Another bad experience

[fpb]

Why in God's name did I ever place my essay on JKR's religion on FA? Most of the responses I received have been appalling: those who did not insist that Christianity meant anything they wanted it to mean simply imagined that I was criticizing JKR for not holding it, on the supposition - which I explicitly denied dozens of times - that you cannot be a decent person without being Christian. God Almighty, the whole damned essay begins with me denying that Christian is a term of moral approval! Do these idiots even know how to read, or do they just play with letters like babies or monkeys?

Comments

[becomethesea.livejournal.com]

I'm convinced the mods see that its you and send out their cronies because they're dumb like that.

It's the biggest reason I haven't bothered logging on since... hmm, at least January.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I don't think so. I have had no problem with the current mods, and the few dealings I have with them have always been polite. No, I guess it is just the difference between exposing my views to the already rather selected public of my LJ and placing them on general release. The saddest thing is that one of the "Christianity means anything I want it to mean" crowd was Inverarity, who is also one of the finest fanfic writers around.

[super-pan.livejournal.com]

Some people just don't understand you( I don't always understand you, either!)and for some reason it makes them react negatively. I guess they assume that since you think differently than they do that you are wrong and bad. I am guilty of that sometimes too, which is why I appreciate having you on my flist, because sometimes it allows me to either view things in a different light, or sometimes to confirm my own opinions. At the very least, it allows me to see that people who have different views on some very important issues can still agree on some of the other important or not so important things in life. I hope these people don't completely lack that ability or that someone in their life life to help them do the same.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Its the same old thing, many people don't seem to be able to understand that you can disagree with someone and still respect and like them.

That being said, you do seem to enjoy poking the wasp nests with sticks.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I don't really think it's me. I think that the people who replied would have reacted as badly to you, if you had presented a similar point with your customary urbanity. I think that you have people there who simply do not understand the basic point from which I started - that Christianity is a belief and not another word for morality, and that that belief is quite clearly defined and cannot be altered at whim. It has to do with bad education and the wretched habit of people who know nothing about a subject to have strong opinions about it anyway - something that you, as a scientist and statistician, surely have come across.

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

It wasn't so much the original essay I was thinking about, more some of your responses to the comments. I simply get the impression that sometimes you quite enjoy stirring up a wee argument here and there. Not a criticism, by the way, as almost anyone from Northern Ireland will agree I am describing a noble calling. That of "winding up the glipes for badness".

And you are quite right, it drives me up the wall to see the trivialisation of knowledge or news and the use to which stats are put. Not just by those who have no knowledge, but those who think that everything should be made understandable to everyone.

But then the price we have to pay for giving everyone a voice is that lots of people make use of it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Very well put. But one wishes that the distinction between expert and charlatan could be made a bit more clear.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Maybe the essay was for people (like me) who like your writing and admire the way you think.

Let the dogs bark; the caravan continues.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

...except when I disagree with your belief that there cannot possibly be such a thing as a right-wing tyranny?

Ah, well, never mind.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Sir, have you never met anyone whom you both admired and with whom you disagreed? Then someone like me should be a new experience for you.

This idea of yours-- that all men who disagree with you are fools-- makes you too bitter to accept a compliment gracefully. That is not useful to you.

It is also a burden to me. Your outward shows of contempt makes it more difficult and time consuming than it otherwise would be to remain on good terms with you.

It never seems to occur to you to apologize when you offend a friend. You seem to think we like to be on the butt end of your scorn.

Here we go again Part I

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I will be happy to explain again my opinion of the whole "Left-Right" spectrum.

The Left and Right originally meant the progressive and liberal faction (liberal in the original, uncorrupt sense of the term, meaning favoring human freedom, rights of man, limited government) against the servile faction (favoring the ancien regime, the throne and altar, the privileges of the aristocrats). Progressivism, in it search for human liberty, was won over to the consensus (in my opinion, illogically) that human liberty was threatened by the free market. Instead of seeing the free market as a radical and revolutionary engine of human progress, both a cause of and an effect of liberty, the consensus decided that the free market was a sinister system of controls, dubbed "Capitalism", whose purpose was to oppress the poor and grant privileges to the rich, protect monopolies, and curtail liberty.

At that point, the classification of "Right and Left" ceased to have real-world meaning, even if groups still continued to use these words for their historical value.

The "Left", in an effort to liberation mankind from the imaginary dangers posed by so-called Capitalism, sought absolute government, and so, in a complete reverse of their original position, now became the enemies of human liberty.

The extreme form of socialism, artificially labeled Communism, sought immediate and violent abolition of the free market; the milder forms of socialism are law-abiding, and seek through parliamentary procedures to curtail the free market by various schemes to interfere with the price structure, the movement of goods and labor, working conditions, and so on.

The Progressives invented a myth that the world was divided into two camps: the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. The Sons of Light were the Socialists, who sought human liberty in the destruction of both ancient aristocratic privileges, the protection of the dispossessed, and also in the destruction of the free market. The Sons of Darkness were the forces of reaction, the boogiemen whose evil Jewish scheme was to oppress and poor, cause wars, and defend the privileges of the ancient regime.

Continued below

Re: Here we go again Part II

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

Now, to add madness to inaccuracy, the Socialist consensus somehow, when it regarded America, a nation with no history of an established church or aristocratic hierarchy, to be aligned with the Sons of Darkness, the forces of reaction, the enemies of progress. The most revolutionary nation in history, and the only nation whose revolution actually achieved the goals it set out to achieve, now the Socialists dismissed as illiberal.

To add dishonesty to madness, when the national socialist movements started in Italy and Germany, the Communist, maddened with hatred over these violent anti-Communist populist collective movement, announced that they were "Far Right", which, taken literally, would mean violent supporters of aristocratic and clerical privilege. The Socialist throw the free market into the same category, making an illogical mix of revolutionary and reactionary factions, liberal and totalitarian, and calling all of them by the same name "Right", meanwhile using the term "Left", which originally meant individualistic and liberal, now to mean a mild or a violent form of totalitarian collectivism.

Now, the myth of the war of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness required that the defender of evil Capitalism be violent and cruel. And so when violent and cruel national socialists and fascists appeared on the history scene, these were dragooned into service as the boogiemen of Socialist mythology: they, the arch-foes of the free market and deadly enemies of human freedom, were portrayed as the violent defenders of "Capitalism." America, the only superpower in history never to have imperial designs, was also dragooned, after the war, into this role as an Imperialist aggressor. The comical stupidity of the terminology had, at this point, was beyond satire. It was merely Newspeak, using terms to mean their opposites, and doublethink, rank hypocrisy.

To make matters even more confusing, the conservatives both in American (classical liberals) and in Europe (monarchists) as well as the new faction that fits in neither category (nationalists) all adopted their enemy's terminology, and called themselves "Right".

So you tell me. Has there ever been a tyranny based on limited government, free trade, the rights of man, checks and balances, freedom of speech and the press, and freedom of conscience.

Whatever you want to call that idea -- the technically correct word is 'liberal' -- sounds to me like an idea that cannot be married to the idea of tyranny in any form.

You can call the idea of limited government and the Rights of Men leftwing, rightwing, or chickenwing for all I care. It is the portrayal of these classical liberal and Enlightenment ideas as merely a mild or nonviolent form of Nazism I object to -- and this is a point where I thought, at least, you and I agreed. Republicanism or classical liberalism or whatever you want to call it is not related to fascism.

In fact, they are opposites. The only way to make them look related is to adopt this deliberately misleading Right-Left shibboleth that all and sundry seem to accept as normal.

Well, I for one cannot accept it as normal: it is nonsensical. It is like talking to some bizarre Protestant who insists that Atheism is an extreme form of Catholicism, and that Catholicism is a mild form of Atheism.

Re: Here we go again Part I

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You keep repeating the same version of history, which I answered to again and again, and frankly I am sick of it. The enormity that Fascism did not know it was right-wing until some Communist propagandists decided it was simply ignores the political action of German and Italian Fascists, its protectors, its backers, and its goals. I am not willing to repeat once more the evidence, since you do not listen. And it is this, not that you disagree, that embitters me. I hope that we agree at least on the point that there is such a thing as objective fact and objective truth, and that it does not depend merely on the party-based "narratives" of different groups; at least, I am an enemy of relativism always and everywhere, having learned to hate it devotedly sixteen years ago. And that being the case, I insist that your narrative simply ignores obvious matter of fact, and ignores it because you cannot uproot from your skull your ridiculous equation between the left and unfreedom. You are wrong on things that I know as well as I know my own name and face, on which there is as little chance of confusion as on my nationality and past. And you are wrong because you insist on misinterpreting your data from the viewpoint of universal left-wing corruption and on ignoring those that do not agree with you. I told you again and again and again and again, but what can one do when faced with invincible error? I also warned you that this kind of politically motivated narrative is insulting to me in that it deals with things that are the stuff of my own life experience and past - I grew up in a country where both Fascist and Communist subversion were real, daily occurrences, where political violence was daily and terrorism alive, where any thinking adolescent and adult had to face such things as the Fascist past of our own fathers and grandfathers in person; and I take it very ill that Mr.Goldberg, who has as much to do with Italy and continental Europe as I with China, should presume to tell us that all of us, all sixty million Italians, eighty million Germans and five hundred million Europeans, are so feeble-minded as to be duped about our own politics, our lives, our past, our nations, our relationships with each other, the very friendships we formed and the way we lived our individual lives - and that we needed the reinterpretation of the lives we lived, the evil we did and suffered, the blood we shed and lost, by an American columnist, to be informed about who we are and why we did what we did!! YOU, SIR, ARE PRESUMING TO REDEFINE OUR PAST AND OUR SOULS FOR US. Does this not mean something to you? When I gave an account of American politics as I perceived it, you reacted positively, because it fitted what you knew of your own country. When you insist on supporting this absurd account of my own country against my own protests and the protests of anyone who knows anything about it, you should consider that there are people who know a thing or two more about Italy and Europe than you do.

The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"I am not willing to repeat once more the evidence, since you do not listen. And it is this, not that you disagree, that embitters me."

Then you should be happy to be released from your bitterness, because it is based on a misunderstanding. No doubt the fault is mine for not expressing myself clearly.

I did not say, and I do not believe, that the Fascists did not know they were right-wing until communist propaganda decided it. Nor is this something necessarily implied by what I said, albeit I see why you might read (or misread) it that way. The Fascists certainly thought of themselves and called themselves "right-wing" from the very beginning. The national socialists fully and entirely bought into the myth of the Son of Darkness and the Sons of Light. As far as I know, the fascists were entirely sincere in thinking they were protecting their nations and their churches and homes from the threat of International Communism. They did not realize they were destroying their nations, homes, and souls.

I have listened carefully to your comments. I see how and why they make sense, given your understanding of history. I do not agree with the definitions and axioms, and so I come to a different conclusion.

The point of disagreement, if you noticed, was the point where Enlightenment liberalism transformed into Progressivism. I do not think the free market is a threat to human freedom. I think that a logical system of nomenclature would reflect this, and that the word "Liberal", if consistently used, would refer to those who support limited government based on separation of powers, individual rights, free trade, and so on.

Instead of addressing this point, you complain about how tired you are, and complain that I am not listening to you.

Come now, sir. I have listened. I have asked you three times now to do me the courtesy of assuming that I have reasons that seem good to me for supporting my opinion. It is not because I am ignorant. It is not because I am not listening. It is not because I am being mean.

I am sorry that your patience is exhausted. Anger is an exhausting emotion. We can revisit this issue at some future point when you have regained control of yourself. Or we can agree to disagree, and let the matter rest.

My only request is that, before you discuss this or any topic with me, you re-examine this self-destructive idea of yours that no one disagrees with you except for knaves and fools.

I do not believe such a condescending thing of you. I do not think you are a knave or a fool. I think you are a careful thinker and a learned man. I am impressed with your skill with a pen. You express yourself clearly and beautifully.

I am saddened, and, yes, perhaps mildly insulted, that you do not return that courtesy to me. If I have not earned your respect,all I can do is hope that I might win your good opinion at some point.

But I do not understand why my request for basic courtesy and basic logic is rejected. Have you never actually met anyone with whom you had a respectful disagreement? Have you never understood, yet politely disagreed with, an opposing viewpoint in a discussion? Have you never learned to disagree without anger, impatience, petulance? Without personal attack? Can you not express yourself without unfriendliness toward me?

I would to think of myself as your friend. You have put yourself in a position where you no longer can receive a compliment gracefully from me. You are making it hard to be your friend. I am not a masochist. I do not enjoy turning the other cheek each time you lash out at me.

You are content to sneer that I do not believe in Right-Wing Tyrannies, but when I explain what I actually believe, then you are too sick of me to give me the benefit of a discussion on the point.

You raised the topic this time, friend, not I. Honor, if nothing else, would urge us not raise the topic that we don't want to discuss.

If it is any comfort, I am confident most political thinkers would be in full agreement with you, both on the history and on the meaning of the "Left-Right" nomenclature. I recognize that you are voicing the majority position, which is worthy of respect, if only because so many wise writers side with it.

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"You raised the topic this time"? I made a sarcastic remark that ended in "ah, well, never mind". Even if anyone wanted to answer it, it could easily have been answered in the exact same number of words, or less. (In fact, it could have been answered most effectively with just one word, such as "Yes" or "Exactly".) It is certainly not I who decided to answer a brief bit of sarcasm with a several-thousand-word defensio.

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I do not follow your logic here. Yes, making a sarcastic remark raises the topic again, and my answer, even if long, is an answer, and not the initiation of a topic.

Why are you unable and unwilling to answer me politely, even over a small point like this?

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Why are you so irritable? Where have I been rude "over a small point like this"? And why was it necessary to answer a small remark with a rehashing of the whole polemic which you knew was not going anywhere?

Re: The Price of Bitterness

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

I am not sure what I said to make you believe I was irritated. This comment so astonishes me, that now I must draw back from pursuing this conversation further. Misunderstanding deceive wiser heads than mine. I now see that what I thought were cowardly sneers and insults coming from you, had some other meaning, or no meaning at all.

Rather than upset you further, I will happily admit the entire fault is mine, and ask your apology. Let us not let a small thing come between us.