I saw this interchange on Twitter today (that doesn’t make it ‘news’) and agreed with the conclusions. Having myself just said to a commenter here:
It’s foolish to judge a ‘side’ by its extremists, as I’m sure you agree.
A beehive staffer I follow on Twitter reported her Minister received an
“Email from the NZ Catholic Bishops distancing themselves from the Catholic Action Group who sent terrible emails against #marriageequality”
This exchange, sparked by Richard Dawkins condemning The New Statesman for publishing an article by a muslim, fits. (Apologies for the salty language, but it makes a point.):
Having now cited Twitter twice in one blog post, I’m off to have a serious talk to myself (i.e. a walk and a swim).
– P
The wording “distancing themselves” is actually misleading.
They were never close enough to have to then move away.
The “Catholic Action Group” is run by a single person, and if lucky he has a membership of two including his budgie.
Although he considers himself Catholic, he has engaged in some very un-Catholic things.
The Catholic Church doesn’t need to “distance themselves” they need to sue on copyright infringement, but they are too nice.
Gee, I really don’t like that. Sounds like the Howick Residents & Ratepayers Association. (Not in my name.)
Thanks for clarifying.
Another point about siding with extremists – I’d argue that this is another label misused by the same type of people that squeal “homophobe” if you leave the soap on the floor.
It is reasonably sensible to not judge an argument by what extremists are saying, and therefore, foolish to side with extremists.
The problem is though that the moment some-one says anything that doesn’t fit the liberal progressive narrative they are labelled “extremist”. Furthermore, like Matt McCarten and others demonstrate, from that point they don’t mention the substance of the argument, they simply keep parroting the extremist line and often conflate or assume arguments that are not being made.
So I am slower to jump on the “kick the extremists” band wagon, because that would make me, well, extreme.
Nah-uh, ZenTiger — we don’t agree about this. (Oh and Ew! to your soap image.)
I think extremism *is* perceivable — it’s not merely a liberal construct or bad-faith debating tactic.
For instance, you’ve referred to fringe-dwellers who you say say they want to destroy traditional families/marriage/monogamy etc. That’s extreme.
Reminds me of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it
I’m for inclusion, as I’ve said, but not of haters. (Or nutters.) Some ideas need to be condemned and turned away from with discernment, in my opinion. Like the phony ‘Catholic Action Group’ you cited above.
– P
I’m not disagreeing with your comment, just tempering it with the suggestion that some “extremism” isn’t necessarily so extreme. What I see happening is people are labelled extreme, but you never see their argument, so it gets accepted that person x is extreme, with nary a proof in sight.
Perhaps a better way to view this is to always ensure we are critiquing the arguments, and not the people.
There will eventually be (I theorize) a “white supremacist” group that are simply wanting to protect their culture, in the same way many Maori organisations are struggling to protect Maori culture in this country. That’s not to say there are not some extremist Maori groups, but it is also not to dismiss moderates that may be labelled extremist for simply trying to preserve things important to them.
This would not be such a big point if the quality of debate was of a reasonable level.
I rather like William Blakes take on such matters …
“The Tigers of Wrath – are wiser than the horses of Instruction”
The buddha practiced the “middle way” between extremes (hat tip in part to Graeme…) but there are times when some people are labelled as extremists for no good reason other than that they challenge the status quo.
Everyone .. has a right to be heard.
Martin Luther King … Mohandas K Gandhi etc etc etc
I’m no fan of any of the monotheistic religions … but they have a right to their viewpoint. However in return – one must expect an equal and opposite reaction according to the laws of physics and the cosmos.
Same applies to Homosexuals – ethnic minorities etc etc … you have to expect and respect peoples right to object or disagree. If ya want the democratic rights – you have to allow them to all.
Take it or leave it.
In the case of some Governments … their answer to what may be termed ‘extremism’ or more correctly dissent .. is to pass laws that make what once was legal – illegal (simple – stunning and very fascist…)
I rest my case…
We need the tigers of wrath … the horses of instruction have fucked it all up quite enough thanks very much ….
Good comment. I’ll ask him, but I have a feeling Graeme is being ironic with his ‘middle of the road’ comment.
I learned a lot from this contribution from poormastery in a discussion here about how my obscure little blog (and my goal of moderation and inclusiveness) is perceived …
http://www.thepaepae.com/feedback-from-cameron-slater-gay/18695/comment-page-1/#comment-11266
(I’ll leave it out of blockquote for legibility.)
In political terms, in the 1950s, the establishment in the US typically regarded Martin Luther King as a communist, an extremist, and potentially a terrorist. In the 1960s, the black panthers and Malcolm X arrived on the stage (“White people are a race of devils”). Suddenly, MLK was magically transformed from being an extremist to occupying a very reasonable middle ground. He was now a man you could do business with. The middle ground had moved…
How does a change in the “average view” or accepted wisdom happen?
Poormastery would surmise that there is usually a maverick involved. Someone with unconventional views, who expresses these views forcefully, can change the accepted wisdom. At first, they will be labelled as nutters and extremists. Partisan, rabid, and silly. Later – sometimes much later – their views may even become mainstream.
Poormastery likes the maverick. Dare to walk a different step!
Perhaps it is good, Peter, that we have the pragmatists of the world like you staunchly occupying the perceived middle ground. Most people have middle of the road views. Let’s all be reasonable now.
Yet to poormastery’s taste – I want – and indeed poormatery appreciates, something more than this.
Many of the great geniuses of history thought and acted differently from us or anyone gone before them – so were able to deliver to humanity something that never the like of which had been seen or heard before or since. Mozart / Bach / Wagner / Beethoven in music or Leonardo / Michelangelo / Carravaggio in art are examples of this phenomenon.
Many of the great minds in history were outsiders. Many were mavericks. Few were conventional middle ground thinkers.
A blogger needs to be incendiary in general to pique my interest. There must be pathos.”
Ouch, kinda. No-one likes to be classified a ‘conventional middle ground thinker’, it seems to me. We’d all rather hear that we possess and impart a special insight, blah blah.
But I think he’s right.
– P
I hate admitting to it .. but your quotes from the P man agree entirely with my own analysis.
I strongly suspect you will find that Graeme wasnt being ironic … rather truthful – although i dont agree with the implications of his half expressed viewpoint … but it is cryptic and unfinished so i may be wrong … but thats his fault not mine.
Nice.
I’m thinking the status quo is “progress”.
Our society seems to think all change is good. Everything old is v1 and anything that is worth anything has to be new an v2.
Because a progressive thinks, “well, you know, we can make changes and all this discussion only slows us down. We must always remember that, at the end of the day, the sun will rise.”
But, at the end of the day, the sun sets.
Although I hate to be thought of ‘middle of the road’, since that’s where the truth usually is, we’re mugs when we wander off.
In a comment above , ZenTiger says:
‘I’m thinking the status quo is “progress”.
Our society seems to think all change is good. Everything old is v1 and anything that is worth anything has to be new an v2.’
In some areas, especially technology, I think that’s right.
But what about fear/distrust of genetically modified food? The flight to organics? And ‘Good old homemade value’ in thousands of other products etc?
It’s not just ‘conservatives’ who appreciate traditional values, is it?
I still like ‘traditional’ leather seats in my cars, wear 100% cotton shirts, leather shoes etc but, as disclosed elsewhere on this site, I currently ‘haz’ the current iPhone and MacBook Pro … because ‘life is too short to wait for a computer’.
Is it possible ZenTiger, that you are conceiving of an out group (‘progressives’) as a homogenous mass, rather than the individual agents they are?
– P
I tend to agree with Zen Tiger (love the name….) and i think i understand what he is saying re “progress”.
Edward Abbey the Author and Essayist and eccentric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Abbey Declared and i quote …
“Growth for the sake of Growth is the ideology of the cancer cell…”
You could make many up many permutations to this quite stunning observation … and as i ‘grew up’ in the era when ‘change management’ and ‘change theory and doctrine’ were slavishly followed (and led to the giant fuckup we now call ‘home’) – i understand that statement all too well.
No one is playing chess in our societal structure (apart from the greedy corporates with their selfish grasping thinking) – no one is thinking of all the permutations … the ‘possibles’ in the future.
The “free market” ideology is an example of the ideology of the cancer cell .. something that takes on a life of its own despite the wishes or otherwise of its host.
Pause for thought methinks.
And as i have a ‘thing’ about William Blake … heres the poem “The Tyger”
The Tyger
BY WILLIAM BLAKE
Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies.
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare seize the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!
When the stars threw down their spears
And water’d heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?
We need many more tigers … the neo liberals would have the tigers among us de-fanged and de-clawed … we need their ‘fearful symmetry
I love William Blake’s writing, and Tyger is particularly excellent, as you have said. I also liked the Tangerine Dream rendition of his poem, which you are possibly familiar, and also a second and very creative interpretation of “Tyger”. Enjoy:Tyger
[…] or fairness of the observer or their platform. But only up to a point. (Which point? Well, like Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment about defining hard-core pornography: “I know it when I see […]