"Are we obliged to be nice and never do what we know upsets others?"
Its a good question. And its a good point that you make about the intent being to express concern about attacks on those who do not support Islam.
I think of the Sex Pistols Song "Anarchy for the UK" lyrics which include:
"I am an Antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it
I wanna destroy passersby
'Cause I wanna be anarchy
No dog's body."
John Lydon has been reported as saying that all of this was rhetoric, he didn't mean any of it and he actually quite liked the queen. That he'd had a close call with meningitis as a child which led to loss of memory with a nurse saying he had to become angry in order to recover.
Well, certainly it is an angry song. The intent being to not be anyone's "dogsbody". Well, isn't that not dissimilar to not wanting to be attacked by Islam for not supporting Islam?
What would be the approach of the authorities to such anti-Christ and anarchist rhetoric today? Would it be treated equally to anti-Islam and anti-authority rhetoric?
If it would be then how could anyone object? If Islam is favoured over Christ then surely this must exemplify two things. First, a failure of DIE to be fair in its approach to Islam and Christianity, favouring the former over the latter. Second, to do, as you say, in effect introduce an anti - blasphemy Law but it being worse than that. The anti-blasphemy only applying to Islam, not to Christianity, having removed previous anti blasphemy law from a Christian perspective.
May you be successful Matthew in your intention to bring some common sense to this.
Cheers Adam, that is a good example. Anger is an energy as Public Image ltd sang in Rise.
A quick listen to anything Eminem produced in the early 2000s shows we really didn't learn anything. The current sensibilities always begin the conversation again on what should and shouldn't be allowed as speech or artistic expression.
That being said, while I don't think people should be interfered with for their speech, in the current political climate of action and reaction and criticism against the old ways of doing things - including approaches to free expression - if you are going to straddle the commonly accepted line of limitations to speech, incitement to violence, then you can't be all that surprised when you get people's attention and people call for state intervention. Especially when that same intervention has been weaponised against other members of the population in a partisan way.
Again, I would have none of these people interfered with and would encourage everyone to stomach the reprehensible expressions they hear. But there is a part of me that responds: "well, what did you think was going to happen when you moved away from this principle of free expression and rare and exceptional interference".
To put myself in the shoes of those who argue that silence is violence, I can see how they arrive here. Thinking of the status quo as oppressing some and favouring others and that there is no escaping this dynamic - you are either in the matrix and are a potential agent or you are resisting against the matrix, then there is only action against or complicity.
But there is another path, which Morpheus, Neo, Trinity and the other members of the fictional resistance concluded which is to have sympathy for those who may be under the spell of an illusion.
I think critical theorists, radical activists, the postmodern types see themselves as the resistance against an oppressive lie. But they go a step further and see members of groups they view as oppressors as either acting as an ally against the oppression or contributing to it either shrewdly or in their attempts to be neutral. And they reject neutrality out of hand.
This is also why it is easy for them to question the idea of what a reasonable person is. Any standard of reasonableness is not some neutral, objective, universal claim, but an expression of some kind of story or narrative.
I know you are not fond of the academic but this is a very tricky philosophical problem that it is easy to use for malicious purposes or to respond to with dogma and simply assert some form of standard. My friend Fergus is working on his masters thesis exploring exactly this issue. I think it is a practical problem that requires considerable theoretical care to escape the traps laid down for those who seek certainty in their moral judgements. Be those philosophical or theological.
The "silence is violence" rhetoric seems to originate from the idea that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing. So to not speak up when there is oppression being part of the problem with oppression and as words (or lack of words) are considered violent, in extreme cases this being and attempt to justify violence. And if this were to become full blown then authoritarianism is inevitable as is being kept in place with fear.
I would be hypocritical if I were to say I'm not fond of the academic having academic experience however there is a curious truth that academic can both refer to further education and something that is useless. I would offer that the academic is useless unless it is applied in which case it can be very useful.
Yes, the question is how ought ideas be applied in practice? Should ideas be explored for their own sake or for the sake of some end? Perhaps some political purpose?
What we are confronted with I think, in subsets of the humanities and the social sciences, is the observation of social ills as an extension of health and therefore requiring immediate and urgent change. With social and political institutions being more malleable than the human body. All that is required is influence over policy and the beliefs and opinions of those surrounding policymaking.
The DEI, critical race theory, gender affirming care, net zero degrowth movement, are all instances of applied ideas that have arisen from the academy and have a stronger relationship with political activism than most academic work. Which is usually pursued for its own sake and not for the express want to seek social and political change.
We want how we conduct ourselves to be informed by careful and rigorous thought, but should this give intellectuals license to bypass the voting public by producing scholarship for the sake of bringing about certain kinds of change? Research in practice may seem to have more utility, but it depends on the ideas that are being implemented.
Some good points that you make here along with implying that DEI etc. in the humanities and social sciences existing gives license for intellectuals to have a bypass (which wouldn't ordinarily be afforded politically) to influence societal change in partnership with political activism.
Well it has been said that small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events and great minds talk about ideas. This would be a good place to start in an endeavour for greatness in applied academics. Sow a thought, reap an action, sow an action, reap a habit, sow a habit, reap a character, sow a character reap a destiny.
Therefore there is the potential for both great good and great harm from applied academic ideas.
If the idea is that social ills are of a need to address as part and parcel of health, then it becomes a vested interest of all in the social sciences and humanities to contribute to well being.
With DEI perceived as a healing approach to social ills, group identity becomes paramount over individual sovereignty. So - critical race theory, feminism, interscetionism, Marxism all come in to play where one identifies an individual as "victim" or "oppressor" based on group identity and it being about empowering the victim and the opressor surrendering power.
The vision that Martin Luther King had in his "I have a Dream" speech being of people not being judged on colour of skin but by character in critical race theory is something that we "have moved on from" for example.
So, to address the social ill of racism and therefore foster well being for all for the critical race theorist is to presuppose white hegemony with dominance used to oppress and DEI be both beneficial to the assumed victim as to the white assumed oppressor.
So what happens then when the white person implements Martin Luther King's dream of being judged not by colour of skin but by content of charater? The critical race theorist presupposes this to be a subconcious act of oppression due to "historical racism" and that being inherited with "systemic racism" being the social ill.
Therefore to remain silent on this becomes to CRT, an act of racism. And since taken to the extreme this can mean "silence is violence" some activists choosing this to try to justify acts of violence.
Therefore there is this bizzare reality of challenging the preconceived idea of a white person being inherently racist with Martin Luther Kings dream of judging someone not by colour of skin but content of character could be equated with a physical act of violence within CRT.
Freedom of expression may be a way to weed out such an idea. If any idea is to be given careful and rigorous thought then it being expressed freely could be how do do it. If an idea is valid then it will be able to challenge other ideas and be open to challenging other ideas that also are freely expressed. If an idea expressed becomes defensive when challenged then it is shown to be invalid.
This seems to be what was played out in the Question Time programme where Nick Griffin of the BNP appeared. At the time his appearance on the programme was thought of as controversial. However it did lead to the fall of the BNP. The episode is here https://youtu.be/4iKfrY9l2kY?si=uK_vWBSEFF-QHo0C. Had Nick Griffin been "no platformed", would this decline have happened?
That seems a better way to go about healing social ills than punching someone in the face.
"Are we obliged to be nice and never do what we know upsets others?"
Its a good question. And its a good point that you make about the intent being to express concern about attacks on those who do not support Islam.
I think of the Sex Pistols Song "Anarchy for the UK" lyrics which include:
"I am an Antichrist
I am an anarchist
Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it
I wanna destroy passersby
'Cause I wanna be anarchy
No dog's body."
John Lydon has been reported as saying that all of this was rhetoric, he didn't mean any of it and he actually quite liked the queen. That he'd had a close call with meningitis as a child which led to loss of memory with a nurse saying he had to become angry in order to recover.
Well, certainly it is an angry song. The intent being to not be anyone's "dogsbody". Well, isn't that not dissimilar to not wanting to be attacked by Islam for not supporting Islam?
What would be the approach of the authorities to such anti-Christ and anarchist rhetoric today? Would it be treated equally to anti-Islam and anti-authority rhetoric?
If it would be then how could anyone object? If Islam is favoured over Christ then surely this must exemplify two things. First, a failure of DIE to be fair in its approach to Islam and Christianity, favouring the former over the latter. Second, to do, as you say, in effect introduce an anti - blasphemy Law but it being worse than that. The anti-blasphemy only applying to Islam, not to Christianity, having removed previous anti blasphemy law from a Christian perspective.
May you be successful Matthew in your intention to bring some common sense to this.
Cheers Adam, that is a good example. Anger is an energy as Public Image ltd sang in Rise.
A quick listen to anything Eminem produced in the early 2000s shows we really didn't learn anything. The current sensibilities always begin the conversation again on what should and shouldn't be allowed as speech or artistic expression.
That being said, while I don't think people should be interfered with for their speech, in the current political climate of action and reaction and criticism against the old ways of doing things - including approaches to free expression - if you are going to straddle the commonly accepted line of limitations to speech, incitement to violence, then you can't be all that surprised when you get people's attention and people call for state intervention. Especially when that same intervention has been weaponised against other members of the population in a partisan way.
Again, I would have none of these people interfered with and would encourage everyone to stomach the reprehensible expressions they hear. But there is a part of me that responds: "well, what did you think was going to happen when you moved away from this principle of free expression and rare and exceptional interference".
Indeed anger is an energy and to not be angry where there is injustice is a sign of a society that under the coercion of a tyranny.
And in a tyranny, the artists and the intellectuals are the first to be put up against a wall and shot or sent away for retraining.
Or a milder form of that being required to undertake diversity training.
With regards to incitement to violence, is “silence is violence” a valid approach?
What constitutes a “reasonable person” when there is a tyrannical force determining what is to be perceived as reasonable is anything but reasonable.
To put myself in the shoes of those who argue that silence is violence, I can see how they arrive here. Thinking of the status quo as oppressing some and favouring others and that there is no escaping this dynamic - you are either in the matrix and are a potential agent or you are resisting against the matrix, then there is only action against or complicity.
But there is another path, which Morpheus, Neo, Trinity and the other members of the fictional resistance concluded which is to have sympathy for those who may be under the spell of an illusion.
I think critical theorists, radical activists, the postmodern types see themselves as the resistance against an oppressive lie. But they go a step further and see members of groups they view as oppressors as either acting as an ally against the oppression or contributing to it either shrewdly or in their attempts to be neutral. And they reject neutrality out of hand.
This is also why it is easy for them to question the idea of what a reasonable person is. Any standard of reasonableness is not some neutral, objective, universal claim, but an expression of some kind of story or narrative.
I know you are not fond of the academic but this is a very tricky philosophical problem that it is easy to use for malicious purposes or to respond to with dogma and simply assert some form of standard. My friend Fergus is working on his masters thesis exploring exactly this issue. I think it is a practical problem that requires considerable theoretical care to escape the traps laid down for those who seek certainty in their moral judgements. Be those philosophical or theological.
The "silence is violence" rhetoric seems to originate from the idea that all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to stand by and do nothing. So to not speak up when there is oppression being part of the problem with oppression and as words (or lack of words) are considered violent, in extreme cases this being and attempt to justify violence. And if this were to become full blown then authoritarianism is inevitable as is being kept in place with fear.
I would be hypocritical if I were to say I'm not fond of the academic having academic experience however there is a curious truth that academic can both refer to further education and something that is useless. I would offer that the academic is useless unless it is applied in which case it can be very useful.
Yes, the question is how ought ideas be applied in practice? Should ideas be explored for their own sake or for the sake of some end? Perhaps some political purpose?
What we are confronted with I think, in subsets of the humanities and the social sciences, is the observation of social ills as an extension of health and therefore requiring immediate and urgent change. With social and political institutions being more malleable than the human body. All that is required is influence over policy and the beliefs and opinions of those surrounding policymaking.
The DEI, critical race theory, gender affirming care, net zero degrowth movement, are all instances of applied ideas that have arisen from the academy and have a stronger relationship with political activism than most academic work. Which is usually pursued for its own sake and not for the express want to seek social and political change.
We want how we conduct ourselves to be informed by careful and rigorous thought, but should this give intellectuals license to bypass the voting public by producing scholarship for the sake of bringing about certain kinds of change? Research in practice may seem to have more utility, but it depends on the ideas that are being implemented.
Some good points that you make here along with implying that DEI etc. in the humanities and social sciences existing gives license for intellectuals to have a bypass (which wouldn't ordinarily be afforded politically) to influence societal change in partnership with political activism.
Well it has been said that small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events and great minds talk about ideas. This would be a good place to start in an endeavour for greatness in applied academics. Sow a thought, reap an action, sow an action, reap a habit, sow a habit, reap a character, sow a character reap a destiny.
Therefore there is the potential for both great good and great harm from applied academic ideas.
If the idea is that social ills are of a need to address as part and parcel of health, then it becomes a vested interest of all in the social sciences and humanities to contribute to well being.
With DEI perceived as a healing approach to social ills, group identity becomes paramount over individual sovereignty. So - critical race theory, feminism, interscetionism, Marxism all come in to play where one identifies an individual as "victim" or "oppressor" based on group identity and it being about empowering the victim and the opressor surrendering power.
The vision that Martin Luther King had in his "I have a Dream" speech being of people not being judged on colour of skin but by character in critical race theory is something that we "have moved on from" for example.
So, to address the social ill of racism and therefore foster well being for all for the critical race theorist is to presuppose white hegemony with dominance used to oppress and DEI be both beneficial to the assumed victim as to the white assumed oppressor.
So what happens then when the white person implements Martin Luther King's dream of being judged not by colour of skin but by content of charater? The critical race theorist presupposes this to be a subconcious act of oppression due to "historical racism" and that being inherited with "systemic racism" being the social ill.
Therefore to remain silent on this becomes to CRT, an act of racism. And since taken to the extreme this can mean "silence is violence" some activists choosing this to try to justify acts of violence.
Therefore there is this bizzare reality of challenging the preconceived idea of a white person being inherently racist with Martin Luther Kings dream of judging someone not by colour of skin but content of character could be equated with a physical act of violence within CRT.
Freedom of expression may be a way to weed out such an idea. If any idea is to be given careful and rigorous thought then it being expressed freely could be how do do it. If an idea is valid then it will be able to challenge other ideas and be open to challenging other ideas that also are freely expressed. If an idea expressed becomes defensive when challenged then it is shown to be invalid.
This seems to be what was played out in the Question Time programme where Nick Griffin of the BNP appeared. At the time his appearance on the programme was thought of as controversial. However it did lead to the fall of the BNP. The episode is here https://youtu.be/4iKfrY9l2kY?si=uK_vWBSEFF-QHo0C. Had Nick Griffin been "no platformed", would this decline have happened?
That seems a better way to go about healing social ills than punching someone in the face.