The ABC goes to Hungary: the culture war battle between “Christianity” and “woke” is a con
Some of the most dangerous people in the world right now are those normalising and sanitising fascistic politics. It was not just in the banal media discussion that preceded Donald Trump’s re-election; it can also be found at the ABC, including on Radio National lifestyle programming. One of the tropes to look for is the placing the concept “woke” in counterpoint to “traditional” and “Christian” values.
“Woke” has become the radicalising rightwing catch-all term to demonise everything inconvenient to their goals.
It must no longer be used naively to describe people who are alert to systemic injustice (as its origins in Civil Rights politics denoted).
It is now a poisoned term, deployed as slander against any selected enemy in the right’s efforts to build coalitions to hold power.
Its predecessor “political correctness” contained many similar facets, functioning to ridicule politeness and kindness particularly to those who remain disempowered within Western society. “Woke” is, however, much more broadly useful. It can be summoned to demonise pandemic health measures, which, not coincidentally, interfered with the corporate interests that also happen to fund this movement. Wearing face masks, for example, became a despised “woke” symbol.
Climate science and action are also ridiculed as “woke.” This provides not only cover for an unrelenting fossil fuel sector, but also helps generate votes for the sector’s preferred political parties. Fossil fuel money pervades the culture wars against modern inclusiveness and democratic projects.
Any development can be labelled “woke” to bond the disparate groups that the right intends to harness for oligarchs’ goals. Any impediment to oligarch interests can be made impossible, with the gulls shrieking “woke” on social media. To distract those whose living standards are declining as a result, any vulnerable group (and its allies) can be made despicable and their equal rights a “woke” target for dismantling.
The trajectory ought to frighten us: incoming Vice President JD Vance supported a book labelling the “left” as “unhumans.”
The intertwining of this culture war with corporate and oligarch interests is no accident. Plutocrat money is being funnelled directly into the rightwing parties that promise no constraints on the corporations’ ability to poison our water. “Christian” oligarchs’ “charitable” foundations fund campaigns for the right to refuse outdoor workers water breaks in sweltering conditions. They resent being forced to provide meal breaks to the child labourers they have ushered back into the American labour force.
That same money is spent on campaigns to portray centrist parties as representing only the most marginal of rights for trans people to make such politicians appear to ignore the worker. With the right in control of substantial media, and social media, platforms, it can be almost impossible for the centrist (or left) parties to advertise any achievements for the masses.
Meanwhile talking head commentators accept the neofeudal right’s lies as a given, instead strafing centrist and left politicians for their failure to overthrow the dead weight of the neoliberal consensus. This least Christian of political movements is described as truly Christian: people who claim to base their lives on Christ’s words should not be baying for “bloody” mass deportation. This mobilisation of the worst tribal impulses in human nature as a manifestation of a faith-based politics cannot be characterised as Christian by those who claim to value the tradition.
Recently Andrew West of the Religion and Ethics Report program went to Hungary where he, very politely, and no doubt accidentally, helped make the global National Conservative (NatCon) project sound safe to his middle-class Australian audience. West funded his own trip, rather than travelling on bursaries as Tony Abbott, Nick Cater and West’s former colleague at News Corp, Greg Sheridan, have done.
NatCon presents itself as the opponent of neoliberalism. It certainly fights the global economy with a strong emphasis on national economies. One of its fiercest antagonisms is to supranational bodies like the EU or the UN that might seek to limit corporate activity, protecting workers and the citizenry. The positioning of itself as the workers movement is largely performance art, and a distraction from the true goals. It is primarily religio-ethnonationalism funded by fossil fuel and reactionary oligarchs. Its trajectory is fascistic.
One of West’s Budapest interviewees was Ernst Hillebrand of the German social democratic thinktank, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Hillebrand is stationed at its Budapest outpost and has been a guest speaker at Viktor Orbán’s Mathias Corvinus Collegium. Hillebrand spoke, apparently approvingly, of the upswing of National Conservative politics across Europe. He condemned the European left and social democrats for falling prey to “postmodern liberalism.”
In discussing Orbán’s illiberal democracy, Hillebrand elided the many society-wide steps taken by Orbán along the competitive authoritarian path so that, while elections continue, it is virtually impossible for any other party to succeed. Instead, Hillebrand celebrated Orbán as a freely elected leader. He described, with apparent approval, that the “liberalism” Orbán has rejected is American “social liberalism” rather than philosophical political and economic liberalism.
The overlap between neoliberalism’s borderless economics and privatisation with a politics that promotes removing government from people’s bedrooms has made the latter a target for socially-conservative thinkers from the left. Apparently promoting economic nationalism is a sufficient goal, making it acceptable to ignore the endangerment of vulnerable groups.
Accepting this feigned support of the worker does not just betray the labour movement: in disdaining the protection of people genuinely endangered by NatCon’s political goals as “woke politics,” it is possible for people emerging from leftist traditions, such as Germany’s Sahra Wagenknecht, to become allies for the authoritarian right.
West asked whether Wagenknecht provides a “successful model that the mainstream left should be trying to understand.” He overlooks the oppression of LGBTQIA people underway in rightwing Europe. Hillebrand appeared to approve of Wagenknecht’s dislike for “this whole middle-class wokeness agenda,” as though we cannot have justice for workers alongside equality for marginalised minorities.
In their conversation, West unknowingly sanitised NatCon’s pronatalist politics as a response to brain drain and emigration. He naively stripped them of their strong link to ethnonationalism and coercive reproductive policy. Pronatalism promotes women returned to childbearing out of the civic space. It also promotes the elimination of LGBTQIA existence as a moral threat but also an impediment to the birthrate of the desired race. The same thinktankspromoting neofeudal working conditions also fund and promote these fascistic goals.
West spoke in intellectual terms of Orbán placing himself at the frontline of a new stand against a quoted Ottoman invasion and an Islamic invasion. Hillebrand commented on the Christian national identity being (re)forged against the Others of the “left liberal” movement and “Islam.” This is the European characterisation of a dangerous “Islamogauche” movement undermining Western values. It is also the NatCon selection of Muslims as the internal enemy. It is crucial that we recognise this Othering as the step on a very dangerous path that it has always been: religio-ethnonationalism is only a mask for racial ethnonationalism.
West’s other interviewee is far more partisan and also interconnected with the NatCon movement: Gladden Pappin, an American postliberal thinker, who is part of the Western thinktank circle around Orbán. Pappin also defined Orbán’s illiberalism as opposing diversity; West responded, “It’s libertinism not liberalism that he’s rejecting.” Thus West appeared to define LGBTQIA+ existence – one of Orbán’s most consistent targets – as “libertinism” rather than as a different way to be.
Pappin celebrated that Hungary is now a “Christian democracy” with “guardrails.” In Hungary, “We preserve the traditional family. The father is man, the mother is a woman.” The “cloud of fear” as Hungarian LGBTQIA+ people are “pushed into the shadows” by law is not addressed for the ABC audience.
West questioned Hungary’s lacklustre religious observance. Pappin responded that it is “nice” when religious practice is a factor but that Christian nationhood is about identity rooted in history. This is the use of Christianity (and affiliated faiths in the NatCon movement) as a trope not a faith. “Christianity” is deployed to stand in contrast to “woke” ideas. When West asked “What is the point of a strong Christian national identity if Christian observance – and religious observance for that matter – is on the wane?,” he is asking the critical question.
The point is generating a coalition of conservatives, fascists, conspiracists, misogynists, religious voters and social media trolls to support the entrenching of power for reactionary and corporate factions. Drawing in the socially-conservative left is a bonus. By labelling bigotry or anti-science ideas as religious beliefs, gravitas is conferred too.
West spoke politely to his interlocutors and, in the tradition of the marketplace of ideas, trusts that his audience will perceive the deeply racist politics that West characterised as politics with an “ethnic tinge.” He also trusts that the audience will understand the frightening context, when he asked Pappin to explain the “intellectual project” underpinning Trump’s “unorthodox, confrontational style.”
A decade ago, this might have been good journalist and intellectual practice. With the worldwide surge of fascistic politics and the crisis of knowledge in the civic space, it might be seen as journalistic failure in someone promoting knowledge rather than an ugly ideology.
West celebrated Texas Monthly’s labelling Pappin as belonging to the “High Tory” tradition as one that is “very honourable.” Pappin explained that the expected political civility applying to the label had been killed not by the right, but by the liberals who removed “the true, the good, the beautiful, the nation, family” from politics. Returning to this base structure would reinstate civil politics, he asserted.
At a moment when men online are embracing fascist role models, the call for “civility” is another shocking failure to meet the moment. The rest of us should accept NatCon oppression so “Christian” White men can have their power and civil politics back?
Such conversations cannot be delivered without context. Lacking context, West’s interviews function to make Orbán look like a viable political option for countries like Australia. While not as gross as Tucker Carlson’s broadcasting week from Hungary for Fox, the sanitising impact was not dissimilar, albeit shaped for a more educated audience.
The struggle for justice must not allow itself to be distracted by the oligarchs’ spin machines: they work – as they did in the US election – to make workers believe that minority groups are the threat to workers’ wellbeing. We don’t help those immiserated by neoliberalism if we sacrifice the right’s vulnerable targets.
We must fight the narrative inherent in the class realignment the right is hammering. The pain of neoliberalism is not created by the targets of the right’s campaigns against “woke.”
Centrist politicians must face the fact that the neoliberal political economy can never work for the masses. This bunk economics has created massive inequality, and any “liberal” politician who wants to be taken seriously needs to address that. It can be hard to differentiate between centrist politicians who still believe the debunked oligarch spin. Some seem wedded to rhetorical replacements for action to disguise the fact that they are defeated by the power of money and message.
The right’s strategists understand that their trajectory is actually neofeudal, which is why they focus almost entirely on deceptive spin and culture war distraction. If we are at each other’s throats, we won’t be addressing the massive inequality that underpins the oligarchs’ surging wealth. The right’s embrace of sadopopulism is a powerful tool.
No true Christian can embrace a movement that is dedicated to exploiting the most vulnerable and one that is whipping up violence against those it marks as lepers. This disingenuous theft of their faith for the most cynical marketing purposes ought to revolt them.
It is no novel assertion to point out that the Sermon on the Mount can no longer be preached in many American churches as its lessons are too “woke.”
All of us should be alert to the well of toxic energy being exploited from the tropes of “woke” and “Christian.”
Andrew West did not accept the invitation to contribute to this essay.
A shorter version of this essay was published at Pearls and Irritations.
31 comments
Login here Register here-
Cool Pete -
Phil Pryor -
A Commentator -
Bert -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Clakka -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
A Commentator -
Bert -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Lucy Hamilton -
Steve Davis -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis -
Canguro -
Bert -
Steve Davis -
Bert Hetebry -
Steve Davis -
A Commentator -
Steve Davis
Return to home pageIt was said that one of the failures of the US education system is that unless fascism replicates Nai Germany exactly that people cannot recognise it. I knew that trump was a fascist from the get-go, just like I know that Tone the Botty and Pete the Potty are! The difference between the Nazis of the 1930s and Pete the Potty is that one scapegoated the Jews while the latter purports to defend them. Pete the Potty is also unaware that criticising Israel and voting for a two-state solution is not abandoning Jews in Australia.
Tone the Botty was an absolute disgrace when he applauded Israel’s actions and Orban is pure evil to offer Netanyahu protection in Hungary!
Andrew West has long been a superstitionfaecalsmeared intellect (hah) looking for suckers with doubts and ears. The Abbott mentions remind us that no romanist mediaeval simpleton should be acceptable, even if we politely believe all may talk, in fairness. Liars and idiots cling to this “loophole”. Orban follows the disgraceful history of his nation which has so often lost its way. And, there was a Vance mention, pointing us to the poxy ignorance to come, posing as official and of value. Grub.
“While not as gross as Tucker Carlson’s broadcasting week from Hungary for Fox”
Let’s not forget how Tucker Carlson allowed Putin to ramble on for half an hour, using the same justification for his invasion of Ukraine as Hitler used for his territorial claims.
When Putin justified Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2, Carlson only resisted by displaying a quizzical look.
Just disgraceful.
Christianity, once it became a political force read the scriptures most selectively, omitting passages such as the sermon on the mount, the good samaritan and so forth, reflecting more on the legalistic aspects, especially the commandments and laws of the old testament…. and the specialness of being ‘god’s people’ which allows for the judgement of those who are not…. that sinners, ie: not god’s people are able to be shoved aside, or that women need to be put back in their places, barefoot and pregnant, subservient to the man’s authority.
Great essay Lucy.
AC got it wrong again.
This is what actually Putin said in the Carlsen interview about the military action in Ukraine.
I know one can say it is our mistake, it was us who intensified the situation and decided to put an end to the war that started in 2014 in Donbass, as I have already said, by means of weapons. Let me get back to further in history, I already told you this, we were just discussing it. Let us go back to 1991 when we were promised that NATO would not be expanded, to 2008 when the doors to NATO opened, to the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine declaring Ukraine a neutral state. Let us go back to the fact that NATO and US military bases, British bases started to appear on the territory of Ukraine creating threats for us. Let us go back to coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014. It is pointless though, isn’t it? We may go back and forth endlessly. But they stopped negotiations. (In Budapest just a few weeks after the war began.) Is it a mistake? Yes. Correct it. We are ready. What else is needed?
No mention of Hitler at all.
Putin said that Poland provoked Nazi Germany to invade, because the Poles “went too far” by refusing Hitler’s demands for Polish territory. You must have missed that bit. Watch it again.
Later, I might debunk more of Putin’s nonsense (and yours)
Once again AC has tried to condense the genesis of WW2 into a single sentence.
He should quote Putin saying “Therefore we invaded Ukraine” or go away.
Russia’s reasons for the invasion are to be found in the quote I gave above.
As always you avoid the question and try to change the subject.
My comment was about Putin’s justifying Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2.
You denied this.
Putin said Hitler was provoked. You’re always determined to dig yourself into a hole.
It’s both pathetic and hilarious
“using the same justification for his invasion of Ukraine as Hitler used for his territorial claims.”
Quote Putin saying “Therefore we invaded Ukraine” or go away.
My comment was entirely accurate, Putin said Hitler was provoked into WW2, because territory wouldn’t be surrendered by another country.
Does that sound familiar?
Thanks Lucy,
IMHO throughout the last 2+millennia of history, ‘Christianity’ has been a mixed bag of modified writs and expediently shifting details in the turbulent seas of ideologies. And of old, ‘Christianity’ can easily be seen as an organized power structure principally interested in the commerce of ‘Kings’ and of course its own self-aggrandizement. Suggesting it is a model of righteousness to me is bunkum. Whilst some ‘Christians’ have demonstrated kindness and a quest for universal equity, more than any other ‘group’, brutal wars, killing, destruction and subjugation across the globe has, and continues to happen under the self-righteous name of ‘Christianity’.
The associated sophistry appears to be reaching its heights again today, with the oligarchs of the ‘West’ divisively needling at the vulnerable, as ‘Christianity’ actually accelerates in its decline. And politicians welded to the popular mythologies written by the supremacist historians of the ‘West’ fail to demonstrate the heart and honesty to do anything about the rise of the oligarchs, and the horrors deviously done under the name of faith.
“Familiar”??
Are we judging serious developments by way of impressions now?
Thousands are dying daily in Ukraine and AC wants the comfort of familiarity.
If AC wants “familiar” he should try this;
Here’s Putin pleading for a mature dialogue two months before coming to the conclusion that Russia had to act.
“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about how to translate the military scenario or the military-technical scenario into a political process that will actually strengthen the military security of all states in the OSCE, Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian space. If this is not going to happen, then … we will switch to this mode of creating counter-threats, but then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions, why we have deployed such systems.”
You’re welcome to continue to support the world’s only only contemporary leader that agrees with Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2.
It’s worth identifying what Putin supports/justifies-
° Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany.
° Hitler said- “We demand the union of all Germans in a Greater Germany on the basis of the right of national self-determination.”
Sounds familiar?
Hands up those that think Putin is right in justifying Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2.
Putin, as other war mongering leaders are using their interpretation of history or mythology to justify their brutality.
So it turns out that AC is not all that comfortable with “familiar” at all. Particularly when “familiar” involves context.
Let’s try again, because he’s familiar with this from Nato Provoked Putin — I’ve taken AC to task in the past for his inability to see the big picture, but apparently his condition is chronic, perhaps terminal. In his first comment today he condensed the genesis of WW2 into a single sentence. That takes some doing, a very special skill. The causes of WW2 probably run into the hundreds and so require careful analysis. But AC does not do careful. And nuance does not figure in his lexicon.
While the rise of Hitler meant that war of some kind was inevitable, given his position on lebensraum, it’s fair to say that in regard to the initiation and progress of the war, Hitler was suckered into it. Which is possibly the intent of Putin that got lost in translation.
How was Hitler suckered?
It’s quite a story, but that’s where nuance and the big picture come in. Let’s start with the British Cabinet papers from 1939.
On January 1, 1970, when the Cabinet papers for 1939 were published, the Guardian wrote,
“The Cabinet papers for 1939, published this morning, show that the Second World War would not have started in that year if the Chamberlain Government had accepted or understood Russian advice that an alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union would prevent war because Hitler could not then risk a conflict against major powers on two fronts.”
So on March 18th 1939 we have USSR pleading with the West for action to stop Hitler. Russia was clearly told to go at it alone.
On April 16th 1939, Stalin in desperation proposed that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked. Britain and France refused.
The USSR was left with few options. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23rd, 1939, has gone down in history as notorious. However, an important fact is often left out which completely changes the character of the popular interpretation of the Soviet compromise with Nazism. This notorious pact was signed a full 11 months after UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the appeasement deal with Hitler on September 30th, 1938, known as the Munich Agreement (aka the Munich Betrayal).
The usual account of the Munich Agreement has it that the British government agreed to partition Czechoslovakia only as a desperate measure to avoid a greater European war. This view is based on the idea that Germany was already an overwhelming military power that could easily crush Czechoslovakia’s weak defenses. However, this idea is patently false.
Created in 1919, Czechoslovakia was the most prosperous, most democratic, most powerful and best administered of the states that emerged from the Habsburg Empire. The idea that the Germans had a military advantage and that Czech’s security was weak were both fabrications of a sustained propaganda campaign, which was orchestrated by the British media and government representatives to mislead the British and European public. In terms of quality, armaments and fortifications, the Czech army was known to be the best in Europe and was superior to the German army in every way except for air support. On September 3rd, 1938, the British military attaché in Prague wrote a cable to London, stating: ‘There are no shortcomings in the Czech army, as far as I have been able to observe…’
Czechoslovakia did in fact capitulate without resistance, but this was not because her defenses were weak. Rather, it was because her government had been given false promises and was ultimately played in favour of Germany by the treacherous scheming of Britain’s secret diplomacy.
The Munich Agreement subsequently allowed Hitler to acquire Czechoslovakia’s superior army and transformed Germany into a colossal military threat that would be much more difficult to defeat. Germany had been allowed to become an ultra-supreme force through direct British intervention.
It was only 11 months later that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed by the Russians as a means to forestall what was clearly the inevitable; a German attack on Russian soil, with the backing of Britain and France. In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.
So with Hitler being viewed favourably in the West for destroying communism in Germany, with the West giving him easy money, it’s easy to see why Hitler assumed that his military adventures would meet with little resistance from the West. He was suckered. Or, given the West’s antagonism to communism, some might say he was provoked.
Messy, isn’t it.
But to avoid all that messiness, all we have to do is condense the history of the 1930s into a single sentence as AC has done. Then it’s easy to extrapolate from our newly fashioned nonsense to make profound statements about global events in 2024. Because everything is really simple if you look at it … simply.
When given the choice between precision of language and self important verbosity, Steve shows great commitment to the later.
° The USA didn’t enter WW2 until December 1941. It seems the US wasn’t involved in provocation
° Neville Chamberlain made huge efforts (now ridiculed) to appease Hitler and avoid war
But Steve regurgitates the (self serving) narrative that the Nazis were “suckered into it” (ie World War 2). Apparently (and according to Steve) Hitler was provoked, or manipulated into war! Remarkable!
Remember when he claimed his comments were more credible because a couple of people here chimed in with some support?
Does anyone else support the justification for Hitler’s actions?
It is all as ridiculous as Steve’s claims that economic statistics and facts are irrelevant in a discussion about economics! Or when he misrepresented Merkel’s comments about Ukraine.
There’s a long list.
Thanks for the great comment, Bert. Clakka – absolutely agree. Mainly trying to get normy Christians to consider the proposition. We need a coalition that doesn’t necessarily act together to unite against the fascistic politics that wants to use them.
Steve, I… love your energy, but if you want to be read, and thoughtfully, I’d suggest reconsidering your tone. It’s so condescending. It’s really hard to read more than a few words before cringing. I’m not entering into your argument with AC because I can’t read your comments to know what distraction you’re arguing about.
“Does anyone else support the justification for Hitler’s actions?”
It’s no wonder AC is all at sea on this. He cannot distinguish between a description and a justification.
The real question now is why AC is fixated on Putin’s account of Hitler’s preparation for war. I mean, why bring it up at all?
It cannot be that Putin has used Hitler’s action as a justification for his own, because if that was the case we would have seen the quote by now. I’ve asked for it often enough.
No, the actual reason is that AC is repeating nonsense pushed by Western pundits, who after two years of controlling a narrative based on concealment, were faced with the prospect of a popular US TV personality going to Russia to interview Putin.
They seized on the only thing that could be portrayed as a weakness from Putin — his explanation to Carlsen of the development of Ukrainian identity. That was the context of the WW2 reference. It was not connected to the current Ukraine conflict which came later in the interview and which I quoted above.
Interested readers should do a search for the transcript of the interview, not the video, as it is worth considering what Putin had to say. Text versions give more time for analysis. Beware of transcript versions that include running commentary by pundits, there’s a few about. Text versions have the added advantage of providing accurate quotes easily for those who might wish to comment.
https://nineoclock.ro/2024/02/09/exclusive-full-transcript-of-vladimir-putins-interview-with-tucker-carlson-%f0%9f%8e%99%ef%b8%8f/
Lucy, I think that “condescending” is entirely appropriate when dealing with those who insist on bringing up positions that have been dealt with, and dismissed, months earlier.
“why bring it up at all?”
Why not identify that the only leader in the world (who you excuse and support) has provided justification for Hitler’s rationale for starting WW2?
If I make a comment, and you choose to argue the point, it isn’t me that is causing the debate to become prominent on this site, that’s you.
If you consider my comment(s) to be less than relevant, you’re welcome to scroll past.
But if you choose to justify/contextualise/ excuse Putin’s position, I’ll continue to point out that you’re known by the company you keep.
In this specific case your company is the only leader in the world that has excused the Nazi’s.
And you continue to go out of your way to explain and justify this.
I see that AC still cannot distinguish between justification and description.
So he will continue to bring up this position that was dealt with, and dismissed, months ago.
“If I make a comment, and you choose to argue the point, it isn’t me that is causing the debate to become prominent on this site, that’s you.”
Err, hmm, and black is white?
If you endlessly argue a contrary point (to condemnation of Nazis), it is difficult to suggest you’re not providing support and justification.
If you repeatedly describe a rationale which contextualises the position of the Nazis, it’s engaging in semantics to say this isn’t support
If you go to the trouble of repeating the Nazi’s rationale, that’s support
Hey Lucy !
See what I mean? 🙂 🙂
And now for something completely different – an intermission after Episode 139 of the serial SD & AC show…
For a number of years I have had a very testy relationship with a person I call my nemesis.
The only way he thinks we can be friends is if I agree with him over some very contentious issues.
We no longer communicate. I think that is sad. Sad that for us to be friends, I must agree with him, I must condone, even encourage the wholesale slaughter of Muslim for example. That I must give up my love for world music which my Lebanese friend plays in a wonderful ensemble of Middle Eastern musicians. Sad that he denies the humanity of people who are not like him. Sad that hate drives him.
I respect the right to hold opinions which are different than mine, There is a group discussion I attend each month, the rules are that we all have a safe place to air our thoughts and opinions, but if we want to argue, start to throw insults, those engaging are shown the door. There is no need for personal insults.
I think the point I am making is that we all come to our opinions from different approaches, we all are uniquely different, and that makes silly point scoring arguments a bit crass really.
Perhaps it is better to say your bit and let it rest rather than engage in a point scoring exercise which potentially degenerates into bitchiness. If there must be a last word, let it be ‘I disagree’.
That’s all good advice Bert, except for the implied dig in the final sentences.
You overlook the fact that a few come here with strong opinions for which they have little evidence, or who deal in impressions and expect to be taken seriously, and who then take offense when challenged.
We are dealing with serious matters that deserve to be handled seriously.
I put a lot of work into my comments –a short comment can be the result of several hours of research. A longer comment can be the result of several days, or even years, of research.
It’s not that I want to be right, it’s because I want to be as correct as one can be.
And I enjoy the challenge of in-depth discussions. I’ve learned plenty in the process.
The implied dig is directed at all combatants since it takes more than one to ‘tango’.
That said, I do appreciate the thought you put into your responses, I appreciate the effort you go to.
So thank you.
All good Bert, thanks.
I’ve said previously, I don’t reply to every comment I disagree with.
I don’t comment every day.
I hold the view that people are entitled to express their views sincerely without being hounded – l observe those here generally express their views with reasonable care and tolerance.
There is a single clear exception.
My view is that Steve should understand there is a difference between “research” and “an overwhelming desire to seek out articles and opinions that provide cognitive reinforcement”
No wonder it takes Steve hours or days to complete a comment, as marginal, narrow opinions, that cherry pick information, aren’t particularly common.
I have also previously said, a blogging tactic that involves- making a deliberately provocative comment, then qualifying, modifying, amending or backing away (sometimes days) later (and under pressure) doesn’t deserve respect, understanding or accommodation.
Hounding people away from commentary through (self important) volume is (in my opinion) a sign of a compulsive disorder.
And I tend to be intolerant of people that are motivated by their misplaced sense of intellectual superiority, and who demonstrate blogging bullying.
I disagree with AC.
How’s that Bert??
🙂