Entry 2366, on 2024-10-14 at 14:34:04 (Rating 4, Politics)
It seems to me that the big problem with the "civilised" world today is that so many people are making the wrong decision when it comes to deciding between supporting what is nice versus what is true. The word "nice" here doesn't literally mean that, of course, because the end result of supporting the ideology of "niceness" (or "kindness" if you want to use the word used by our own petty tyrant, Jacinda Ardern) is often anything but nice.
When you think you are being nice you might also believe you are "doing the right thing" or are "on the right side of history". It's a very dangerous attitude, because people who are convinced they are on the right side don't worry too much about what is true and can easily dismiss opposing views because they are evil (they must be, because they oppose you, and you are "doing the right thing").
So let's look at a few examples of where this phenomenon occurs...
Example 1: Israel versus Palestine.
Most (but not all) of the people who support the Palestinian side in this conflict do it because they think supporting the "underdog" is the nice thing to do, then confuse that with doing the right thing. And they rarely take too much notice of the facts, which explains the unbelievable ignorance of many (but again, not all) people on the side of Palestine.
They think Israel is an apartheid state, is engaging in genocide, and is the aggressor in the war. None of these (or most of the other points produced by the anti-Israel side) can really be seen as being true, but they seem to think that if they say "stop the genocide in Gaza" often enough it will mean there actually is genocide there.
By the way, if you are against Israel in this conflict, read my blog post "Which River?" from 2024-03-21 and try to refute my points by adding a comment. I try to be fact-based, so if you can show me where I'm wrong, maybe I will change my mind.
Example 2: LGBTQIA+ ideology.
Trans people have a tough time so it would appear to be nice to support them as much as possible, wouldn't it? Well yes, as long as your support for them doesn't start adversely affecting other people in society, which of course, it does.
So there is the kindness of allowing trans women (born as men) access to women's sport, private spaces, etc. And if we were only allowing for the needs of the trans community that actually would be kind. But by being kind to that group you are inflicting harm on another, in this case primarily women.
So the niceness is never universal, because it is focussed on one group, which is usually the one which is seen as a minority or one which was disadvantaged by majority attitudes, and sometimes even laws, in the past. And the facts again are ignored. Many trans activists say they think trans women are identical to people actually born as women, that they have no advantage in sport, and that they do no harm to women. All of these points are wrong, but again they seem to think that by repeating a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
Example 3: Marxism versus Capitalism
Marxism superficially seems like a "nice" doctrine. Marx's famous slogan "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" sounds great in theory, because everyone gets what they need. Isn't that nicer than capitalism which encourages greed?
Well in some ways that has some merit, because pure capitalism has obvious problems, but if we look at actual Marxist states (or at least states where Marxist inspired regimes have held power) we see they universally fail and create a terrible standard of living for the people.
How would you like to live in the USSR, or North Korea, or East Germany, or Venezuela? If you want a simple test of the effectiveness of the two main political/economic systems look at North versus South Korea or East versus West Germany (when they existed as separate states). Marxist doctrine doesn't look so nice then, does it?
By the way, I know that some states which are labelled Marxist may not fit that description formally, but they are all inspired by the ideas of Marx, and that's the criterion I am using.
Example 4: DEI
Diversity, equity, and inclusion is an ideology which tries to equalise the number of people from all backgrounds in different important roles. So political parties should have the same number of women as men, or black and white people, or straight and "gender diverse" people. If the balance doesn't exist then more diverse people should be hired or assigned to these roles.
It seems nice, doesn't it? But there are numerous issues with DEI which are often very obvious when you look at the bigger picture. For every person hired to do a job because of their race, gender, etc there might be many who would be more competent but didn't get the job. Hiring based on DEI tends to create a more politically correct environment. And hiring on any attribute other than proficiency reduces the overall competence of the workplace.
So I will close with two points: first, anyone who thinks they are being nice probably isn't, because they don't look at the negatives of their actions. And second, even if a person is being unquestionably nice, is that more important than being factual? Are nice fantasies better than hard truths? I don't think so.
Comment 1 (7730) by Jim Cable on 2024-10-14 at 16:08:35:
As usual, Owen, impeccably argued. You caused me to reflect on a few of Thomas Sowell's observations.
"What exactly is your "fair share" of something someone else has worked for?"
“Much of the social history of the Western world over the past three decades has involved replacing what worked with what sounded good.”
“Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts, but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision.”
“I have never understood why it is “greed” to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.”
Comment 2 (7731) by OJB on 2024-10-14 at 16:29:54:
Yes, I like a lot of Sowell's work too. I particularly like the quote involving "...replacing what worked with what sounded good", which is really the key message of this post.
Comment 3 (7732) by Jim Cable on 2024-10-14 at 16:47:40:
I neglected to add that the braying, bleating, unthinking sheeple who warble so piteously about the plight of those in Gaza and Lebanon can't seem to absorb even a couple of the most elemental factors: -
1. That since 1948 Israel has been under almost constant assault by those of Islamic persuasion and has, in the majority of instances, only ever sought to address their retaliative action directly at those who have attacked their land or their people.
2. That Hamas and Hezbollah had deliberate intent to base their centres of control and attack under schools and hospitals from where they imagined they would be free to launch their Iran and UN-financed aggression with impunity.
It quite amazes me that we have so many utterly brainless, devoid-of-rational and non-thinking people in this country who happily take up cudgels on behalf of the Palestinian cause without even the slightest knowledge or understanding of the ever-so-evident perfidy of the leaders of HAMAS and Hezbollah. It's really sad that we can't export them for a little bit of on-hand enlightenment in Gaza and Lebanon.
Comment 4 (7733) by OJB on 2024-10-14 at 17:10:32:
Yes, those are some of the points I made in that blog post I mentioned above. There are a lot of fairly intelligent people who are also on the side of the terrorists on this one, but you know what they say: smart people are the best at deluding themselves.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
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.
BLOG PAGE