Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Some Controversial Views

Entry 2225, on 2022-07-02 at 17:07:28 (Rating 4, News)

I have got a few thoughts on modern society which I thought I might share in this post. These will be quick comments on various topics which might be seen as being related in various ways, but are really just ideas I have in my "list of things to rant about". Needless to say, these are all likely to be controversial, so let the fun begin!

First, gay pride month. This has just finished, but I do have to say that the level of visibility of this was relatively low, here in New Zealand. This might have been because the media, government, and all the other usual suspects were so tied up with our latest national holiday, Matariki, but that is another subject for this post so I will move on for now.

I believe that in an ideal society all people would be treated the same, and there would be no different treatment (for better or worse) for any group of people, especially based on (mostly) irrelevant criteria like gender, race, and sexual orientation. In fact, almost everyone agrees with this basic philosophical tenet, but they then go on to ask (or more often, demand) special privileges for whatever group they happen to be most interested in at the time.

There's nothing to be proud about in being gay, just like there's nothing to be proud about in being straight, or asexual, or whatever other particular preference an individual might have. It's just something that some people identify with. I have no problem with whatever choices a person might make, but I don't want to hear about it every day for a month. It's just not that interesting, and that's the way it should be.

So why do we have to put up with, what are often very outrageous displays of "gay culture" in parades, or why do we fly the rainbow flag over public buildings? It's all about public displays of political power for the people involved, and the usual political correctness and virtue signalling from others. To be fair, I'm sure there are a few more genuine people as well as the disingenuous groups I listed here.

I know many gay people are embarrassed by this nonsense. Douglas Murray, the well known (gay) conservative commentator said: "Oh no, it's pride month. So, as I find myself pointing out every year, if there’s something you shouldn’t feel shame for then you shouldn't feel pride for it either. Being gay is a morally neutral fact. Neither pride nor shame. Just being. Like everybody else." Exactly!

Second, abortion. Specifically, the political chaos which has resulted from the Supreme Court ruling in the US which overturned the prior decision relating to the right to an abortion, Roe v Wade.

I'm no legal expert, but from what I understand, that decision, from 1973, gave women the constitutional right to an abortion on demand. The new decision has removed that as a right, but abortion will still be available based on the laws in individual states.

Before I continue, I do need to point out a delicious irony in this. When the SCOTUS made that original decision - which could be categorised as pro-women - it was composed entirely of "old white guys". The current membership is quite diverse, and includes women, and people of colour. But the "pro-diversity" crowd still got a decision they didn't like, didn't they?

As a person with some libertarian tendencies, I support every person's right to maximum autonomy and freedom, so surely I would support abortion, right? Well no, not necessarily. That simple statement about rights cannot stand by itself; what needs to be added is this: "until the exercising of that freedom affects another person in a significantly negative way, in which case the individual's rights can be restricted."

Everyone agrees with this, even if they don't realise it, because everyone wants a fair level of freedom, and everyone wants protection from others exercising their freedom to their detriment. For example, I support a person's right to protect their life and property, but I don't support someone killing another person because they looked like they were going to enter their property and possibly steal something.

So in the case of abortion there is a clear (at least I think so) second individual which is being affected in the worst possible way by the woman exercising her freedom. So I think abortion is just intrinsically a difficult subject which might not have a perfect answer. For example, the "morning after pill" could be seen as a form of abortion, but is it in the same way as aborting a nearly full-term baby?

At the very least I would like people to accept that this is a subject with some level of nuance, and that people on both sides have good points. This simplistic nonsense "my body, my choice" is so obviously deficient that I wonder why people even use it. Is it not obvious that others have looked at that idea and rejected it already?

Third, trans rights. This has been a particularly popular subject for the woke community for a few years now. In fact, trans people are treated with such reverence that their needs have been given precedence over another group which was a prior favourite: women.

A particularly difficult and prominent aspect of this has been the rights of trans people (specifically those who have transitioned from male to female) regarding participation in sport. There have been several examples of where someone who was previously male (and arguably, still is) has easily beaten people who were born female (AKA "women") in various sporting events.

But in the last few weeks several sporting organisations have come out with stronger rules against this. Normally this would be a dangerous move, because the outrage community would persecute them endlessly, but there are two reasons it has been a bit easier at this juncture: first, several sporting administration bodies have done it at the same time; and second, many people are distracted with the abortion debate and are paying less attention.

I have heard trans women (who were men; this is so awkward) say they feel like their right to compete is being taken away. From what I understand (again, correct me if I'm wrong) they can compete in the competition designed for their birth sex, that is, in this case, male. So they're not being denied the right to compete, just the right to compete unfairly.

Finally, Matariki. If you don't know this word you obviously don't live in New Zealand, because if you do, you will have heard it plenty of times! So, an explanation: it is the Maori name for the star cluster known in English as the Pleiades, or M45. It is also a time of year marked by the heliacal rising of the cluster, and is used to mark the Maori new year, and for various "cultural" purposes, such as remembering those who have died during the previous year.

The government decided Matariki should become a new public holiday, which was controversial in itself, because it has been estimated that it represents the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in productivity (it's hard to ascertain how accurate this claim is). But there were other objections to it as well.

For example, it is seen by many as a celebration of Maori culture and of little relevance to the majority of New Zealanders. I think there is some merit on this point, because despite the government's insistence that it is celebration for the whole country, it isn't. It is very much a Maori holiday and the rest of us just have to accept that.

And I do. I am fine with there being a Maori specific public holiday. After all, as an atheist, I already have to accept a lot of Christian-centric holidays, like Christmas and Easter. I would prefer if we were all more honest about this though, and called it what it really is.

Another issue is the amount of advertising (AKA propaganda) this government produced supporting the new holiday. There was no need for it being quite so extravagant, but money wasting is this government's specialty, so I'm not surprised.

I was also a bit uncomfortable with Maori superstition being so prominent in the event. I'm absolutely fine with mythology being presented in the right context, but a specific cultural or "religious" belief system being promoted by the government, at the tax-payer's expense, is too much for me. How many people would be happy to have the government pay to have a priest appear on TV at Christmas time and explain Christian mythology as if it was fact? It wouldn't happen, would it.

So those are my controversial comments on a few recent events. I know they clash with what is considered "correct" now, and that is fine with me. As Mark Twain said: "When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."

Comment 1 (7228) by Anonymous on 2022-07-06 at 20:54:06:

Disappointing... when does the controversial stuff start?

Comment 2 (7229) by OJB on 2022-07-09 at 12:29:45:

Well sorry to disappoint you. I will try harder in future! :)

Comment 3 (7230) by Anonymous on 2022-07-13 at 22:11:41:

Your last remarks encourage me to propose this. For you to be really controversial and sink your intellectual teeth into a meaty topic (metaphorically speaking of course), can I suggest for example to offer your views on the indigenisation of NZ academia, the infiltration of matauranga into the university curriculum, the increasing preponderance of te ao Maori in the academic day-to-day business, etc. – all part of the campaign to change the national identity into an indigenous Pacific one. I am not trying to goad you into a tirade of hate – and perhaps put your university job at risk – but a thoughtful weighing of processes, consequences and effects as you observe them. I’d consider this an interesting research project and supposedly we still enjoy free speech.

Comment 4 (7231) by OJB on 2022-07-13 at 23:08:51:

Challenge accepted! I'll get started on it.

Comment 5 (7232) by Anonymous on 2022-07-14 at 14:58:05:

Hello Owen, I am looking forward to you taking up this challenge. It should make excellent reading.
Allan

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.