Against all better judgement I’m choosing to venture into the bleak world of politics again today after a long hiatus. Heaven help me.
Everywhere I’ve looked over the last little while there has been someone claiming such and such caused the London riots and another someone claiming they’re wrong because no one knows what caused the London riots. It’s unknowable, apparently. At least for the moment. Except, they’re over-intellectualising it.
A lack of individual discipline caused the London riots, nothing more and nothing less. Teenagers from whatever background committed cowardly crimes because they didn’t know, or didn’t care, that what they were doing was wrong. When causation is discussed I think this part is taken for granted, smoothed over and a greater societal reasoning is sought out instead.
But why is anyone doing that? Hold these individuals accountable for their own actions, and throw the book at them. Most of the punks involved probably thought they were safe from consequence, insulated by their numbers. Prove that assumption false by not handling them with kid gloves. If they choose to re-offend in the future after a brief stint in jail or juvey or whatever, lock them up again.
General commentary seems like it is finding someone else to blame for what were individuals’ actions. Or wants to find someone else to blame for it. This writ large lawlessness is currently being scapegoated to support all-and-sundry of causes from the break down of traditional families, the failures of multiculturalism to the perils of the welfare state. Let people champion whatever they like if they see merit in the argument. I’ll abstain from those debates, but hey, live and let live, right? But there is something that upsets me about it all.
Despite the fact that we don’t know, or cannot know, what caused this wave of looting and violence, some people are condemning views as flat out wrong. To take the first cause I mentioned, the degeneration of the traditional family, as an example (since race and class discussions are only going to be worse flamebait) , people seem bent on the idea suggesting fatherlessness is bad amounts to heresy. Miranda Devine at the Daily Telegraph and Kevin Andrews at The Punch have both touched on connections between a fatherly influence, family stability, disenfranchisement, detachment from society and thus a lack of consideration for said society. And they’ve been savaged for their opinions.
How can people simultaneously argue that something is wrong when they don’t know what’s right? Specifically how can someone claim a presented hypothesis is not responsible for the unrest if they cannot say what is? Admittedly Devine was courting trouble linking lesbian couple child adoption with modern family issues, but did that warrant such barbarism in the comments on her article, most of which were personal slurs lacking any coherent rebutalls? Since when is it ok to so cruelly and so self-righteously attack someone, especially if you have no valid counterpoint to the debate?
It seems to me that a lot of the zeal those on the PC-side of discussion consider their ideas somehow more legitimate than others, as though the proof of their views is self-evident. I find it more than little ironic that words like ‘bigot’ are constantly bandied by this group who seem, moreso than any other, ignorant and dismissive of opposing opinion. Especially on issues of race and gender, the views of the left are elevated above others and dignified with words like ‘progressiveness’ while others are demonised as being ‘outdated’. And why? Because of the perception that everyone or most everyone feels the same way? That has got to be a contentious claim if ever I heard one.
This is a case of vocal minorities causing a fuss and ad populum nonsense at its worst. The constant vilification of those on the right by those on the left only serves to stymie productive discussion. If someone is too fearful of hate-filled condemnation and social ostracism to say what they really feel, then how is anything that happens in society properly representative of the population? It’s a destructive sensibility being perpetuated at the moment by smug people more hateful than those accuse of as much. People who, so high on their own sense of moral superiority, grant themselves the right to say who’s wrong.
So it’s ok to have an equal society, so long as some views are more equal than others? I have to disagree with that one.