OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

People or Parrots?

Entry 2304, on 2023-11-14 at 12:19:20 (Rating 4, Comments)

There's a sad predictability about how many issues in the world are perceived by certain groups in society. When the latest Israel versus Hamas conflict began I could almost tell ahead of time what different people would say, based on their opinions on other, completely unrelated, subjects.

I will say here that a few people have surprised me, on both sides: some people who I thought might be more supportive of Israel have come out on the side of Hamas, and the opposite has also happened. But, despite this, there is an unfortunate tendency for people who believe one apparently unrelated thing will also believe in the Palestinian cause.

Here are a few unrelated causes where I have noticed a correlation with attitudes to the Israel-Palestine conflict: that Marxism has advantages over capitalism, or that climate change is an immediate existential danger, or that trans people who were born men are actually women.

The last one is particularly bizarre. I have seen many signs in pro-Palestine protests with captions such as "Queers for Palestine". Do these people know how gender non-conforming people tend to be treated in the Islamic world? If they turned up in many Islamic countries with that sign they could easily be thrown off a buiding and then be stoned. Why would a queer (or trans, bi-sexual, etc) person support that?

Here's an interview with Jordan Peterson I recently saw which also illustrates this phenomenon...

Interviewer: I'm married, and modern marriage has lot to recommend it. I do also think it's a patriarchal institution. It's literally...

Peterson: Why do you think that? Because you think virtually everything in society is due to the patriarchal society. It's easy to think that because you only have to think one thing; a one thing answer for everything. Part of the problem too, for this sort of discussion, and I consider it a manifestation of ideological possession, is it's predictable.

Interviewer: Having a coherent ideology does mean that it's predictable. It's one logical thing that follows from another.

Peterson: I'm not hearing what you think; I'm hearing how you are able to represent the ideology you've been taught. It's not that interesting. I'm not hearing anything about you. I can replace you with someone who thinks the same way as you. It means that you're not here. It's not pleasant.

Now it is possible that what the interviewer claimed: that one part of her ideology (notice she admitted that's what it was) logically follows from another, but I don't buy that, for two reasons: first, there is no rational connection between the elements of the ideology, so how can one flow from the other; and second, the beliefs of most of these people are predictable and uninteresting, just like Peterson said.

And when they are asked for justification, they always repeat the same old trite platitudes about the patriarchy, the evils of capitalism, white supremacy, and other nonsense.

As is my habit, I am criticising the woke left here, but I should emphasise that the same argument applies to other people on the political extremes, such as the so-called far right. However, mainstream society already recognises those deficiencies more often than similar problems on the left.

You might also say that my opinions are predictable, but I would challenge that, to an extent. I know that my rants against woke-ism have become somewhat predictable, but I do have nuanced views on many of these issues. For example, I agree that global warming is real, but don't agree with many of the proposed solutions. I don't think trans men are women, but I do support same-sex marriage. I think Israel is right in trying to eliminate Hamas, but I think they should be more careful about how they cause so many civilian casualties.

So I would hope that my views are less than predictable, and I have been abused and threatened by people on both the left and right, so I kind of figure I must be in about the right place. By the way, I don't take these on-line threats too seriously, because "keyboard warriors" rarely have enough gumption to actually do anything in the real world!

As I have said in past posts, individuality and being yourself is important to me. I would like to repeat a quote from Friedrich Nietzsche here, which sums this up nicely: "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

I don't think the people who repeat these tedious, obsequious catch-phrases, like "free Palestine, from the river to the sea" are "owning themselves" (except in the more modern, colloquial sense of that term). They are just parroting something they have heard somewhere else, and think that is the right thing to say to signal that they are on "the right side of history". Like Peterson said: they are not here, it's not that interesting, and it isn't pleasant.

Probably the group most susceptible to this is young people, especially older school-age children and university students. It is often these groups we see being the most irrational, hysterical, and predictable in their protests. They take the most extreme views and tend to repeat standard talking points rather than producing anything original.

This shouldn't be surprising, since we know people below about the age of 23 have incomplete brain function, and are at their most susceptible to peer pressure. In many ways they cannot be blamed for their irrationality. But older people, who have never "grown up" and learned to think for themselves are far more deserving of our derision.

They should have learned to think for themselves, and should have more balanced and less predictable views. But in many cases, that is not what we see.

What are they: people or parrots?

Comment 1 (7523) by Anonymous on 2023-11-17 at 08:58:53:

There's a sad predictability about how many issues in the world are perceived by... YOU.

Comment 2 (7524) by OJB on 2023-11-17 at 09:44:02:

I kind of thought I might get that criticism, but I would say I am not as predictable as many of the people I criticise, as I said in the paragraph starting "You might also say that my opinions are predictable...'

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then 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.