cladding has been removed since. Yes, some social landlords have been more diligent about performing things such as gas safety checks. But we’ve seen near-nil movement on dealing with overcrowding, shoddy maintenance, lowest-possible-bid mentality with contracts or increasing the accountability of social landlords from their tenants. Hell, we’ve not even seen any damn legislation to increase the building standards – if the proof of the pudding is the eating, this time we’ve not even been shown a picture of it. Just the promise of pudding later.

I think I can be rather certain that said pudding-promises will remained unfulfilled as long as Mr Johnson is Prime Minister.

Think of the Statues!

Here in the UK, the Black Lives Matter movement has gotten diverted; from against cases of racism in institutions such as the police to the possible offence caused by various statues.

Now, while a few statues basically ‘deserved it’ – the Colston one in Bristol springs front to mind – going after ones such as Churchill, Drake, the building named after Gladstone and so on positively reeks to me of Progressive Identity Politics.

As I explained months ago, this action is classic bourgeois progressivism; the focus on symbols, words and items rather than actual structural change to society. Which is – unless I really don’t understand the situation – what Black Lives Matter are demanding. For it can be terribly easy to remove the offending items – from removing statues to censoring old TV shows – yet allow the ingrained, pervasive legacy of racism to remain strewn though British society.

Unknown Demands

I think a large proportion of the BLM leadership are aware of this. However, they’d allowed the argument to focus on the statues for they’re rather unsure what their demands should actually be – for after all, all this was kicked off by a foreign event, not a British one.

I’m not blind to the power of symbols; but I’m all too familiar with officials – either by accident or design – ‘mistaking the map for the territory’, such as thinking say institutional bullying is ended by an anti-bullying policy and not by actively trying to root it out.

I’ve been around long enough to know that when the demand(s) are fuzzy or aspirational, they’re ignored – what works best is when they’re concrete, ‘reasonable’, will deliver a genuine improvement and can get “outsiders” to rally to it too.

I think you can guess I feel that housing can be this rallying-point.

Delayed Justice?

It is not racism per se; but it’s an issue which affects minorities disproportionately. It also is a perfect bridge for the white working class to join forces with BLM to push for change which will help them all – for in this case, they’re both getting almost equally shafted by our capitalist society. Best of all, it’s harder to argue against; after all, it takes some very interesting corkscrew logic to defend the rights of uncaring social housing providers and greedy slumlords to provide accommodation which is overcrowded, overpriced and unsafe.

If this was carried off, it would improve the lives of millions of people; and minorities would benefit more than others. Yet… it wouldn’t look at all like ‘affirmative action’, which pisses off some folks.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Privileged, Moi?

Like millions of other people around the world, I’ve been following somewhat the ongoing protests / riots within the United States in the wake of the death of George Floyd. I’m not going to talk about this subject – others have covered this much better than I ever could – but it’s raised an term which I have grown to almost openly loathe – the concept of ‘privilege’.

One Phone Call…

Cue the scene. I’m listening to LBC; black person calls up to talk about the above. I only mention the ethnicity because the guy did; otherwise I personally wouldn’t give it any thought. Soon enough, he cites ‘white privilege’. Interviewer mentions the flurry of emails, tweets and whatnot saying that they don’t feel ‘privileged’ (a mentality I share, if you’ve not guessed yet) to be pasty of skin. Reply: well, they are privileged. The End.

Now, I personally think that guy ‘had the room’ (or at least the majority of it) until he brought the dreaded p-word into the mix. For this term immediately raises the hackles of the likes of me who despite haunting the room with our paleness, have had lives which haven’t been easy by any stretch of the term. This gets compounded by the fact the guy would see said hackles as ‘white defensiveness’, which then all-to-often leads to them either minimising or outright dismissing our (or any other group’s) own struggles. Of which he’d go ballistic at as ‘whitesplaining’ if done the other way around.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not blaming the guy for this- he was just a rando who’d called up to chat. My example could have been easily written with, say a speaker of the Women’s Equality Party as the example instead. I’m not even commenting on whatever discrimination or whatever they say they’ve experienced or viewed. My problem is quite literally with the term ‘privilege’ itself.

The Power Of Words

Firstly, this is what my loyal computer dictionary has to say about ‘privilege’;

#1: A special advantage, immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all.

#2: A right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right).

#3: (law) the right to refuse to divulge information obtained in a confidential relationship.

Now, discounting the third part as obviously not relevant, we hit the ‘everyday’ definition of privilege. ‘Sixth-formers have the privilege of wearing their own clothes’, ‘the boss gave you the privilege to leave work ten minutes early so you can pick up your kid from school’ and so on. Also referred to as ‘favours’, ‘perks’, ‘fringe benefits’ and so on.

This is where things get sticky. The guy above when he spoke of ‘privilege’ was using a piece of sociological jargon without making it clear to everyone else he was (a similar problem when the scientific term ‘theory’ encounters folk who think of that to mean ‘just an idea’). This meant that many of the listeners would then think ‘well, what perks does being white actually give me?’. The in-front-of-nose answer; pretty little, at least in the UK in 2020. After all, this is not apartheid South Africa; there are no formal or commonplace ‘perks’ being whitey gets you (which is part of the insidiousness of modern discrimination; it’s often hard to draw obvious cause-effects and therefore, stamp on).

However, folks from say BLM would disagree with me on that. And they’d be right, in their own way.

The Way Of The World?

It all boils down to basically, past experiences and conditioning. If you’ve been raised in a world where all your experiences (first and second-hand) of say the police were positive or at least neutral, you’ve been conditioned to think this is the ‘normal service’. However, if you’re one who’s experiences with them have invariably been negative, you’ll run on the assumption that this is the normal service too. So… when the latter learns of the former’s experiences, they’ll think the first has been granted ‘a perk’.

That is ‘white privilege’ in a nutshell; that you have the privilege to have the world operate in the manner it’s intended to. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why some folks – including me – object to the use of the term. For it is not ‘a privilege’ to be treated like a human being, to not be chocked to death, shot or left to die by public servants and so on. Those are fundamental rights. The call to ‘end white privilege’ could be taken as ‘I’d like to see them have police brutality, too!’ which I highly doubt is the intention. Usually.

It’s All Racism To Me…

One of the most critical issues is regarding the definition of racism itself. There’s a marked tendency to see any ‘negative outcome’ to be automatically attributed to race, even when there’s evidence to suggest otherwise. For in fact, many of them can be attributed to class instead.

The idea is that of ‘accumulated capital’. That ‘success breeds success’ as one generation uses it’s wealth, contacts and power to leap-frog their offspring up the ladder – and vice-versa. That while your ancestors were shunted to the bottom of society due to the colour of their skin, you’re kept there merely by the framework of a hierarchical capitalist society which rewards those who had great-grandparents who owned land and factories (who were almost all white).

Now, this may seem to be a mere argument of semantics, but it’s vital to understand the root causes; for no amount of ‘diversity training’ or suchlike will sort that issue out. I’ll provide an example to illustrate.

Claim: British Police deeply racist in stop and search. Proof; statistics showing ethnic origin of said searches in, for example London. (64.5% of searches in 2018 are BAME!)

But statistics without context mean nothing. Here is the context.

– Population of London is 44% ‘non-white’ while the national average is 14%. Police will be performing more searches in Peckham than the Peak District.

– ‘Non-white’ percentage is 17% for Millennials and 20% for Gen Z. Police are searching youth, not pensioners.

– ‘Non-white’ households between 1.5 and 2.5 times more likely to be in poverty than whites. Police performing searches in Hackney, not Hadley Wood.

Knowing that, makes you suspect that the claim of ‘police racism’ is not the whole story, yes? But this isn’t the story which is told. In fact, I don’t know anyone who even attempted to look at it like this. And I suspect politics has something to do with it.

Shut Up, Whitey

The very term ‘privilege’ itself has become a weapon, to close down debate. It’s often used in part of the cult of the ‘lived experience’; that while anecdotal evidence can be illuminating, it is in the end, only anecdotal.

But this cult then proceeds to exclude anybody who doesn’t have said experience – normally using the line of ‘well, you’re privileged’ to shoot down their thoughts, opinions or questions. It makes the condescending presumption that a person is unable to consume first / second-hand sources on the situation, to empathise, to extrapolate from their own experiences and so on. No, while I don’t know what it’s like being say black, I do know about how it is to be treated like crap for other reasons and there’s only a few set ways folks can be shits, in my experience.

Lastly, also ignores the fact you can be a member of said group and still be being bigoted, stupid or just plain wrong – after all, one of the maxims my old sociology teacher would spout almost ad nausiem was ‘anecdotal evidence’ – aka simply because you experienced something, does not mean it’s universal.

* * *

So… in conclusion; yes, you’re ‘privileged’, in at least three ways. And so is everyone else. Remember that before you play any card. And the day you start shouting down somebody with say, statistics with your own ‘lived experience’, you’ve instantly disqualified yourself from holding opinions on any group you have not experienced yourself.

And stop using sociological jargon in normal conversations, for fuck’s sake.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Socialism vs Identity Politics

Is I’ve said before, I’m an fairly old-school socialist; and in the last decade I’ve found myself increasingly at odds with the faction within “the left” which espouse what I call “progressive identity politics”. For a long time I found myself disagreeing with their positions at a gut level, however unable to articulate the reasons why – to my (slight) shame, I used a couple of talking-points which turned out to be ones strong in alt-right sewer-circles. However, despite being shouted down, I refused to give in and studied further; and now I feel that I can provide a proper socialist critique of said identity politics – which I shall do in a moment.

Not that this was easy, mind; most “left” groups have been completely taken over by the progressives; when I raised questions online about it in forums I’ve been purged. Unfortunately, I’m not really that up to date with my Marxist theory either; and the few sites I found which appeared to echo my gut misgivings were so dry, dense and long few would actually bother reading it, and many who did wouldn’t really “get” the crux of the argument. However, after much reading and thought, think I’ve finally hit the nail on the head. In no particular order…

#1: Socialism stresses collective, communal effort. It’s the bedrock of the movement; the idea that only by working together can we achieve our goals; the end of oppression, exploitation and discrimination. A prime example of this can be one of the maxims of the old IWW – “An injury to one is an injury to all”. That you say join the union and keep ranks when it’s defending someone else, for one day it might be defending you and so on.

This means that socialism is, fundamentally a universalist creed; that while often it gets hung up on archaic Marxist terminology (such as definition of “working class”) it in reality should only ask one question; “who is the exploited, and who is the exploiter?”.This puts socialism in direct conflict with identity politics; the system where society is cut up into slithers and the differences are emphasised.

In Marxist terms, this is “false consciousness”; the championing of different identities over the general one makes “common cause” harder to find and said groups easier to be neutralised by “divide and rule” tactics.

#2: Identity politics often leads to “Golden Hammer Syndrome”; a situation where a campaigner starts to see everything through the prism of whatever minority they’re championing. A recent example of this mentality can be seen in the whole thing with Meghan Markle. To this crowd, all criticism levelled towards her is racism “because she’s black” and therefore, an oppressed minority.

Well, first off, she’s not black, she’s mixed-race (when did the old “one-drop rule” return?). Secondly, race is not the be-all and end-all of discrimination; that it’s perfectly possible to be an ethnic minority, female, LGBT or whatever and still have a “general privilege rating” as a positive number – after all, the woman is wealthy, well-connected and now married into one of the most powerful families in the world. And lastly, just because you’re “a minority” it doesn’t make you immune from being an idiot.

#3: Many “progressive campaigns” are basically bourgeois in nature. That as a whole, they’re overly fixated in cosmetic improvements (such as changing words) rather than any fundamental change in society as a whole. And this suits our “liberal elite” down to the ground; after all, gender-neutral pronouns neither threaten their wealth or power. In fact, supporting such actions can act as a most effective blind to their other objectionable activities.

Said campaigns are also personally bourgeois in nature due to the socio-economic position of many of the campaigners. As a rule, they’re pretty privileged folk themselves – usually with decent income, social status and educational levels. Another example of this can be the #MeToo movement; where were all the working-class women, talking about their experiences? I’ve been around enough to know that there’s loads of cleaners, cashiers, waitresses and the like who have had to put up with tons of sexist crap – yet they’re almost silent. Invisible. Speaking of which…

#4: Biased minorities. That is, some minorities get the “allies” and all that, and others don’t. From my own anecdotal evidence, I’ve developed a rule of thumb; the more bourgeois members a minority contains, the stronger the movement for it will be. This would explain for example the almost complete invisibility of a disadvantaged group close to my heart – Care Leavers. Where are our “allies”, eh? Do you know that we even exist?

Admittedly, this is partly our problem; I’ve not “come out” as one in the flesh, so nobody has ever questioned me about it. But this is compounded by the fact that we, as a group have really crap “life chances” and therefore are highly unlikely to get within shouting distance of any really woke, diversity-loving, allyship progressive type. And to be honest, this fucking sticks in my throat a bit. Though not as much as…

#5: Working-class erasure. Ethnic minorities are fine and good (many of which are working class themselves), but the white working class? Nope. You’re part of the “privileged”; the fact you got poor schooling, have crappy job prospects and chances are have shoddy health outcomes and housing is irrelevant – you’re haunting the room with your paleness, so you better fucking get down on your knees and apologise for the historical wrongs your race did. And again. And again…

It’s this viewpoint which made the alt-right the force it is today. By repeatedly stressing to the white working class (esp the native-borns) about all this “privilege” they have (which they never really see) has made them bitter and resentful. For some, this had led to them to cling to their whiteness, maleness and xenophobic patriotism in a similar manner to down-at-heel genteel characters in old novels who stuck to their waistcoats, old-school ties and bourgeois manners to retain their “dignity” as “gentlemen”, even if they are in “reduced circumstances”.

#6: Being the trailblazers for sub-dividing society. It was the fault of the ‘New Left’ in the ’60s and ’70s; when ‘socialism’ (of all types) became increasingly out of fashion and the leftist intellectuals looked for a new raison d’être – and found it in things such as gay rights, feminism, anti-racism and so on.

This would have disgusted old-school socialists; Nye Bevan, while a proud Welshman refused to accept that there was particular ‘Welsh’ issues which weren’t seen in other parts of the UK, for example. He – I think – would have seen the threat; not that the above causes weren’t laudable in aims, but the fact it gave intellectual tools and respectability for sub-dividing society – something which was then exploited by the alties.

That it’s their monochrome view of “privilege”, delivered in a dogmatic, hectoring manner which is driving away “amiable neutrals” into apathy, intellectual withdrawal or down the alt-right U-bend. And it’s they who are killing off the “left” (though I don’t overly see them as actually left-wing).

And the most depressing thing is, I don’t think they even realise it. They’re too far up their own backsides, perhaps admiring the bright light of their own “wokeness”. While Rome burns. Question is: how much more has to burn until they admit that listening to the complaints might be an idea?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my ‘Essays‘ series.

For a much more in-depth, scholarly and duller article on this, try this article from Marxist.com

The Loyal Opposition

So, my forum ban expired, and I was back. First thing I did was to carefully consult the rules, then I composed a post which politely questioned several things in general terms regarding the system of banning, appeals and so on. Nothing about the details of my banning; for that was against the rules. My intention was to point out that basically, their current system was not working as intended.

I had grounds for this. I had, at least three previous times followed the “correct” methods laid out in the sacred rules and gotten nowhere. And when I say “nowhere”, I mean literally nowhere – it was the electronic variant of writing a letter of complaint and then shoving it in a shredder. I had in fact warned that I would voice my worries publicly if I didn’t get any joy using the correct method, and I did my best to compose a polite, constructive post which in fact obeyed all known rules. Once again, this was a test, and the response was… well, I’ll grant them a D-Minus.

The thread was immediately closed. Then they issued a “rebuttal” which can be boiled down into three general points. (They avoided an F by not deleting post and banning me again).

First, the Mods are Always Right. Any appeals must be purely technical in nature; anything is “continuing the argument” and therefore ignored. And you’re not told you’re being ignored either. There is no possibility of “mod abuse” for they watch each other even though said position is done by a method of co-option and therefore it’s perfectly possible a faction can perpetuate their blinkered views by simply recruiting more of the same to the “board”.

Secondly, It’s Our Way or the Highway. I didn’t even get the vaguely demeaning “I’m sorry you feel that way”. Said mods have apparently got a serious hard-on for “making this community to be welcoming to the kind of people the internet is not usually welcoming to”. This includes, apparently making it uncomfortable for everyone else. As I’ve argued before here, this is blatant mission creep; make it a “friendly place”, yes – but not some hermetically sealed bell-jar. It’s a rather general forum, not a damned support group.

What they’ve not considered for one iota I may be one or more minorities myself. Simply that I’ve never brought these things up for I’d prefer to let my words to the talking, not by say plastering my avatar with a rainbow, or putting a comment in my signature that “I am neuro-diverse, so please be patient”. Which I could have done, to score cheap (but truthful) points – but didn’t, for I really don’t like the divisive nature of progressive Identity Politics and I do try not to be a hypocrite any more than I already am.

Lastly, There Is No Problem. This part is the worst of all; for if you think everything is perfect this means you can ignore all complaints or criticisms. Which they did in my case.

Now, you might be wondering why the hell I’ve bothered continuing this; it’s becoming rapidly obvious to all that the progressive extremists have control here, and I (and my views) are about as welcome as a dead rat in a meat pie. The reason is simple; I’m the loyal opposition. Here’s a dictionary definition of it…

“Noun. A minority party especially in a legislative body whose opposition to the party in power is constructive, responsible, and bounded by loyalty to fundamental interests and principles.”

(Webster’s)

That’s the thing. As a Marxist socialist, I’m an “independent ally” of many of the Progressive’s ultimate goals – similar to my position regarding the Green movement. But this doesn’t mean “we” agree with all “your” tactics. In fact, some of them we might disagree bitterly with. This does not mean we are your enemy. In fact, the three of us often have the same damn enemy and it would be nuts not to work together fighting them.

What’s happened is that said Progressives have done with any other remotely “leftish” organisations the similar that the beloved Moderators have done with the forum; capture control, then increasingly close the “Overton Window” and either drive away, kick out or intimidate into silence anybody who doesn’t fit. Or in my case, suddenly start hitting the bricks where only a year before there was a window.

That’s why I continued to plug away; hoping – with it increasingly draining away – that perhaps, just perhaps I could get them to see what the hell they were doing. I know of others who have been doing the very same – in LGBT groups, in trade unions and the Labour Party – but with precious little success. For the Progressive extremists are in control, and they’re utterly blind, deaf and dumb to any complaints; even from their loyal opposition.

And if we don’t do anything, they’ll run everything into the ground, and the 20s will truly be the age of the “Neoreactionaries” – where long-slain monsters rise from their apparent graves and lay waste to what’s left of liberal, civil society.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Safe Spaces and Friendly Places

Safe spaces have gotten a lot of flak over the last decade; it’s become part of the snarl lexicon, along with ‘allyship’, ‘woke’, ‘trigger warnings’ and the like. With fair reason; the concept has been utterly deformed from it’s original intention to the point where at times it’s become laughable. Or worse, useless.

The original intention of safe spaces was to create situations where participants could talk freely, without fear of retribution, being shouted down, mocked or being judged by ‘outsiders’. Early examples can include places where workers can talk to consultants about their jobs without fear of being sacked, support meetings for marginalised groups or those with mental health issues and sex education at schools. Thus, a ‘safe space’.

I can fully empathise with this. After all, I grew up in care, and talking about the experiences of it is difficult. Not emotionally difficult – as a rule – but would be so damn tedious having to ‘explain it all’ and field the various questions which are often ignorant, insulting or just plain nuts. Then there’s the risk that you’ll think less of me for this. Or feel pity. Or give me a load of crap I just don’t wish to deal with. One thing is for sure; I wouldn’t be telling you this if I was sitting in front of you.

That’s the thing about original safe spaces. A monthly meeting of people in care would be such a space, as we could bitch about stuff which only makes sense to us, or got the significance of. An example of this would be the issues facing you if you’re in a foster placement and one (or more) of the relatives clearly hated your guts. Realising your precariousness of your position; that chances are said relative could utterly sink you and usually said fucker knew it. To be honest, I think most carers and workers would be either annoyed or upset on what we said about them. That’s the thing about ‘safe’ – it does not mean ‘nice’. It’s like the episode of American Dad when Stan Smith gets the listening device and hears everyone bitching about him in private. We need the myriad of self-deceptions and ignorance simply to avoid an ocean of blood on the carpet.

The point about safe spaces was that it kinda recognised that the world outside was… unforgiving. That you’d within short order hear, read and see things which were condescending, offensive, stupid or on occasion ‘not even wrong’. Anyone who’s a member of a minority gets this; the only question was how severe and how frequent. That’s what makes the spaces vital; not only a place to bitch, but also ones where you could gather strength from others ‘like you’ for your next foray into Out There.

Which brings me to by complaint towards the overuse of safe spaces. Not everywhere can be a safe space for all minorities – period. In fact, your very choosing on what is and is not protected is a subjective judgement which is demeaning to those who don’t ‘make the cut’. Next, the whole damn concept of said spaces were not designed for use by the ‘general public’; to go back to my example, that space was for ‘kids in care’, not say ethnic minorities, or rape victims or whatever. It had a single purpose, and so a common set of assumptions and code. Foisting it onto wider groups simply does not work. Lastly, it was not designed to protect people’s brains from contrary views. Sure, every community has it’s own ‘Overton window’ but the nature of society is the larger the group, the wider said window is. And to be frank, we all have to learn how to deal with views that we don’t agree with in a mature manner.

This is why I feel that larger groups – such as online forums, academia and the like – need to ditch ‘safe space’ and embrace ‘friendly place’ instead. That within limits, it should accept divergent opinions, grant ‘good faith’ to speakers unless proven otherwise, to encourage debate over censorship, to appreciate that every single person is coming from a different mindset and that sometimes, sharp (but respectful) debate can be the crucible where ideas are made, broken or developed. It also allows us to better-understand each other; it is perfectly possible for a person to fully understand ‘where you’re coming from’ but still think you’re wrong. And sometimes, you’ll be surprised to learn that They actually care as much as You about the issue – simply have a different proposal(s) for the solution.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

The Fireman and the Snowflake

As you might suspect, your humble narrator ran afoul of the beloved Mod Police again; this time on that controversial topic that graduates in STEM subjects command a much higher “premium” than those studying, say gender studies or the liberal arts.

Leaving aside the fact that in this case they’re objecting to actual statistics and that the complaint(s) (as far as I can tell, for I’m never allowed to know who my accusers actually are) have made broad-brush assumptions primarily based from quote-mining, I found this affair, once again interesting for two main reasons.

Firstly, it was the fact that the offended party(ies) decided to complain rather than challenging me directly. In fact, they nearly always do this. Unlike many, I rather enjoy being challenged; not only does it sharpen my arguments, but also introduces new information, perspectives and slants on the topic I’d been unaware of before. I’m happy enough to explain further my thoughts and ideas, and to admit the error of my ways if I’m shown to be wrong (or for the other party to apologise for getting the wrong end of the stick, which has happened). Instead, said invisible accusers did the online equivalent of running off to “tell on me to the teacher” after class than simply calling me out on it.

The other strand is more worrying. The implication is that for some folk, any opinion – however polite, reasoned and within the world of evidence – that remotely brushes against one of their viewpoints that it must be expunged, exiled, exterminated. That their own views are so fragile that no dissent, pressure or critical thought can be allowed, to be so riddled with a “bunker mentality” than anybody who does not slavishly agree with you is The Enemy.

This is incredibly dangerous and a recipe for disaster. Not only for themselves (for viewpoints which are never challenged are ones which never develop) but for the wider state of free speech…

“…Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book…”

Fahrenheit 451 (1953)

This was part of the Captain’s “join us on the Dark Side” speech to Montag; that as differing opinions have the ability to make people feel offended, stupid or angry, the best course of action for both society and individual happiness is for the suppression of all alternative points of view – from politics to your feelings towards the clowns on the wallscreen.

We’ve not got that far, but we’re getting there; in a world of niche media, the internet and suchlike it’s becoming incredibly easy for us to construct an personalised echo chamber for ourselves; give me an hour or so, I could make a world where I only hear 70s disco, read only Breitbart, view only hentai and have social media connections solely with furries. In fact, in their desire in the “you liked this so more of the same” algorithms in the like of Google et al, we often end up drifting into our echo chambers unawares.

That’s the problem. We’re losing the ability to talk to “others”, losing too much of the callouses which protect us from the rough-and-tumble which is called life. We’ve made our “personal feelings” king of the world; that everything else has to bow down to this. You may call it “the right to not be offended”, I call it “the right to avoid thinking”. Sure, there’s trolls around; there’s always been trolls about from the cranky “letters to the editor” to the hecklers in the theatres of Ancient Greece. But that is the only way society moves forward; almost every societal development we’ve seen to date – LGBT rights, vegetarianism, universal suffrage – started out being the fevered dreams of “cranks and weirdos” who often made others feel uncomfortable, stupid or even angry.

If we allow the “Firemen” (or should I say “firefighters”?) to protect every “Snowflake” from the perniciousness of any view or idea which doesn’t fit their mindscape… well, societal development will grind to a halt. Lastly, if you demand to be protected from Them and their “Evil Thoughts”… well, They have the right to be protected from You.

But that’s completely different because you’re right and they’re wrong, right?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Baby with the Bathwater

Like most of us, I have a morning routine. Coffee, emails and the radio. I like the radio; allows me to catch up on the news of the day before I go out into the world. I used to listen to Radio 4, but on getting a digital radio I found LBC and didn’t look back. Was finding Radio 4 too metropolitan, too staid. I’m not sixty years old, after all. Anyway, the slight minus of this is that it means I often end up hearing the views of one Nick Ferrari, a right-winger who is rather good at jumping to stupid conclusions and occasionally just annoying me. Rather like Andrew Neil, but minus the gravitas.

Anyway, there he was a couple of days ago, working through the news items of the day, reached the smaller items; the success of the demand for people to have “none” in the sex box of your passport. Predictably, he jumps all over this as “political correctness gone mad”, takes it to stupid conclusions (a common tactic if you’d like to turn “ordinary folk” against something), then verbally skewers a spokesperson (I think) who supported this (though said person wasn’t that competent in the first place). I wasn’t paying complete attention, but I do think he managed to get them to state basically “masculinity is toxic”.

This caused Ferrari’s “Stopped Clock of the Day”: if masculinity is toxic, well, it’s toxicity which led those people to stand up and defend others against the terrorist murderer on London Bridge last Friday. Who may have been motivated partly by toxicity. I think we can throw the police who sorted the problem out in too. So… toxicity was the antidote to toxicity.

Raven Paradox?

Just like all ravens are black birds but not all black birds are ravens, many progressives fall into the logical trap in assuming that because some aspects of masculinity is toxic, therefore all of it is. An argument which is at best stupid and at worst disingenuous; for “masculinity” can also mean competitiveness, self-reliance, courage and integrity. It’s often the very thing which motivates the firefighter to run into a burning building, the police officer to stand their ground against a violent attacker or, in this case random members of the public to try to stop a knife-wielding loon with whatever means they had at hand.

Sure, there are some parts of “masculinity” which is toxic; to others, to themselves, to society. Problem is, some bits only become “toxic” when done to extremes or when the virtue becomes warped; American Dad mined this vein for laughs (and thoughts) for years in the character of Stan Smith. A man who’s courage and devotion can’t be doubted, but often makes atrocious decisions due to the fact his “self-reliance” has warped into a general inability to listen to others (amongst other faults).

Objecting To The Conclusions?

Which was why that spokesperson symbolises my worries. The vast majority of British males under, I’d guess forty are stuck within two competing visions; the “Traditional Bloke” model in which some positives can be seen and the hectoring voice of the progressives who are saying the Traditional Bloke is a evil dinosaur who should be wiped of the face of the earth forthwith.

Once again, monochrome views, and yes misandry rear their ugly heads; to see any positives in Traditional Bloke makes you a reactionary bigot, to suggest that “toxic femininity” is a thing too makes you “part of the problem”, to state that boys need men to provide role models (and don’t disregard the power of them being a model for rejection) makes you a misogynist and so on.

The Gender Cringe?

Which is the crux of the matter. Males are getting sick and tired on having to continuously apologise for being men. To paraphrase Orwell; you don’t gain supporters by telling them they are irredeemable. In fact, you push them away, and sometimes this push is hard enough to shunt them into the drek-pit which is known as the “Manosphere”, which is only a short hop to becoming a full-blown “Altie”.

We should not be scared of creating, nurturing positive masculine images, particularly for children. But not only should they be presented à la carte – allowing individuals to accept or reject component parts, but also it to cross genders too. By doing this, I feel is the only way progressives can get “ordinary guys” to feel that their planned future society still has a role in it for them. Once they genuinely feel that, you’ve got yourselves allies. Or at least people who don’t oppose you.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Progressive Tar and Feathers

A little while ago, I was ‘suspended’ from an online forum. I suspected that the offending post was going to cause waves, but I did it anyway. It could be argued that this was a foolhardy or plain stupid course of action; but I felt sufficiently strong on the issue – and felt I also had something genuinely new to bring to the debate.

The topic in question was regarding one of the issues beloved by the progressives at the moment; that of identity politics. My crime – if you could call it such – was to offer a critique of it from a Marxist viewpoint, while making it clear that I personally held this view on the main. I spent a surprisingly long time writing it, making sure it was as concise, polite and supportive as possible – an invitation for discussion between ‘similar-minded’ people, making it clear that my objections revolved around the tactics, not the wider goals.

Initial reaction was muted; four responses, even split between ‘agree’ and ‘disagree’. No real discussion, topic didn’t ‘take’ and we moved on, as it so often does online. I thought nothing more of it; until nearly a week later I was informed of the ‘suspension’. Reasons given? I was engaging in ‘victim blaming’ by having the gall to dare suggest that any of their tactics may be counter-productive. As well as having a ‘history’ of said utterances.

What the hallowed mods don’t seem to have fathomed was that it was a test; on whether their repeatedly stated commitment to ‘free speech’ was actually true. I alluded to this in the offending post, but I think they were either blinded by the red mist or simply didn’t care.

Pseudo-Public Spaces

An online forum is a good example of the ‘public arenas’ of our modern world; while giving the impression of being free and public, is run by private bodies who impose their own limits on ‘acceptable’ discourse – their own ‘Overton Window’, so to speak. I can’t really criticise this; if I ran say a magazine I wouldn’t throw my pages open to writers peddling drek such as Tommy Robinson being a political prisoner and so on.

Said forum mods have taken quite a bit of flak of late, mainly from the altie crowd. In that, I don’t envy them. But I was getting an increasing nagging feeling that it was descending into echo chamber status, and wanted to present a heretical view which wasn’t automatically a ‘hanging offence’ to see how they reacted. It wasn’t a planned provocation, more a spur of the moment thing.

The suspension didn’t anger me; it saddened. An ideology which is protected from any criticism is one which becomes rigid and stale. One where the adherents main method of discussion is to simply silence the dissenters holds precious little chance of appealing outside their base. A movement which is either unwilling or unable to perform self-criticism is unable to work out where they went wrong. And ones who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

Personal Atomisation

I’m recounting this pretty minor affair not in some petty desire for ‘revenge’ or anything; just as an example of the decline of critical discourse within the country. Increasing polarisation, fragmentation and dogmatism on both sides; with all other viewpoints marginalised, shouted down and ideally expelled from public view. Naturally, this situation is also ‘all the Other Side’s fault’.

Us and Them. Right and Wrong. If you’re not with us, you’re against us. I do not need to know the names of other ‘Gods’, for they are all false and so on. A monochrome view of the world which is not just inaccurate, but dangerous – beware the one who desires to re-make the world without taking account of reality, for it all-too often ends in pain, suffering and failure.

The biggest worry, however is the chilling effect. The explicit message from my suspension was ‘silence, heretic!’ – my next offence will surely require me to ‘recant my deviant views’. I suppose I should feel honoured, as I’ve not been immediately ‘exiled’. That’s the thing; threats of social exclusion and peer pressure work – just ask any authoritarian regime. Or closer to home, sitting around at Christmas and some (usually) elderly relative starts shooting off about gays / immigrants / transgenders / ethnic minorities / Reptilians and you bite your tongue for it’s Christmas and you don’t want to ’cause a scene’.

This is the lesson – I think – millions of Britons have learned within the last decade. That akin to the intelligentsia in the old Soviet Union, they’ve realised the easiest route for a quiet life is to never voice their true feelings or thoughts, to mouth the politically accepted maxims when required and basically withdraw from any situation which could cause conflict, argument, offence or ‘trouble’ – something which has increased with the increasing outside surveillance (such as by employers) of your actions online. And all the while, quietly wondering whether they’re a minority of one or if others are ‘fellow heretics’.

A microcosm, I think of an aspect of life in 2019.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.