Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Who's the Enemy?

Entry 2327, on 2024-02-21 at 12:22:34 (Rating 3, Politics)

I often get into quite heated debates, especially on X (previously known as Twitter), involving controversial topics such as indigenous rights, feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights, leftist political agendas, and environmentalism (including climate change).

My opponents tend to accuse me of being racists because they say I am anti-Maori, or misogynistic because I disagree with some women's rights claims, or transphobic because I am seen as anti-LGBT, or a rabid far right crazy because I object to some of the more extreme ideas on the left, or being a climate denier because I disagree with many proposed climate actions.

Sounds like I am a truly terrible person, doesn't it? Well, if any, or all, of that was true maybe I would be. But that's not the way I see it.

Here's the thing: I'm not anti any of those groups in general. What I am against is the extremists and activists in those groups, not the people they allegedly (but not in reality) represent.

So I think many of the Maori elites who have accumulated a lot of wealth out of the grievance industry are corrupt, and I think the crazy extremists, such as most of the members of the Maori and Green Parties, who claim to be representing Maori rights, are just plain wrong (they're probably corrupt too, but that's not my main claim).

I have no problem with Maori people in general, and I suspect (although I know of no credible stats on this) that the average Maori person does not have the same views as the activists do. More Maori voted for the National Party (conservative) than the Maori Party (activist) at the 2023 election, which I think indicates a lack of support for their more extreme policies.

And a similar argument applies to those other groups. There have been many reports and news items showing that most women do not support a lot of the modern feminist agenda. And in the same way, many people from the LGBT community are really embarrassed by how they are supposedly represented by activists in that area.

I have no problems with many ideas the traditional left of politics hold; in fact, I agree with many of them. But the radical woke social agenda which has particularly infected the left of politics (although also the right to some extent) makes it impossible for me to vote left (and I used to). So having a balanced mix of policies, some from the left and some from the right, is a natural preference for me, but the more radical elements stop that from being practical.

Finally, I think climate change is real and I think there is good evidence that it is primarily caused by human activity. If there were sensible, rational actions we could take that would make a genuine difference I would support them. But the crazy hysteria we hear from activists like Greta Thunberg and the Green Party is where I start pushing back.

Shutting down power plants and other facilities which use fossil fuels while China constantly opens new ones and uses more coal than the rest of the world combined is insane. We can't make a difference so why not spend the money we were going to use for carbon emmission reduction on protection from the effects of a more extreme climate, which is going to happen whatever we do?

So my enemies are not Maori, or women, or trans people, or the left, or climate scientists. My real enemies are the people who take those issues, and push them to irrational extremes, either because of pure ignorance, hysteria, virtue signalling, or for the financial benefits they might be able to accumulate from these actions.

I have a private client who I visit occasionally and who is about as left as you can be. One day we were discussing issues like this and I said I thought feminists had become irrational. She said "I'm a feminist" and I sort of had to back down, because it isn't feminism in general I object to - I believe in equality for women for example - but the more insane extremes of it we see occasionally.

So I do need to be a bit more careful about my choice of words. I'm not going to say "the damn Maoris are just a blight on society" for example. Instead I will say Maori activists are. There's a big difference, even to the extent that many pro-Maori activists aren't even Maori themselves. That fact shows that it is the idea I reject, not the person.

And that's the way it should be.

Comment 1 (7583) by Anonymous on 2024-02-22 at 09:40:34:

OK who doesn't agree with this. What is your point?

Comment 2 (7584) by OJB on 2024-02-22 at 11:34:22:

Well, my point is that clearly many people do not agree with it, or they say they do and act as if they don't. Many arguments seem to be aimed at entire groups based on ethnicity, culture, etc, instead of being based on beliefs.

For example I would reject someone criticising me for being an "old white guy" because that isn't a bad thing in itself (despite what many might believe). But if someone found a flaw in something I said, and criticised me for that, I would find that fair (although I might dispute their belief).

Comment 3 (7585) by EK on 2024-02-25 at 14:36:20:

Who thinks you are a racist, anti-feminist, anti-evrything? I just read about an Albanian female biologist-fish researcher Sabiha Kasemati who the dictator Enver Hoxha had shot in 1951 for apparently no other reason that he didnt like women to be scientists. That is anti-feminism for you; your little squabbles pale into insignificance. It is almost as if you flatter yourself with a bit of grumpiness.

Comment 4 (7586) by OJB on 2024-02-26 at 09:47:45:

Well, many people do. These ad hominems are a standard way for my political opponents to react to my points. Sometimes I get genuine responses, which often make fair points, but more often it’s just “you’re a racist”. I guess that’s a lot easier than actually debating what I am saying. Often the comments are anonymous too, so who knows who they are. Of course, they are most likely woke people repeating what they have elsewhere, and not putting too much original thought into it.

Comment 5 (7587) by EK on 2024-02-26 at 16:40:44:

I bet there is a paradox lurking behind this. The people who so easily accuse others of being "racists" want to restrict free speech to eliminate hate speech, like saying something "racist" – forgetting that calling someone a racist is (or may be by some definition) hate speech too. (Clearly, when the intent is to diminish, insult, belittle and devalue another person with such a label/stereotype/attribute.) Call them out and let us know what the reaction is. Let's do a bit of research!

Comment 6 (7588) by OJB on 2024-02-26 at 19:04:47:

I believe it is called "psychological projection" when a person projects their own bad attributes and deficiencies onto others. Of course, I am sure you will be aware that, according to critical race theory, white people are always racist and others cannot be, whatever they do, so there is always that excuse as well! Also note that denying you are racist shows out of touch you are with your own racism. I know this sounds like fiction, but there are people who genuinely believe this stuff. It really is very much like a religion to them.

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.