Entry 2348, on 2024-06-11 at 12:17:38 (Rating 4, Comments)
What do the following issues have in common: climate change, the war in Gaza, LGBT rights, police violence, abortion rights, and the merits of capitalism? Fundamentally nothing, except they are all part of the "omnicause" that left wing activists like to engage in. In most cases, if you tell me someone is concerned about climate change I can also tell you what their opinion is on abortion rights (they fully support them) or the war in Gaza (they believe in a free Palestine "from the river to the sea", although they often won't know which river or sea).
Why is this? Why do we see groups, such as "gays for Palestine" which seem to be completely irrational? I mean, do they know what many extreme Islamic groups do to gay people? I wonder if they have ever heard of chickens for KFC, or turkeys for Thanksgiving.
Now, it is possible that some people might have carefully thought about each of those issues, and decided they are all worth supporting... but who am I kidding? We all know why those causes tend to be grouped. It's because these people put no individual thought into what they believe and are simply following along with an ideology. Note that there may be some quite reasonable people who believe in some of these causes to some degree, but I'm talking about the activists who are fully involved in all of them.
As an illustration of this phenomenon, have a look at some popular activism here in New Zealand. A recent protest was allegedly aimed at so-called "anti-Maori" policies of the government, but in the same protests I saw signs with slogans indicating the following: support for Palestine, criticism of capitalism, rejection of oil and gas exploration, and several others.
I believe all of these issues are worth considering, but I can tell by the signs, and by the irrational ranting, that these people are on the extremes of them all.
So sure, the war in Palestine is horrible, but what are the alternatives, and what does a free Palestine really mean? Ask these people, and most won't really be able to defend their opinions; instead they'll just repeat catchphrases they heard somewhere.
And capitalism has its faults, but what is the alternative? Do these people know the history of alternative systems, like those in Soviet Russia, Venezuela, or North Korea? How about a reasoned discussion on the good and bad points of capitalism, and serious suggestions on how to improve it. No, they'd rather rant.
Climate change is an issue worth thinking about, but it is not an existential threat, and oil and gas are far better alternatives than coal. So why not look at some interim compromises here, instead of just making demands which will lead to economic and social disaster?
Look at the people involved in these protests and they seem to fall into several groups (note I said "seem" here, because this is just a personal observation and not real data). There are young people who are too naive and emotionally and cognitively immature to form any sensible opinions yet. There are older people whose identity is tied up with protesting and they do it out of habit as much as anything else. And there are others who stand to gain financially and politically if change is forced on the rest of us.
Now I do have to be fair here, and say there might be a small minority who have thought through the specific issue they are protesting and who do have a more sophisticated opinion, but I guess they would be less than 10% of the rabble present.
I have seen videos of people at protests being interviewed, and their gross ignorance and naivity are often exposed. For example, in one protest a person was asked to explain what their sign meant, but they just admitted they didn't know because they had just collected it from a protest organsier. And the famous example I have cited before: that many people demanding freedom for Palestine from the river to the sea have no idea which river or sea, and couldn't even point to them on a map.
So why can't we have some of our media walking up to random protestors and asking this sort of question? If, as I suspect, the person is made to look like a fool, then maybe that will dissuade others from protesting before they research the topic in future. And if it turns out the person has a well-reasoned argument then people like me will look at them with more respect in future.
But do the media do that? Not in most cases, because they are completely biased and generally support most of the same misinformation the protestors are guilty of. I think it is OK for people to protest, but it would be good if there was a bit of accountability there. But, of course, there isn't.
Comment 1 by Jim on 2024-06-12 at 09:14:07:
Ha ha. Chickens for KFC. Good one.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-06-12 at 12:12:27:
Yes, that "Chickens for KFC" thing is a common comment when "Gays for Palestine" is mentioned. I mean, how naive and stupid could they possibly be?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE