![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The right to bully, yet again
I previously discussed here and here how modern "conservatism", aka Trumpism, seems to amount to one simple principle: rich and powerful people should be allowed to do whatever they want to poor and powerless people. Or, more briefly, might makes right. Any infringement on the right to bully is contrary to God's will or the laws of Nature or whatever.
Steve Muhlberger links to an Umair Haque essay making essentially the same point: the "far right" is about defending to the death the ability of bullies to oppress and silence everybody else. And pointing out (perhaps overoptimistically) that it never ends well: companies that turn to hatred and bullying lose money and go bankrupt, nations that turn to hatred and bullying lose international stature and influence.
Now, somebody will certainly retort that "the Left" are really the ones guilty of silencing and bullying, and there's a grain of truth in that: there are cases in which left-wing orthodoxy is expressed by refusing to allow a right-wing speaker a venue that would have been offered to a comparable left-wing speaker. But I think the actual cases like this are far fewer than "the Right" would have us believe, and many right-wing speakers are silenced not because they're saying conservative things but because they're actively promoting violence and the overthrow of small-d-democratic government (statements which, fifty years ago, would have been considered the very antithesis of "conservative").
Steve Muhlberger links to an Umair Haque essay making essentially the same point: the "far right" is about defending to the death the ability of bullies to oppress and silence everybody else. And pointing out (perhaps overoptimistically) that it never ends well: companies that turn to hatred and bullying lose money and go bankrupt, nations that turn to hatred and bullying lose international stature and influence.
Now, somebody will certainly retort that "the Left" are really the ones guilty of silencing and bullying, and there's a grain of truth in that: there are cases in which left-wing orthodoxy is expressed by refusing to allow a right-wing speaker a venue that would have been offered to a comparable left-wing speaker. But I think the actual cases like this are far fewer than "the Right" would have us believe, and many right-wing speakers are silenced not because they're saying conservative things but because they're actively promoting violence and the overthrow of small-d-democratic government (statements which, fifty years ago, would have been considered the very antithesis of "conservative").
no subject