Once again, A CURSE ON THE PARTY SPIRIT

[fpb]

Is there anything else that would lead people to accept and defend complete rubbish, to hold up stuff that demeans their own intellect, to insult anyone who disagrees, and, worst of all, to completely abandon any shred of critical attitude, insisting that that which flatters our party positions is therefore sacred and untouchable?

I have come to the edge of a break with people I really like, and that is not the first time. But damn it to Hell, what do they expect me to - falsify my own life experience and the history of my country (on which every Italian alive or dead would answer as I do), accept a thesis that is not just false but obviously false, not just politically motivated but obviously politically motivated, and that for no reason except in order to preserve a personal relationship? If that were the case, that would be emotional blackmail. And yet I see no other reason for the rabid and repetitious attacks I have been subjected since I attacked a certain instance of American pamphleteering. It is as if someone were telling me that no peaceful relationship with them is possible unless I give in to their delusions. And that I not only will not, but cannot do.

Edited in: I imagine that the lurkers and wankers who were still following this LJ only a few weeks back will decide to hold back on this argument. It is the sort of thing they love, is it not - FPB arguing with someone? Only in this case it is not the kind of argument they want to present; it would not answer their prejudices, and might even lead their fans to wonder who is in the right after all.

Sometimes I really get tired.

Comments

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

From ... I don't know, Americans.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Quite. No Italian would listen to the Goldberg thesis with anything but hilarity. Remember that I have known and spoken with people who were there, who knew Mussolini and Fascism in the flesh. One such person is still alive in Rome today, a friend of my father's, and I talked history with him no more than a few months ago. Don't go telling me about my country's history.

What is happening is the common historical phenomenon that current events tend to create their own past histories in people's minds. What is happening now in America is as follows. First, the greatest threat to freedom of thought, speech and association in America today decidedly comes from the left, especially from the likes of the ACLU, whose activities tend to silence anyone whose views they find offensive. There is also an uneasy and unpleasant kind of fellow-travelling between such people and extreme Islam. This is a fact. And therefore, because people who are sensitive in matters of freedom of speech today see the danger as coming from the left, therefore they conceive that it has always been so. They flee to the right as the defence of their freedoms, and it does not occur to them that there have been times when the danger came from the right. And because they have identified left and assaults on liberty, by an invalid syllogism everything that assaults liberty becomes left to them. Except that at this point one has to invoke a reality check.

[redcoast.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I don't see it happening just like that. I'd say that this is just a way of pushing the blame around. The right wants to blame the left for everything that went wrong in the last century's politics, so they claim that Nazism, Facism, and communism were all leftist ideas.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It's not just wanting to blame. It is actually believing it that is the trouble - and not listening to those who know different.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

I just have to step in here. I think the "threat" perceived from the ACLU has been overblown for some time now. But I don't deny that political correctness is a bullshit means of shutting up those you don't want to listen to. I realize that the university scene might be more contentious on this than life outside academia, but I just haven't seen evidence that the ACLU's legal maneuvering has ever lived up to image of the terrible specter the American Right has raised -- with David Horowitz being perhaps the most offensively overblown of the bloviators.

In the last eight years, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the threat to American free speech and civil liberty has come from the Right. Oh, they didn't start if perhaps; it was a natural response to 9/11. But their politicians deliberately exploited it, some actually believing it, but many just seeing a perfect justification for power.

Threats from authoritarian sources in America have come from both Left and Right at different times. It's like a game of whack-a-mole -- hit one anti-liberty mole back into its hole and another pops up elsewhere.

But this "fact" that the ACLU and its "like" are the prime threat, and that they're fellow travelers for extreme Islam -- it's so easy to levy these charges, but what's the evidence? And please bear in mind that most court cases usually don't represent the culture's view, and they rarely cause the earth-shattering realignment of society that the media tends to imply. The activities of the Bush Administration, however, have done grievous harm. And Bush may not be authentically Right, but the Right in this country whole-heartedly claimed and embraced him -- up until they couldn't even convince themselves any longer that he wasn't a loser. Only now do we begin to see the op-eds about how he was never really conservative anyway.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I wish I believed that court cases were as insignificant as you make them. And while Bush is no friend of mine - and I made my view of such things as waterboarding abundantly clear - what he does does not amount to a climate of opinion. Of the two, the climate of opinion is infinitely more dangerous than any government enactment, and if you think that is overblown, I suggest you try taking a really unpopular stance some time. Or, alternatively, go to ffnet, take out the fic "Gay Bar", and read the reviews. I think you may be surprised.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

Okay, I admit that I believe that Supreme Court rulings (Federal, that is) are important and have vast and reaching effects - often unpredictable - on our lives. But most lower court rulings simply don't live up to the constant hype the media builds, not just the news when a high profile trial is building or commencing, but the zillion court dramas riddling network television. To watch any of those, you'd think human beings could never settle differences with one another without resorting to high-priced lawyers like William Shatner's Denny Crane. Cases usually take years to work their way through appeals and are often overturned or mitigated on the way.

As for climate of opinion, try having lived here between 2001 and 2005, when even the slightest criticism of Bush got you thrown into the "stupid hippy, won't don't you move to Iraq if you love it so much" category. That's always been around, certainly during the Reagan years, but to see otherwise sane people that I knew and worked with converted to that kind of spewing... that was something else.

And I think the Internet is a wholly different climate than "real" life. Something about this medium simply generates arguments and bile that would never arise in interpersonal conversation or even the more measured correspondence of letter writing. As Clay Shirky has noted, the Internet and social networks have allowed fringe cultures to band together, and this strengthens their sensitivity rather than mellowing it. Before, a misunderstood loner could always doubt that he was in the right. Now, he's got a bunch of people to back up any inane thing he says. I'm not bashing fringe cultures here -- I have a lot of sympathy with them, and consider myself part of some of them (comics, gaming, etc.). But their members are -- understandably -- oversensitive in the first place. Give them strength in numbers, and the Mob begins to grow.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

So there is no such thing as a left-wing persecution mind? Sorry, mate, you cannot tell a man hanging from a tree that he has not been lynched. And it pre-dated the internet: I caught the full blast of its delightful atmosphere in college, at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, in the years of the lord 1989 and 1990. Check and you will find that there was no such as World Wide Web at the time, and all the witch-hunting that was to be done was done in person. There were even horrifyingly sneaky things such as a person actually encouraging me to write a controversial essay on homosexuality when people, behind the scenes, were looking for excuses to lynch me. After that kind of experience, a little sneer to your face, believe me, don't hurt. What you want to look out for is the smiling, superficially civilized character who thinks history justifies them and therefore can excuse any betrayal with a cheerful heart.

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

I certainly never said or implied there was no such thing as Left-led persecution. It's just not a major factor here in the States. I'm sure it's quite different in Europe. In fact, from my encounters with Europeans, who I dearly like, I can see a certain, well, _conviction_ that anyone not adhering to Left-oriented ideas still has a lot of evolving to do.

But all that aside, in case I didn't say it earlier (and I guess I didn't), I do appreciate your take-down of Goldberg. The fact is, most people in America understands Socialism or even has a clue what it us. I've got a lot of Libertarian friends (who in the sci-fi community here doesn't?) and have had to argue against this point before. I'm glad to have some actual historical ammunition now.

It really comes down to the tempting symmetry of simplification. The Right loves to pigeon-hole the Left as collectivist and the Right as individualist. Facts don't matter -- those just get in the way of a nicely simple argument that can be ranted via radio (Neil Boortz, for instance).

[wyrdwood.livejournal.com]

Oops. That is, most Americans _don't_ understand Socialism. It's an evil catchphrase used to scare Americans: "socialized medicine"... oooh....

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And that reminds me. The American right is pelted daily with horror stories about the British National Health Service. However, you may notice that there are no such stories about the German, French, Italian, Spanish, Scandinavian or Dutch health services (apart of course from the unfortunate Dutch habit of killing the old and sick and calling it "good death" - a habit which, in spite of much rhetoric, has nothing to do with socialized medicine, and whose most famous proponent is an American doctor). Why is that? Is it because American journalists only speak English? Not really - that is a charge you may lay against the English, not against the more adventurous Yanks. It is more that such horror stories are much, much rarer on the Continent. And why is that? Because the British Health Service has been subjected, since the days of Margaret Thatcher, to a series of disastrous market-obsessed experiments and to increasing privatization. Contrary to freemarketeering wisdom, this has led to a marked increase in waste, overspend, bad practice, and corruption. If you want data to support this claim, get back to me or try to get hold the various dossiers on NHS privatization published by Private Eye magazine.