OPINION: Equal Opportunity Offense
By I. B. Freely
Changing Definitions
Things aren’t always as they seem, particularly with definitions changing over time. Nowhere is this truer than in politics. Hardly a week goes by without a ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy being hurled at one side of the aisle or the other. At least part of the problem is one of definition.
Descriptors
The modern understandings of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are, slightly bastardized, adaptations of neutral descriptors, as in a ‘conservative wager’ and a ‘liberal sprinkling.’ The former generally used to denote restraint and the latter excess. Whether it is positive or a negative depends on the situation, an excess of freedom generally considered a good thing. An irony coming into play when one considers that those calling themselves ‘conservative’ advocate for the excesses of a free market economy and those labeling themselves ‘liberals’ support restraint in terms of access to firearms.
Us and Them
Another example of conflict comes in the forms of identity politics and who it is ‘okay’ to criticize. My fellow liberals aren’t going to like to hear this but the idea of ‘protected classes’ shows restraint as reflected in functional conservatism. What we are saying in terms of merging social equality with protected classes is “we are all equal, except for them, don’t dare even criticize them.” An attitude very much in line with the most staunch monarchists who, at least historically, have been in stark opposition to those calling themselves liberals.
How Far Is Too Far?
I am not advocating for a license to be a bigot predicated on the ideal of free speech. I’ll leave that to Dave Rubin. What I am advocating for is the free and full participation in society, which necessarily includes a degree of scrutiny and, yes, even criticism, at least in terms of a free society. Nothing should be above examination and not all the conclusions reached are going to be positive, humans just don’t work that way. This is not to say everyone is necessarily correct in their conclusions, but they should have the right to reach them and hold the resulting opinion, unless we are planning on making “thinking” itself a crime.
Blessed Are The Misanthropes
Something of a maligned group in polite society, misanthropes, or at least the low-key version, have been largely misunderstood, especially in terms of social equality. Such humans, by definition, are not fans of the species as a whole. A reasonable conclusion, particularly viewed from a certain perspective of cynicism. Given their lack of vested interest in society and the people therein, low-key misanthropes are free, or at least freer than most, to honestly take things as they are and speak as they find, making them the ultimate liberals at least in the sense of seeing everyone as equal.
A Fine Line
This can often be taken as prejudice if not outright bigotry, particularly if the criticism is directed at a particular, ‘protected’ group. This happened to the French author Michel Houellebecq in the early 2000s, many self-proclaimed liberals labeling him a racist for his criticisms of Islam. Keep in mind, that is Islam, the set of ideas (theology), not Muslims as in individual people. It could be said, and has by those who understand him, that Houellebecq can be said to not particularly like Muslims, in the way that he doesn’t particularly like anyone. He is an equal opportunity offender and no great fan of society or humanity in general.
Open For Scrutiny And Criticism
As an adherent to the ideals of the Enlightenment, Houellebecq believes everything is open for scrutiny and criticism, especially on the level of ideas. A prime example of this can be found in his 2004 novella Lanzarote in which the narrator opines: “Arab countries might well be worth the effort after all, if we could just liberate them from their absurd religion.” Whether or not Houellebecq is correct in calling Islam absurd is up for debate. It is, after all, still a matter of opinion, but at least you know it is an honest one.
In The Modern World
It is a similar case in the criticism of, in particular Orthodox and Hasidic Jews, for persisting with circumcision, and their poor treatment of women, neither of which make any sense in the modern world. Buddhism should not get a pass, and hasn’t, for its atrocious treatment of women and the poor and disabled, ascribing anything bad that happens to them as punishment for crimes in previous lives.
Let He Who Is Without Sin
Shots at particular sects of Mormonism for polygamy and child abuse are popular, dovetailing into, that old favorite, heavy criticisms of the Catholic Church for their explicit support of the Nazis and horrifying response to the child sexual abuse by priests scandal. All of these are examples reasonable criticisms of serious issues within major, organized religions, that in no way discredit the religion as a whole. Like any other institution they are made up of individuals, some nice, some nasty, most somewhere in between.
Everybody Has One
To paraphrase the old saying, opinions are like noses, everybody has one and only a particularly vindictive psychopath would seriously advocate cutting it off, particularly to spite their faces. To demand to never be personally offended is to demand the old-fashioned right of kings, and even then, the courts had jesters to remind the king they were only human.
https://www.calamitypolitics.com/2017/09/19/im-a-liberal-and-here-is-why/
