Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Like, Nor Way That Is Good

I'm not big on the travesty of terrorism and extremist behaviors and beliefs.  They're repugnant in all their iterations, without fail.  I oppose violence except as a response to immediate threats of it.  I'm a pragmatist, and a peace advocate.  However, the balance of equities sometimes requires violence; that is to say, that pragmatism can trump peace.

You and I, say, may not agree on anything. I might oppose practically everything for which you advocate, but I unreservedly advocate your right to think it, and to try to convince others (myself included) that your reasoning is superior to any other I've yet entertained. You have the full right and opportunity to convince me, but you may well not have the ability.  If your attempts to persuade me you're right have behind them a threat that should you not succeed, it's acceptable for you to kill me (or anyone else for that matter), then you're going to find that I'm extremely hostile to you and your position.

There's a gentleman named Pat Condell whose claim to fame is a youtube series. He's a former (present?) comedian whose opinions I take with that view. I'm sure like many comedians, his views are related to his comedy, but I still take what he says in the comedy way even knowing that he probably on the whole is representing something close to his politics.

Another person whom I follow is named Claire. I've linked to her several times. She's wry and hysterically funny as well.  The other day she made a video which I embedded and commented on here. In it, she has a picture of Pat Condell in an SS officer's uniform with the words, translated here for your benefit, Condell on our side. This was written in German and is s parody of what used to appear on German soldiers' belt buckles: god on our side.

She doesn't much care for Pat Condell, which is an issue she and do not agree on. Sometimes heatedly.

I still think she's wrong in her characterization of Condell. One is that she doesn't take him in a comedic sense while I do.  After all, why do I really care what a comedian thinks beyond their ability to make something entertaining.

Pat has apparently received enough feedback to make a video about it.  On this narrow point, I am marching in goosestep with his opinion:  anyone who thinks violence is an acceptable discussion technique is my enemy.  It is entirely possible for someone to be completely wrong (and let's say that Pat Condell is just wrong about all of his politics), and still not deserve to be killed for it. It's entirely possible for someone to advocate for a position without it being said that they want others to killed in the name of that political ideology. Pat is in this category. Without passing judgment on his politics, he has always maintained that he's against oppression and violence.  I see no reason to think otherwise.

Anyway, divorced from my treating him as a comedian whom I appreciate for comedy's sake, here is his latest contribution.  If you're a Pat Condell hater, please point out exactly where in this you think he's wrong. 

If you can't divorce what you think of Pat Condell from examining the validity of his claims here, then that's fine. You've just admitted that ideas are less important to you than the people holding them. That is to say, you've demonstrated that an idea that's otherwise notable and worthy of consideration ceases to become as such because you don't like a particular person who espouses it.

I have no such problems. Ideas are more important than people's personalities or likeability.  If you fail to parse that, then I suggest you long-reflect on yourself because you've just become an ideologue of the lowest order.



Also, here's a good, funny take on it all from Billy Bob Neck.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm not a Pat Condell hater; this is the first time I've heard of the name. But "please point out exactly where in this you think he's wrong." is tempting, so here goes:

"I'll be very interested to see how many hate preaching imams are blamed for the next Islamic atrocity."
He implies here that this has not happened on previous such occasions. I know it's happened; I read it, I heard it. Not merely extremist imams were blamed, not merely fanatical islamists, but anyone who was a muslim, or Arab. Extremist imams preaching violence have been arrested and deported from various Western countries. What exactly is his complaint here?

"Noone who criticises Islam or multiculturalism is in any way responsible for his actions".
That's a nice choice of words, as it's literally true. Nor were any imams responsible for 9/11, after all. Possibly no imam's words even contributed anything to the decisions of some young men to commit themselves to an act of massive mass-murder-suicide. And yet, those who advocated violence against the decadent West, were deemed complicit in intent, if not in action. And I concur. Similarly in this case, those who say 'I don't like Islam' have nothing to be blamed for, nor those who say 'I think we should aim for a less multicultural society'. But again, those advocating violence against muslims just for being of that group, or who claim that revolution is needed to 'take back' , are. I acccusing Condell of using weasel words here; skirting any actual issue of inciting hatred and violence without being literally 'responsible'.

"and the critisms are all, still, entirely valid".
Well, he finds them valid apparently. All of them, including the (in my view) completely insane ones from Michelle Bachmann, Wilders and the white supremacy groups? Surely he's being rather hyperbolic here, unless his view is 'Please nuke the entire middle East and drive every last muslim from Western lands, just please do it without violence or in a way that doesn't make me complicit'.

"Islam is still a totalitarian ideology, that actively threatens our freedom"
This statement is 'not even wrong'; perhaps it's a secret code of some kind to reach kindred minds?
Islam is a religion, not an 'ideology'. As to it being 'totalitarian', I don't even know how to address this, as muslims generally do proclaim they have not wish to live under the iron boot of a dictator; even a muslim one.
As for 'threatening our freedom'? Oh please, the freedom to do what? Where? What possible, conceivable scenario is there in which Islam takes away any of your 'freedom', however you define it? And no, I don't think the Patriot act can be put at the feet of Islam. That was American Christian politicians.

Anonymous said...

"Political correctness is still, yes, cultural Marxism"
Finally a statement that appears defensible; it seems a fair comparison, except cultural Marxism was a really insignificant movement that never got anywhere. I find political correctness on occasion annoying, but mostly cause for ridicule. What I find amusing here is that it appears he's using 'cultural Marxism' as an epithet. Surely such an insignificant historical movement with good intentions and no traction isn't the worst thing to compare something to, unless 'Marxism' is also an epithet by itself? If so, is that as a remnant from Marxism being used as a code word for 'evil' back in the days of the Cold War?

"And multiculturalism is still a lie".
I regret having used 'not even wrong' before, as it applies here even more so. In a literal sense multiculturalism is a phenomenon, not a factual statement. Phenomena rarely lie. Possibly he means those who advocate for multiculturalism lie? But then what is it they lie about? About it being desirable? That's a matter of preference, which cannot be factually right or wrong. About it even being workable? I'd point towards Australia, the U.S, or one of the many other countries where large immigrant groups continue to live peacefully with large parts of their old culture intact.

"All over Europe, de facto blasphemy laws are still being used to prosecute people who criticise Islam and only Islam."
This appears to me a bit of weaselling again. What are these 'de facto blasphemy laws'. Why call them 'de facto blasphemy laws' instead of what they actually are? What prosecutions is he referring to? The only one that comes to mind for me is the prosecution of Wilders, for 'inciting hatred against muslims'. The law against inciting hatred is a strange one and hard to prove, but it has been used to succesfully prosecute.... muslims who were found to incite hatred.

"The only way to get the overwhelming public support needed for change"
Lead-in to every single issue advocacy group statement. Do YOU want change? I do too! We all support change! Let's discuss the details after the revolution.

"but is by defending freedom of speech, no matter what".
He's not really making a falsifiable claim here, merely stating a view that has some points going for it. I disagree with the 'no matter what' though. I quite concur with laws that allow a judge to have an imam deported or jailed for telling his followers to 'kill the Christian dogs wherever they may be', for instance.

"and by telling the truth".
He appears to be referring here to the angry claims he's just finished making. Telling people is how we create 'change'? I guess I'll still have to disagree, albeit at this point with a grin.

Regards,
Roger.

Justicar said...

Roger:
do you also support the jailing of people for denying the holocaust? What about deporting people for arguing for developing a nuclear weapons research scheme?

What about those advocate for permissive euthanasia?

How do you differentiate which sets of things make be spoken about without arrest, deportation, or execution from those things that are worthy of being thought and then advocated for?

Who do you trust to determine what you are allowed to think and speak for or against?

Please direct me to the person in the world to whom you cede to right to determine what you are allowed to think and say. Please direct me to the person who think is empowered to determine what words I'm not allowed to hear so that I might ask him or her if what you wrote here is really representative of what you think, and meant to say.

After all, to countenance your idea, there must exist at least one person to whom you grant full rights to determine what think and mean to say since that person, of necessity, is explicitly empowered to determine for what you may think and say.

So, I'd like to know who this person is so that I might discuss with him or her what you really think. And then maybe, you know, go ahead and cede to him or her the right to do my thinking for me too since it would be a little bit easier if I didn't have the burden of evaluating things on my own. It'd be much simpler if I could just buy a package of thoughts and ideas that I am told I do think so that I might get on with the business of attending other matters in my life (on which my thoughts will be determined ahead of time so I can spend more time enjoying them).

Justicar said...

Sorry for the pidgin english there. I took some morphine and my typing ability is suffering as a result.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

“Roger:
do you also support the jailing of people for denying the holocaust? What about deporting people for arguing for developing a nuclear weapons research scheme?”

A slippery slope argument in the making and yes, it’s can be slippery. Note we’re not talking about punishing people for holding opinions here, we’re talking about a form of public speech that is deemed bad enough to ban, because it is thought to ‘incite’ others. The speech is banned because it’s in a context where others are considered likely to absorb it and take harmful action.

“What about those advocate for permissive euthanasia?”

I like this example, it’s a pretty close analogy. If euthanasia were deemed that bad, then yes, it would be banned by those same rules. It is not however and euthanasia advocacy is fine in my particular society. There was an actual issue here some years ago about a site that recommended techniques for suicide. It was banned. This ban I personally disagree with, but then I do not agree with all laws. Another example of banned publich speech here forbids publication of full identities or pictures of crime suspects or perpetrators in many criminal justice cases. I find this entirely reasonable; they have a right to some privacy, especially the victims.
“How do you differentiate which sets of things make be spoken about without arrest, deportation, or execution from those things that are worthy of being thought and then advocated for?

Who do you trust to determine what you are allowed to think and speak for or against?”

The same way we differentiate between other actions that may be taken without arrest, deportation, or execution: by having a more or less representative parliament agree on laws definining the distinctions.

I find the belief that any and all speech must be allowed in all circumstances, whereas other actions can be curtailed to any arbitrary limit, to be inconsistent. Publich speech is a form of action, albeit a minimal one that rarely causes real harm. In those rare cases, I’m for curtailing it.

I realise that ‘free speech’ is a strong meme in American culture; an absolute belief in it is widely accepted in custom and law. This is not the case in many Western European countries and I think they’re not necessarily the less for it.

“Please direct me to the person in the world to whom you cede to right to determine what you are allowed to think and say. Please direct me to the person who think is empowered to determine what words I'm not allowed to hear so that I might ask him or her if what you wrote here is really representative of what you think, and meant to say.”

I have ceded the right to determine where I may drive, how much alcohol I may drink before driving and where I may walk naked to the government by dint of having been born here and not emigrated. I also ceded the right to ban certain rare harmful forms of public speech. You, having been born elsewhere and choosing to stay there, have ceded the right to determine what substances you may or may not smoke in your own home to your government. How is it justified to determine what you may not smoke in your house, but not justified to decide that some forms of public speech can cause real harm and ban them?

The phrase “What you are allowed to think and say” is a bit of a red herring. We’re only talking about public speech, not thoughts, nor private speech. Only public speech can be considered, on rare occasions, to be harmful to society.

And yes, once you allow forms of public speech to be banned, there will at some point be a stupid law banning some public speech unreasonably. Stupid laws will be passed on many subjects – hopefully to be later stricken from the books.

The remainder of your post is a slippery slope snark towards thought police. Well written, but again, I’m only talking about ‘public speech’.

Regards,
Roger.

Anonymous said...

Oops. Apology for double post.

Roger.

Justicar said...

Roger:
"A slippery slope argument and you’re right, this slope can be slippery, just not that slippery."

Except that I have no need of making that argument in terms of a slippery slope. The reason I mentioned Hitchens and that topic is because of the heat he took campaigning to have a man released from jail for saying aloud that he didn't believe the holocaust happened. No need to postulate what might happen when I can point to governments in Europe which are already imprisoning people for thinking against the orthodox dictates of the society.

The goosestep from silencing any speech to chilling all speech is not as far removed as you seem to think. Saying that one is not convinced that an historical event actually took place is sufficient a warrant to indict and convict someone for not thinking as they're told they must.

Again, this was enacted by parliaments whom you hold in esteem sufficiently high to arbitrate who may think and say what. No call for action, no attempt to get a riot of people to kill people for being Jews. He simply is not convinced the holocaust happened, and went to prison for admitting he wasn't convinced.

Again, to whom do you cede the right to decide for you, in advance, what you may think and say, when, to whom, and where?

Apparently, it's to governments willing to imprison people for not agreeing with a dogma you cede the responsibility of thinking for you.

Justicar said...

I'll just delete the redundant post. The spam filter I have turned is apparently union; it's going to work whether I like it or not.

Anonymous said...

“Except that I have no need of making that argument in terms of a slippery slope. The reason I mentioned Hitchens and that topic is because of the heat he took campaigning to have a man released from jail for saying aloud that he didn't believe the holocaust happened. No need to postulate what might happen when I can point to governments in Europe which are already imprisoning people for thinking against the orthodox dictates of the society.”

Ah, I had forgotten that incident. Yes, I agree, this is a bad law. Bad laws will be written and enforced, some concerning public speech, some concerning public acts, some even concerning private acts. However this is one incident, whereas hundreds of thousands are put behind bars for years for the crime of possessing marijuana for their own private use. I think the latter miscarriage of justice is worse. You may of course disagree.

You are wrong though that he was conviced for his beliefs; he was convicted for public speech. Had he merely thought this or discussed it with his friends, he could not have been prosecuted.

My point is that governments do make laws and some will be bad. Laws limiting public speech are not worse in themselves than laws limiting other forms of behaviour. Come to think of it, to jews who lost their families in the concentration camps, Holocaust denial may well be seen as libel. I think it’s not; merely implying “you lie that your parents were gassed” should not count as libel. But from that point of view I can see some justification for the bad law Hitchens attacked, while still disagreeing with it.

And come to think of it, the U.S. has libel laws, copyright laws and the DMCA which already limit public speech. You may well argue there are good reasons for those (DMCA perhaps excepted). I say there may be more good reasons than just these. I have named a few.

Regards,
Roger.

Justicar said...

There's a tiny problem with your marijuana issue: it's an inferior topic to speech. If the populous has no right to expect to be able to speak their minds without prison, the rest of it's all a smoke screen.

I did not say he was convicted solely for his beliefs. I said for stating his non-acceptance of an historical event.

It is irrelevant whether he said it at home, to ten people at the market or a public speech. He was arrested and imprisoned for saying, in summation, "I do not believe it is true."

Justicar said...

Yes, there are libel laws, to which truth is absolute defense. Further, part of free speech is accepting the consequences of one's words.

If one is lying and then later on has to pay punitive damages, then my rubric is untouched. His right to speak was not determined in advance to be unworthy of hearing or speaking. He said it and hurt someone on dubious facts.

Plus, the state comes in afterward to provide a forum. It is not out stopping people with fail from in advance saying "you may not say these words."

Property laws aren't free speech. If you're going to construe it as such, then if I say that I own my neighbor's house, I must then be entitled to its deed.

Anonymous said...

"There's a tiny problem with your marijuana issue: it's an inferior topic to speech. If the populous has no right to expect to be able to speak their minds without prison, the rest of it's all a smoke screen."

I do not understand why you say marijuana is an 'ínferior topic'.
But more to the point, you already cannot speak your mind without risking prison: libel laws (the existence of which I, predictably, support).

And yes, just like with libel, it does matter if he said it at home or in public. One form of speech is sometimes limited by laws, the other isn't.

Regards,
Roger.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, there are libel laws, to which truth is absolute defense."

However, merely thinking something to be true is not an adequate defense. Stating publicly that your boss has herpes because you think he gave it to you, can get you into trouble if in fact you got it from someone else.

My point of the 'in your own home' has nothing to do with property law. It could as well be a friend's home. The point is that you're not causing anyone else any conceivable harm and most likely not even yourself.

I still do not see why speech is such a special category of actiona that it must be free of any limitations when other actions tha cause nobody harm are limited by law in arbitrary fashion.

In the end, we may simply disagree. I'll blame culture (yours, not mine, of course).

Roger.

Anonymous said...

I visit each day a few web pages and blogs to read posts, however this webpage offers quality based
posts.

Feel free to surf to my web-site: convection steam oven reviews