perlmonger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
perlmonger) wrote2005-10-20 09:38 am
perlmonger) wrote2005-10-20 09:38 am
On being a soggy liberal
This posting is a relocated answer to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
lproven here on the subject of spraying pigs' blood at Muslim terrorists.
Liam said: They want to kill us and in return you want to /understand their motivations and cultural context?/ I sit amazed.
"They" are people. Just like you and I. The idea that "terrorists" and "rapists" and "cabinet ministers" and all other identifiable subgroups of humanity that do evil and (apparently) incomprehensible things are somehow different from "us"; that we, living through similar events, placed in equivalent situations wouldn't react in a similar way is a nice, comfortable illusion. It's "them" that are bad'n'wrong, not "us". "We" would never behave that way.
Sorry.
Yes "we" would.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't protect ourselves against attack from anyone and anywhere that attacks us: what I am suggesting is that we maybe look at longer term preventive measures by seeing why some people feel so (otherwise) powerless and angry that they want to attack us and maybe, just maybe, see if it's at least partially because we've backed them into a corner after a couple of millenia of political, military and commercial (to the extent that those three things can be separated) violence.
In what way is using someone's own insane beliefs to prevent them from committing a crime a "lynch mob mindset"?
By dismissing another world-view as "insane", you implicitly dismiss those who hold that world-view which, in turn, renders them "other" and safe to insult, abuse, incarcerate and kill as a collective group. That sounds to me very like the state in which black people were (and to an extent still are) in parts of the US; the state in which gay people are to a significant (but I hope) minority of people in this country; the state in which, increasingly, anyone of a Semitic (or, indeed, Brazillian) appearance is in this country.
Oh, and leaving aside for a moment the spraying of pigs' blood, it would also be nice if the measures taken by our government purportedly to counter the "threat of terrorism" (1) did so, rather than increasing that threat and (2) weren't just more steps to screw down the rest of the population and, as far as they can get away with it, abolish the rule of law using external threat (enemies are necessary to government) as a handy covering excuse.
lproven here on the subject of spraying pigs' blood at Muslim terrorists.Liam said: They want to kill us and in return you want to /understand their motivations and cultural context?/ I sit amazed.
"They" are people. Just like you and I. The idea that "terrorists" and "rapists" and "cabinet ministers" and all other identifiable subgroups of humanity that do evil and (apparently) incomprehensible things are somehow different from "us"; that we, living through similar events, placed in equivalent situations wouldn't react in a similar way is a nice, comfortable illusion. It's "them" that are bad'n'wrong, not "us". "We" would never behave that way.
Sorry.
Yes "we" would.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't protect ourselves against attack from anyone and anywhere that attacks us: what I am suggesting is that we maybe look at longer term preventive measures by seeing why some people feel so (otherwise) powerless and angry that they want to attack us and maybe, just maybe, see if it's at least partially because we've backed them into a corner after a couple of millenia of political, military and commercial (to the extent that those three things can be separated) violence.
In what way is using someone's own insane beliefs to prevent them from committing a crime a "lynch mob mindset"?
By dismissing another world-view as "insane", you implicitly dismiss those who hold that world-view which, in turn, renders them "other" and safe to insult, abuse, incarcerate and kill as a collective group. That sounds to me very like the state in which black people were (and to an extent still are) in parts of the US; the state in which gay people are to a significant (but I hope) minority of people in this country; the state in which, increasingly, anyone of a Semitic (or, indeed, Brazillian) appearance is in this country.
Oh, and leaving aside for a moment the spraying of pigs' blood, it would also be nice if the measures taken by our government purportedly to counter the "threat of terrorism" (1) did so, rather than increasing that threat and (2) weren't just more steps to screw down the rest of the population and, as far as they can get away with it, abolish the rule of law using external threat (enemies are necessary to government) as a handy covering excuse.
no subject
Let me try to explain.
The path from religion to schoolkids comes from the, to me, fairly clear links from irrationality in one area - e.g. religion - extending to flawed reasoning in others - e.g. [1] hurting kids is wrong [2] but rewarding them for doing well is OK [3] so we'll just ban punishing children in homes and schools and they'll learn anyway.
It's all about tolerance. I feel that it's not OK to tolerate irrationality. I feel that it's not OK to respect others' viewpoints if those viewpoints are based on false information. I feel that it's not OK to allow people to advertise falsehoods, and that this covers religion, faith healing, alternative medicine, mysticism and claims of the paranormal and much else besides.
Tolerance itself is not a bad thing and understanding never is - but tolerance of irrationality, be it based on faith or tradition or culture, is an evil that is harmful to civilisation.
As for this post: well, I can only echo yourself back to you. I don't subscribe to any us-v-them "analysis" of the situation and I would, largely, agree with you. But personally I strongly suspect that the native state of Man is to be stupid, gullible and superstitious. We are all tainted by this, but some, perhaps, less than others.
As for rationality being hard to define and a subjective quality, that I would strongly dispute, but I don't think it would be a profitable or interesting debate. I tend to believe that there are absolutes of truth and falsehood in the objective universe and that it is possible by reason and logic to completely understand it, given enough time and resources. Any rational being that chooses not to do so, that chooses irrationality, is worth less to me.
As for alienation, commodification and so on; well, I wasn't addressing that at all. I don't honestly think, at first glance, that it's culpable here, but I'll think on it.