https://newmatilda.com/…/bill-leaks-racism-is-about-hurtin…/
Question of values and priorities; yes, Aboriginal communities across Australia are broken, there are broken families and irresponsible and neglectful parents... but whose fault is it? On whom do you place the blame? I find this whole thing sick. As the author (powerfully) writes, "Why blame systemic racism, the failures of white governments, the accumulated traumas of colonisation, dispossession, massacres, the devastation ofcommunities and removals from families, when you can just blame Aboriginal parents for their lack of agency and self-responsibility?
Question of values and priorities; yes, Aboriginal communities across Australia are broken, there are broken families and irresponsible and neglectful parents... but whose fault is it? On whom do you place the blame? I find this whole thing sick. As the author (powerfully) writes, "Why blame systemic racism, the failures of white governments, the accumulated traumas of colonisation, dispossession, massacres, the devastation ofcommunities and removals from families, when you can just blame Aboriginal parents for their lack of agency and self-responsibility?
Why blame poverty, unemployment and lack of infrastructure if you can put all the blame on Aboriginal communities?"
And correct words about the utter mendacity and hypocrisy of supposed rightwing reverence for important Western value of freedom of speech (which ought to mean relatively equal distribution of media power among a large number of sectors and demographic groups in society). Claims of repressions of free speech by those with major platforms in the corporate media are worse than absurd. They're repugnant.
(And I've always wondered: if Howard, Bolt, Albrechtsen (etc) think that white people shouldn't feel guilty for the horrifying, dismal, profoundly disturbing health, education and social status of Indigenous people as compared to the rest of the population -- if they really think Indigenous people have perfectly good opportunities to 'lift themselves up' and become industrious, obedient citizens like the rest of us -- then what do they think the reason for the failure of the community is? By a process of abduction, it can only be.... abject racism. Theories of racial superiority. Mull over it and explain to me how it can be anything else.)
Massive current in contemporary right-wing politics (the Chicago School, Libertarian strand of right-wing politics, which often claims to have strong roots in Adam Smith and J.S. Mill, and "classical liberalism") is based on atrocious, highly atavistic moral philosophy. They say freedom is incompatible with equality, and if we have to compromise, we compromise more on the side of equality. But what they mean by freedom is "natural freedom" -- simple noninterference of any outside agent/s or institutions on me or my wants. This is not a universalised value (one person's natural freedom is another person's tyranny; the 1%'s natural freedom is the 99%'s subjugation and debt paeonage). It's an elementary principle of moral philosophy that values are meant to be universalised. Freedom has to be bound up with equality because freedom, to be a meaningful value, has to mean freedom for everyone. It seems to me perfectly obvious that there is more freedom (more autonomy and less domination for the majority of persons) in a Keynesian welfare state than neoliberal plutocracy or oligarchy.
Quite. Echoes the words of yours truly, several aeons ago. Free speech is an important value, but we must bear in mind how it interacts with POWER. The idea behind the value of free speech is that everyone has the right to express an opinion, even if that opinion might offend some people. That's great, and I value this value immensely. But notice that some opinions are heard much louder than others, getting in many more people's ears. Those opinions are typically the opinions of the establishment, of political centrists, and so on (the opinions heard in the mainstream media). If someone has one of those opinions, and they're shouted down in *left-wing* fora for holding it, it is very strange to cry foul. Your opinion can still be heard, buddy -- just not here!
It's important to be exposed to opposing views, of course, and one should learn to defeat bad views by debate rather than censorship. So I generally don't think censorship of speakers on uni campuses is a good idea.
Massimo Pigliucci crystallises the debate around trigger warnings and safe spaces on campuses very nicely here: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/…/the-false-dichotomy-…/
It's important to be exposed to opposing views, of course, and one should learn to defeat bad views by debate rather than censorship. So I generally don't think censorship of speakers on uni campuses is a good idea.
Massimo Pigliucci crystallises the debate around trigger warnings and safe spaces on campuses very nicely here: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/…/the-false-dichotomy-…/
Anyway, what the fuck has Fry got to complain about re: free speech? Seriously. What the fuck?
As an aside, the Rubin Report really is satan's diarrhoeal cesspit.
As an aside, the Rubin Report really is satan's diarrhoeal cesspit.
Also, have you noticed that these free-speech warriors are very often highly inconsistent? For example, if you put too many left-wing people on Q and A, you're immediately in big trouble. Free speech is out the window. Free speech was out the window for Zaky Mallah on that same program. If you criticise the Liberal government, free speech is out the window. If you make some unpatriotic, ill-judged comments on Anzac Day (I think Mcintyre mischaracterised the nature of the Anzac Day ceremonies, incidentally, confusing them with the displays of our politicians), free speech is out the window And let us not forget the apoplectic rage that someone like Noam Chomsky induces to these supposed defenders of free-speech. Do they want him to have a voice on our mainstream media? Hell no!
This strongly suggests to me that a lot of these people don't actually value free speech at all; what they value is noisy speech for people with their own views. And, yes, I admit that I would also like it if people with my own views were the noisiest, but when they're not (which is all the time), I don't complain that free speech is being violated!
This strongly suggests to me that a lot of these people don't actually value free speech at all; what they value is noisy speech for people with their own views. And, yes, I admit that I would also like it if people with my own views were the noisiest, but when they're not (which is all the time), I don't complain that free speech is being violated!
No comments:
Post a Comment