Reheated (11)
For newcomers, three more items from the archives.
A discussion with Stephen Hicks, author of Explaining Postmodernism.
Writing in Innovations of Antiquity, Ralph Hexter and Daniel Selden dismissed “transparent prose” as “the approved mode of expression for the society and values of the newly empowered middle class.” In the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Mas’ud Zavarzadeh denounced “unproblematic prose and clarity of presentation” as “the conceptual tools of conservatism.” The rejection of transparency as “conservative” is particularly odd, since transparency makes a claim amenable to broad critical enquiry, and thus public correction. Without transparency, what do we have? A private language shared only by likeminded peers in which one is free to assert largely unopposed? […] Presumably, if you prefer arguments that are comprehensible and open to scrutiny, this signals some reactionary tendency and deep moral failing. On the other hand, if you sneer at such bourgeois trifles, you’re radical, clever and very, very sexy.
Blunting the Senses in the Name of Fairness.
The Dalai Lama gets it wrong. Cultural equivalence debunked at length.
Rosie O’Donnell was happy to assert that, “radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.” But while red-faced evangelists may say, for instance, that gay people are wicked, damned to hellfire, etc, I don’t know of any internationally renowned Christian leaders who are calling for the imprisonment and killing of gay people. Unlike the supposedly “moderate” Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who insists that gay men and lesbians should be “killed in the worst manner possible.” Not condemned, ‘corrected,’ prayed for or pitied, or any of the usual nonsense spouted by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al; but murdered – as brutally as possible.
Professor Sharra Vostral exposes the humble tampon as an “artefact of control.”
Note the professor’s confidence as she rushes to the podium on Mount Grievance. She is righteous and wise, and apparently telepathic. Non-literal uses of the term “patchwork” must assume whatever sequence of ideas suits Professor Vostral’s worldview. Used metaphorically, the word “patchwork” must signal disdain for quilt making, quilt makers and, by implication, an entire gender too. There can be no doubt about it. “Patchwork” simply is a “gendered insult” – one “based in derogatory understandings” of a “woman-based art form.” It’s “embedded,” apparently.
Excavate the greatest hits.
Enjoyed the interview with Stephen Hicks. Thanks for ‘reheating’ it.
Hi. I am a new reader/lurker here and wanted to say thanks for the ‘reheat’. That is a very good idea.
Rsj,
Welcome aboard. I love it when lurkers de-cloak.
David,
From your ‘Blunting the Senses in the Name of Fairness’:
“There is a difference between monstrous acts that ignore or invert the exhortations of a religion’s founder and monstrous acts that are entirely in accord with that founder’s stated vision… The likelihood of a religion being associated with intolerance and violence will in part be determined by how violent and intolerant a religion’s founder was and the means by which that founder enjoined others to propagate the faith. One can no more erase Muhammad from Islam than one could airbrush the Biblical Jesus from Christianity.”
Well said -and spot on. I think you’ll like this Sam Harris video (starts 4:30 in):
“It matters that at the core of Islam there are principles like martyrdom and jihad. It really matters that Islam views itself as a religion that will be victorious in this world politically and materially, that there will be a true Islamification of the planet… It is mainstream Islam.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuuKItF_xJo&NR=1
“Without transparency, what do we have? A private language shared only by likeminded peers in which one is free to assert largely unopposed?”
Like the AGW doom-mongers, who have recently declared themselves “not guilty” of all the dirty tricks they have been accused of… and free to pursue millions more in taxpayer-funded research grants.
Rafi,
Thanks for that. It’s heartening to see Sam Harris correcting a common conceit. I find it remarkable that people like Jonathan Glover will make great efforts to avoid the nub of the problem (and what it implies) while writing carefully evasive articles for the Guardian, thus misleading others while *sounding* conscientious. At the time the “Blunting” essay was written, it was rare to see anyone (especially on the left) acknowledging the obvious role of Islamic theology itself, and the role of Muhammad as an inspiration for, and sanction of, atrocity. Despite the repeated and explicitly stated motives of the perpetrators and their supporters, and despite the legal, historical and theological precedents to which they appealed.
David, apologies if you’ve already linked to these, but here’s a couple of goodies for the Friday Ephemera:
The ‘sapeurs’ of Congo:
http://crisman.scripts.mit.edu/blog/?p=361
IDF Flashmob in Hebron:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVVte550dyU
“The size of the extremist fringe” is sadly something that is badly under reported, the sheer scale of persecution is never considered because a majority of victims are christian.
The wretched damnation of christianity by the “progressive” enlightenment brigade means that millions are condemned to a unrecognised tortured existence beyond the mainstream media, it’s an inhumane tragedy to ignore it.
I came across one organisation (http://www.claas.org.uk/) who are dedicated to helping christian victims of blasphemy law in pakistan, they’ve got their work cut out, and that’s just one country with one specific set of circumstances. There are many more websites devoted to similar issues.
What would we do without you, David? This blog is a lighthouse on the shore of a sea of stupidity. Your “greatest hits” posts remind me why I’ve been reading you so long.