Moral Panic.02 :The era of progressive censorship

[Parihaka]

Moral panics used to afflict those of a conservative disposition. They would typically protest displays of modern art, music and literature deemed offensive to religious feelings and traditional moral values. When James Joyce’s Ulysses was published in 1922, an article in the Quarterly Review stated: ‘From any Christian point of view this book must be proclaimed anathema, simply because it tries to pour ridicule on the most sacred themes and characters in what has been the religion of Europe for nearly two thousand years. And this is the book which ignorant French critics hail as the proof of Ireland’s re-entry into European literature!’
But over the past couple of decades, the nature of moral panics has changed. We are now in the era of Moral Panic 2.0. It’s no longer concerned social conservatives doing the moral panicking — it’s progressive liberals. A prime example of progressive liberal outrage was the anti-racist protest against Exhibit B at the Barbican Centre in London at the end of last year. Moral panic also prompted the authorities in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, to remove a Banksy mural depicting pigeons waving anti-immigrant placards at a lone swallow. Of course, just as Exhibit B was critical rather than supportive of racism, so the Banksy mural mocked rather than supported anti-immigrant sentiments — not that that stopped the progressive censors.

Continues

[S2]

Our values are assaulted. Those who do so use our values as protection from forthright and obvious retaliation. Huntington WAS correct and we'll one day be forced to openly wage war to protect our remaining enclaves.

Quite likely too late and all advantages freely surrendered.

Just the last, too predictable act of a Greek tragedy.

[tantalus]

Our values are assaulted. Those who do so use our values as protection from forthright and obvious retaliation.

I am not sure they are even aware of the irony. I am inclined too decline attributing them the intelligence to realise the protection they are benefiting from .

Our values are assaulted. Those who do so use our values as protection from forthright and obvious retaliation. Huntington WAS correct and we'll one day be forced to openly wage war to protect our remaining enclaves.

Quite likely too late and all advantages freely surrendered.

Just the last, too predictable act of a Greek tragedy.

People don't have enough appreciation for free speech

Nearly anything's possible far enough into the future, but I think there's a bit too much hyperbole present here. The article while highlighting a valid problem, generates isolated events of destruction and opposition to a handful of artistic enterprises by minorities of idiots. Its early days for language such as enclaves and open warfare.

Moral panics used to afflict those of a conservative disposition

Incidentally, how did that go, the trend for rights of homosexuality are going in the right direction, I am confident we can keep 2.0 under control as well.

Continues

Christopher Hitchens had been one of the most outspoken of the left to detect some of the problems. There is a powerful wave of apologism on the liberal left.

The problem is difficult to summarise.

Racism towards blacks, gender inequality, discrimination of homosexuals, the fear of genetic determinism, the disastrous development of social darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust, the inherent elements of racism that traveled with colonialism. We have come from these worlds.

A fear took hold of the left after the second world war that we could so easily and wrongly discriminate as we did in the past. Any suggestion of genes determining human behaviour, any suggestion of differences between men and women on a biological level, any statement criticising elements of cultures of previously colonised or discriminated peoples is met with a vehement backlash that owes its origin too a fear of the past, and desire that all people are and must be equal in every way, ergo, the various cultural differences globally are superficial and are morally equivalent.

The simplicity of these latter desires, desires because many on the left belief they must be true, absolutely, as a moral imperative, and once realised will prevent the great errors of the past from ever reoccurring and will wipe the vestiges of discrimination that remain completely. Too many on the left believe in an over-arching dictatorial complete equality that permeates virtually everything. This simplistic notion is well meaning, and as a result generates powerful emotions and actions against things they perceive as discriminatory. They simply believe they are in the right, combined with a lack of appreciation for the importance of a total application of free speech, and you get events such as those described in the article.

The more general problem for the left has farther reaching consequences. Too much apologism and too much condemnation, on too many issues, with a crucial inhibition of critical thinking.

I maintain that many of the values on the left are crucial moving forward, those points are at risk of being lost, and dialogue with the right along with it.

[Double Edge]

Banksy mural

[Parihaka]

The simplicity of these latter desires, desires because many on the left belief they must be true, absolutely, as a moral imperative, and once realised will prevent the great errors of the past from ever reoccurring and will wipe the vestiges of discrimination that remain completely. Too many on the left believe in an over-arching dictatorial complete equality that permeates virtually everything. This simplistic notion is well meaning, and as a result generates powerful emotions and actions against things they perceive as discriminatory. They simply believe they are in the right, combined with a lack of appreciation for the importance of a total application of free speech, and you get events such as those described in the article.

I agree, but you're missing one aspect: it's proven to be an extraordinarily strong means of societal control, something the left is especially desirous of.

[tantalus]

I agree, but you're missing one aspect: it's proven to be an extraordinarily strong means of societal control, something the left is especially desirous of.

Proven... I think I would benefit from an elaboration here. But yes, self-righteousness is a powerful force.

We need a distinction between the ideological left and right, and the majority positions of those considered to occupy the left and right. Ideas versus real people.

The left (ideological) is more fond of control (wisely imo) on economic and environmental grounds. In regard to social and moral values, the traditional values of the right (people) have been eroded, for example, opposition to homosexuality dealt a serious blow. If the left is more fond of moral/societal control in modern times, it's because we have been successful in ignoring some of the less desirable traits of the right on this matter, taken kicking and screaming if you like, the same will need to be done for certain elements of the left.

[Cactus]

The problem is difficult to summarise.

Racism towards blacks, gender inequality, discrimination of homosexuals, the fear of genetic determinism, the disastrous development of social darwinism, eugenics, the holocaust, the inherent elements of racism that traveled with colonialism. We have come from these worlds.

A fear took hold of the left after the second world war that we could so easily and wrongly discriminate as we did in the past. Any suggestion of genes determining human behaviour, any suggestion of differences between men and women on a biological level, any statement criticising elements of cultures of previously colonised or discriminated peoples is met with a vehement backlash that owes its origin too a fear of the past, and desire that all people are and must be equal in every way, ergo, the various cultural differences globally are superficial and are morally equivalent.

The simplicity of these latter desires, desires because many on the left belief they must be true, absolutely, as a moral imperative, and once realised will prevent the great errors of the past from ever reoccurring and will wipe the vestiges of discrimination that remain completely. Too many on the left believe in an over-arching dictatorial complete equality that permeates virtually everything. This simplistic notion is well meaning, and as a result generates powerful emotions and actions against things they perceive as discriminatory. They simply believe they are in the right, combined with a lack of appreciation for the importance of a total application of free speech, and you get events such as those described in the article.

The more general problem for the left has farther reaching consequences. Too much apologism and too much condemnation, on too many issues, with a crucial inhibition of critical thinking. I maintain that many of the values on the left are crucial moving forward, those points are at risk of being lost, and dialogue with the right along with it.

You have summarized it well. It would be good if you put this in a blog post somewhere, and put up the link here. I can easily see it being used many, many times.

[Parihaka]

Proven... I think I would benefit from an elaboration here. But yes, self-righteousness is a powerful force.

I tend to use English based in the Victorian era as I like that when used well it proves to carry multiple shades of meaning. Hence my use of it is not as a transitive but a copula verb, as in 'it is a tried and tested method' rather than a 'proven scientific fact'. Less literal you see.

We need a distinction between the ideological left and right, and the majority positions of those considered to occupy the left and right. Ideas versus real people.

Not being an ideologue I tend to pick and choose between ideologies, casting about between proven methods as to what best suits specific circumstances. Therefore, even as a conservative, an overarching definition from me is unlikely.

The left (ideological) is more fond of control (wisely imo) on economic and environmental grounds. In regard to social and moral values, the traditional values of the right (people) have been eroded, for example, opposition to homosexuality dealt a serious blow. If the left is more fond of moral/societal control in modern times, it's because we have been successful in ignoring some of the less desirable traits of the right on this matter, taken kicking and screaming if you like, the same will need to be done for certain elements of the left.

I see your example of anti-homosexual attitudes as not really a left vs right issue, as it was inherent in both right and left until quite recently across the political spectrum. I agree, given the nature of conservatism, that conservatives have taken longer to come around, especially given religious types tend to congregate on the right. They certainly have commonalities with conservatism, but they are not a defining characteristic of 'the right.'
Where we stand apart is the notion of greater control. You see it as desirable, I see it as a necessary evil that must be contained, and broken down where and when it's outlived it's usefulness. One of the big errors of the left is to assume conservatives abhor change. We don't, we simply wish it to be moderated by discussion and examination. Well thought out, you see. An attack on peoples ability to express opinion through any non-violent format as outlined in the OP is oppressive.

[tantalus]

Not being an ideologue I tend to pick and choose between ideologies, casting about between proven methods as to what best suits specific circumstances. Therefore, even as a conservative, an overarching definition from me is unlikely.

Ideology is a very useful tool and model, but entrenched in a person, it becomes an inflexible enemy. That kind of thinking manifests in all our minds even if doesn't produce a stated ideology.

I see your example of anti-homosexual attitudes as not really a left vs right issue, as it was inherent in both right and left until quite recently across the political spectrum. I agree, given the nature of conservatism, that conservatives have taken longer to come around, especially given religious types tend to congregate on the right. They certainly have commonalities with conservatism, but they are not a defining characteristic of 'the right.'

It is most definitely not a left vs right issue in ideology, but it was, once, a more clear issue between left and right people. This is why I made the distinction in my former post. Without such a distinction, much confusion can follow in discussion.

Commonalities and not-so defining characteristics that are less desirable, don't forget they apply to the left too. It would be convenient if some of those less desirable behaviours on the left are labelled as defining by some on the right, but the flip-side is treated differently. Remove some on the left, remove some on the right, the variation shrinks and we may be more alike than you think...

Where we stand apart is the notion of greater control. You see it as desirable, I see it as a necessary evil that must be contained, and broken down where and when it's outlived it's usefulness.

No, that reads like an ideologue who likes the notion of freedom, because freedom is a buzzword and control an ugly one. I know that this is not the case so you need not reply. I would simply state that control and freedom are words that can be placed on decisions that reflect a process of

casting about between proven methods as to what best suits specific circumstances.

I'll grant that casting control as a necessary evil best avoided is an artistic turn of thought to place before a liberal, but no matter, I am in the same business as you, results.

One of the big errors of the left is to assume conservatives abhor change. We don't, we simply wish it to be moderated by discussion and examination. Well thought out, you see.

We. You do the people of the right justice where you will not do the left. Remember my distinction between the ideology and the people who represent it. The errors of some on the right becoming absent from the portrait, the errors of some on the left in full costume.

An attack on peoples ability to express opinion through any non-violent format as outlined in the OP is oppressive.

no doubt, but not representative of the ideology of the left.

[Parihaka]

You do the people of the right justice where you will not do the left. Remember my distinction between the ideology and the people who represent it. The errors of some on the right becoming absent from the portrait, the errors of some on the left in full costume.

I'm focusing it on the left because that is the intent of the OP. Please allow us one page before diverting it to the failings, and there are many, of the right. Otherwise we end up doing nothing but "yes but they did this!". One bad behaviour does not justify another.

no doubt, but not representative of the ideology of the left.

I disagree
The Progressive Fallacy on Free Speech | Cato Institute
No Offense: The New Threats to Free Speech - WSJ

and specifics

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

The idea that I must pay respect to someones invisible friend is ludicrous. Not only does he equate ridicule of religion with physical attacks on people of different religions, he then mischaracterises Ghandi to equate debate on religion with intolerance. In fact, the intolerance is the reverse.

I could post link after link after link of Western politicians restricting free speech, whether on religion, sexism, feminism, immigration, racism or any other currently unfashionable 'ism'. Merkel, Cameron, Blair, Obama, Hollande, all have expressed and legislated against freedom of speech. Apparently speaking your mind is as great an evil as killing the person who speaks their mind.
This belief, in this time and place, is led by the left.

Edited to add:
Daniel Hannan, one of the better commentators from the right
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/pa...rticle/2558413
and Mark Steyn
http://www.steynonline.com/4409/gagging-us-softly

[S2]

Tantalus,

"...Its early days for language such as enclaves and open warfare..."

True. Alarmist and hyperbolic. Our enclaves are still large and the open war we've largely experienced has been elsewhere.

I imagine most will feel as I do when their enclave becomes visibly small and the sound of gunfire profoundly loud.

Remember...only 22% of Birmingham is muslim. Look fifty years back and project fifty years forward. I wonder what conclusion shall be drawn, if so? Vector maps of Europe by religion would be fascinating viewed through time-elapse.

[tantalus]

I'm focusing it on the left because that is the intent of the OP. Please allow us one page before diverting it to the failings, and there are many, of the right. Otherwise we end up doing nothing but "yes but they did this!". One bad behaviour does not justify another.

Your spinning it against me, by accident no doubt. I am a liberal, but read my first post on the thread. I am aware of the topic, front and centre. I agree that this is not the place for an analysis of the right, but reference to the right is needed to place matters in context. Examples from the right provide a separate field whereby to judge a similar disparity between an ideology and its membership. This is a distinction that must be made.

Also, while I am mindful of not derailing the thread, I am intent on replying to your words, wherever they lead, and its difficult to predict on posting, the trail another will naturally feel must be followed.

One bad behaviour does not justify another.

I hope it is now clear why a specific bad behaviour of the right made an appearance in the thread. Justification was never an intention.

I disagree
The Progressive Fallacy on Free Speech | Cato Institute

I read the article, I don't even no where to start with it. Perhaps, you could elaborate a little more on it?

Incidentally since a political ideology lacks a bible, we are going to struggle in identifying the gospel.

The second article seems to be on the mark, although I don't think it establishes its purpose (in terms of your reason for posting it) in linking the ideology of the left to the stupidity of many who oppose racism (real or imaginary) to the detriment of free speech. The article doesn't even make a decent attempt of singling out liberals. Nevertheless, if you re-read my first post, I already "acceded" to the point that there is a problem on the left in regard to this matter.

The idea that I must pay respect to someones invisible friend is ludicrous. Not only does he equate ridicule of religion with physical attacks on people of different religions, he then mischaracterises Ghandi to equate debate on religion with intolerance. In fact, the intolerance is the reverse.

I could post link after link after link of Western politicians restricting free speech, whether on religion, sexism, feminism, immigration, racism or any other currently unfashionable 'ism'. Merkel, Cameron, Blair, Obama, Hollande, all have expressed and legislated against freedom of speech. Apparently speaking your mind is as great an evil as killing the person who speaks their mind.
This belief, in this time and place, is led by the left.

In brief, agreed, the majority are on the left, but their not welcome in my bed.

I fail to see the major significance of their political affiliation, because there are clearer means of illustrating why they are wrong.

Religious apologism and demands on preventing free speech is one of the key battle grounds. But I already discussed this in my opening post so no point repeating.

[tantalus]

Tantalus,

"...Its early days for language such as enclaves and open warfare..."

True. Alarmist and hyperbolic. Our enclaves are still large and the open war we've largely experienced has been elsewhere.

I imagine most will feel as I do when their enclave becomes visibly small and the sound of gunfire profoundly loud.

Remember...only 22% of Birmingham is muslim. Look fifty years back and project fifty years forward. I wonder what conclusion shall be drawn, if so? Vector maps of Europe by religion would be fascinating viewed through time-elapse.

The reasoning on protecting free speech is very strong, I believe our way will dominate on our ground. Its a new way in many western countries, religion was far more dominate in Ireland up to 20 years ago, far more influential that a concept such as free speech.

Free speech is not just threatened by gunfire, but more significantly by prudence that can be attributed to a "known" way of living outlined by a religious doctrine, which can keeps a society silent, and outlook docile.

I think the sporadic gunfire will embolden us, I think it will work in favour of free speech, creating an early immune response against a mental infection that could otherwise be dangerous.

[Mihais]

no doubt, but not representative of the ideology of the left.

You're contradicting yourself.And that's also inherent in the left .The proclaimed goals are noble(or they are made to look so),but the means are less savory(in the extreme cases they're downright dangerous).

[Mihais]

The reasoning on protecting free speech is very strong, I believe our way will dominate on our ground. Its a new way in many western countries, religion was far more dominate in Ireland up to 20 years ago, far more influential that a concept such as free speech.

Free speech is not just threatened by gunfire, but more significantly by prudence that can be attributed to a "known" way of living outlined by a religious doctrine, which can keeps a society silent, and outlook docile.

I think the sporadic gunfire will embolden us, I think it will work in favour of free speech, creating an early immune response against a mental infection that could otherwise be dangerous.

800 men took Mosul and cowered hundreds of thousands with only the threat of gunfire.Gunfire,as seen already in France,deepens the rift in society.It emboldens some and scares the others.Yes,they will call fright by any other name imaginable,including tolerance,acceptance...blah-blah.In a western democracy,both sides however enjoy equal voting rights.

Free speech may be important.Free thought is more important.But it is freedom of action that makes things happen.