The musician believes political correctness online is having an “asphyxiating effect” on society.
— Read on www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53768254
——- and of course, my commentary:
That’s cool. On the other side of it though, I think the ideal where everyone just gets to say whatever they want and everyone is in awareness and excepting of their own emotional reactions, is a utopian pipe dream.
Wow I didn’t know he was 62 years old. That’s insane. Lol.
It’s interesting though, I think this idea that has accompanied the web and Internet which sees free speech and free expression as naturally extending to the infinity of Internet access, it’s self is a kind of religion.
I think the idea of free speech and acceptance of difference is much easier when you don’t have the full range of human experience in your face, or the potential there of.
It’s easy to live a tiny life that only encounters other people if you travel, or through the newspaper or through the TV news, and say that we should all have free speech and freedom of expression.
It’s a little bit more difficult when you have every type of speech and every type of expression available at a click.
I think both extremes are two types of religious expression.
What we have as the left and the right, and I think the myopia over each is really the manifestation of our present political climate.
And I love Nick Cave, but Nick Cave as an old man, I’m not really sure of.😁
He’s definitely the artist type, And now he’s an older artist who thinks society should be made up of a bunch of intellectual artists.
Well, actually maybe the left and the right are switching places. Said that the left has become so left that it’s starting to implement its liberal strategies as a kind of dogma.
And then it’s the right who’s actually taking on more liberal ideas, American ideals about free speech and letting everyone say what they want and not care what anyone else feels. Like, we are all adults and just grow some balls would you? And don’t be so sensitive!
But you know what, what I think kind of addresses both of these ends is something that neither of the extremes really understand.
It really extends from race relations, critical race theory. The idea is that the institutional/systemic norms (we could even bring in Foucault here) ￼are made by white people. And so to be inconsiderate of other people under the assumption that “we’re all human beings, and just grow up already” is to deny the lived experience of people that fall outside of the norms, namely, people of color, but really anyone who doesn’t fit into the operative “top down” norms. ￼
This is the experience of America, though, and when you get out side of the generalized Americans and United States￼ white culture into other countries, the hard line of critical race theory seems to meet some contradiction. However, the more we look at what is contradicting, the more we begin to hear voices that confirm what we are finding is the case in America, or the United States in particular actually, actually holds water across the globe.￼
So, the issue really isn’t between the “you need to be considerate of others”, side of things, and the “just get over it and stop being so sensitive” side of things.
But it’s more about having a realization about how the norms of society itself, and now I mean global culture in the widest sense, has been shaped by white identity.
And we call this identity “modern capitalism”. But even if we have a difficult time seeing history as the history of white capitalism, ￼￼It doesn’t take very much to look around the globe and it’s history to see that it is always been lighter skinned people who developed the privilege, and it’s the darker skinned people who end up being oppressed, in poverty, excluded from what is “civilized” — yeah, like a dogma. Exactly like a religion. We can go even back to what we know as the first civilizations. It is pretty well known that even in the pre-history of India it was the Aryan races that came down and subjugated the darker skinned people of the subcontinent of India. The Aryan people are known to have lighter skin; And they were from the north￼￼.￼
(Please, some historian and/or anthropologist please correct me if I’m wrong￼!)
We need only Paulo Freire’s Formulation of oppression: both the oppressor and the oppressed play the game of oppression. And what typically happens is that the oppressed are so repressed that when I offered a chair at the oppressors table, playing by the oppressors rules, most gladly take it, and thus end up oppressing their own people, their own culture, their own kind, so to speak￼.
So the idea of this left and right Politicalization of this basic and fundamental issue is really a misunderstanding of the issue, actually identity politics.
Actually both sides are only being able to see what they are able to see, all the while proposing that they see the “whole big picture”. This is where the rift appears, in the blind spot that neither one can see nor really want to see because they both view their ideas as “liberal”, as in, having to do with liberty and freedom.
But what they are really developing is a kind of religious dogma which colors of the world for the benefit of that particular side.
And I don’t mean to use the word “color” just as a insignificant adjective. I literally mean it in the sense of critical race Theory that both sides who are involved with their sense of white righteousness actually color the world through their moral and ethical imperative of which they are incapable of seeing outside.
Leave a Reply