tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post691384250801215740..comments2023-08-08T11:48:10.725+01:00Comments on swisslet: and you know where they burn books, people are next....swisslethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16708248700851998044noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-18323585114868768412009-10-20T20:07:48.534+01:002009-10-20T20:07:48.534+01:00Hm. I'm not so much shrugging my shoulders her...Hm. I'm not so much shrugging my shoulders here -- I'm actively appalled by lots of this sort of stuff and I thought Jan Moir's article was hateful -- as trying to raise a relativist point that I often raise about how moral standards are, by their very nature, subjective and that they slip and slide over time. What is acceptable to some people is beyond the pale to others (civil partnerships for same sex couples appears to be one such issue at the moment). It's also true that society's mores shift over time too - it was once considered unacceptable for a man to leave the house with a bare head, for instance. Not so any more (more's the pity!). I have been heartily encouraged by some of the responses I've seen on Twitter (and elsewhere) recently, but at the same time I'm conscious that "we" (i.e. my kind of person who shares similar morals and politics and things) are not the only people who can do this, and we're going to see "other" people doing the same thing for things we don't agree with. <br><br>I'm definitely not shrugging my shoulders and saying that we should be happy about this or that we can't or shouldn't do anything about it, I'm just trying to make the general point that, in our own liberal, caring-sharing way, we're as guilty of creating a mob as "they" are and of, I guess, assuming that our point of view is the "right" one.<br><br>A burka is indeed a good example of this, for all the reasons you say, but we could probably as easily settle into a cracking argument about the merits of, say, Crazy Frog too. Loads of people think he was great.....<br><br>I can't help myself. I studied history at university, and the thing I took away from that is that there is no such thing as a fact and that absolutely everything we think we know is subjective to some degree or another. I can't help but apply that to pretty much everything. Parliament has been making laws for centuries, but I can't see it legislating now to execute the monarch, more's the pity.... even though they have the power and have done it before. What's more, the makeup of parliament and thus the people it represents have changed enormously over the same time. It's theoretically the same body and it's still passing laws, but it's a mistake to think that it hasn't changed. I"m not sure, either, that they are, or have ever been, the arbiters of what is and isn't acceptable. One of, perhaps, but far from the only ones. <br><br>I love blogging. You put a post out there, and it's amazing how often you end up talking at a tangent in the comments to what you were expecting.<br><br>STswisslethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16708248700851998044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-59009234708090529472009-10-20T19:16:38.112+01:002009-10-20T19:16:38.112+01:00Saying "who are we to say we're any bette...Saying "who are we to say we're any better" does seem like a shrug of the shoulders to me. And people's view are very unlikely to change if not challenged.<br><br>"We" have been setting out what is and isn't acceptable through our parliament for hundreds of years, why so cautious now? You can talk about how alienated we've all become from politics but I imagine, by and large, you probably agree with most of the law of the land?<br><br>Grey areas? I've got a good one: burkas. Personally I think they probably are an instrument of patriarchal oppression but at the same time I think it'd be ridiculous to legislate on what people can and can't wear. Also, you've got obviously intelligent women saying they're perfectly happy to wear them. What to do? As to who is patrolling this (and all the other) grey areas: why those moral paragons of the press of course.Artoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846359529440273892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-72923915586239334302009-10-20T12:21:22.627+01:002009-10-20T12:21:22.627+01:00have I ceded that homophobes are entitled to their...have I ceded that homophobes are entitled to their views? I don't see how you're going to stop them having or expressing those views, but I don't think I've conceded that they should be allowed to speak out of politeness have I? What interests me is the territory this gets us into. Are we setting ourselves up as saying what we think is and is not acceptable? What qualifies us? Homophobia is an obvious one, but what about something a little less clearcut that we disagree with? It's not a clear line between right and wrong, is it? Who patrols the gray area? Me? You?swisslethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16708248700851998044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-34834201490630176362009-10-20T11:46:04.958+01:002009-10-20T11:46:04.958+01:00Homophobia is irrational. I take it to be self ev...Homophobia is irrational. I take it to be self evident that it is better not to inflict harm (physical or verbal) on somebody for no good reason. Given the likelihood that homophobia's survival is in large part due to the influence of arbitrary religious doctrine I'm surprised that you cede that homophobes are entitled to their views, out of what? Humility? Politeness?<br><br>As for the personal abuse - poor old Jan Moir eh? What bad luck to have spouted all that crap in the same week a gay man is murdered for nothing more than his sexuality! I'm sorry but she has indeed been left looking like a right c*nt.Artoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846359529440273892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-14747193809391412612009-10-19T23:45:26.121+01:002009-10-19T23:45:26.121+01:00Hmmm. I'm largely with you on the Jan Moir thi...Hmmm. I'm largely with you on the Jan Moir thing, and lots of what I read was heartwarming and inclusive... But a lot of it was full of personal name-calling about Moir that had little or nothing to add to the debate but more abuse. I'm also pretty sure that lots of people didn't bother to read the article (more, I suspect, than heard Ross and Brand before complaining....). The abusers allowed Moir to write it off, at least publically, as an orchestrated campaign when it was clearly no such thing. It's great that we made our voices heard, but I'm anxious on two fronts:<br><br>1) I don't like the haters and their stupid abuse. I didn't like what Moir wrote, but is calling her an ugly c*nt really helping? How does that make us different? <br><br>2) I'm acutely aware that we, the reasonable liberal people of Twitter and elsewhere, decided this was worth making a stand over. Other people, with different values, will espouse causes we don't believe in.... The extreme right or religious conservatives, for example... They will have an impact too, and frankly who are we to say we're any better? I believe we are, but they believe at least as strongly that they are too, and they may shout louder than we can. <br><br>That's all.swisslethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16708248700851998044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1750120863647373520.post-4400924113086429522009-10-19T23:19:20.452+01:002009-10-19T23:19:20.452+01:00How should people like Jan Moir be dealt with? He...How <em>should</em> people like Jan Moir be dealt with? Her article was poisonously homophobic and the more complaints there are about it indicates to me that we might actually be living in a more rational and compassionate society than I thought. I'm not bothered about the kicking that Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross got, I think they're both pretty good at what they do but the sketch in question was toe-curlingly puerile.<br><br>As for the BNP - if their membership is in fact limited to indigenous caucasians I can't understand how this is legal and how they can stand for election - but it seems to be the case and so I think they ought to be on Question Time and the other parties ought to earn their democratic spurs by ripping them apart.Artoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01846359529440273892noreply@blogger.com