Ok, I’m read two books recently and I’m having trouble resolving the contradictions between some of the ideas because both seem to be mounting an intelligent and reasonable case.
Amy Remeikis wrote “Screw Nice” where she mounts a really good case that the rules of civility are really just the way that certain powerful forces and institutions shut down legitimate criticism and that progress has often been the refusal of people to play nice and just accept their oppression. When, for example, Rosa Parks refused to obey the request to abandon her seat, it could be seen as bad manners and not the catalyst for a call to action.
Indeed, much political action is criticised, not because people find the message unpalatable, but simple because the methods of drawing attention to the cause weren’t very nice. You know the sort of thing: “I understand that the world is under threat from climate change, but did those protesters really have to use that ugly word on their signs.”
And it’s always intrigued me that calling certain people racist is somehow an impolite thing to do. I mean, you’d think the fact that they were being racist was a lot less polite but, you know, some of the best people occasionally let it slip that they don’t really think that all people are the same, which is really obvious, and just because you belong to one of those better people, well, that doesn’t make you racist and there’s no reason to apologise for being white because, after all, it was white people who invented the wheel… or so I’m led to believe but anyway…
Now don’t go calling me racist just because I’m sounding a bit too much like certain politicians… And when I say certain politicians, it’s true that some politicians are certain about what they think which sometimes makes them sound just a teensy bit racist. Like when Pauline Hanson said that Australia was in danger of being “swamped by Asians”, well, they doesn’t mean that she was racist and disliked Asians because sometimes it’s nice to be swamped by something… I can’t think of an example here, but, hey, whatever!
And when John Howard refused to apologise for the Stolen Generation, his logic was clear: we can’t be held responsible for a past where people thought they were doing the right thing. If our ancestors took children away or poisoned the flour or shot the odd person, they can’t be held to the same high standards that we have today… We can’t be held responsible for the past. Something I frequently tell people who try to make me apologise for something I did in the past… I can only apologise for my present which is already past by the time I’ve formed an understanding of what I did wrong.
Anyway, I found Amy Remeikis’s book quite compelling and it was quite the counter to “Angertainment” by Ed Coper who argued that there’s a whole industry of people playing on our capacity to be moved by our emotions and that making people angry is a great way to engage them and trap them in a rage loop.
Dave Hughes is a great example of this. Whether he – and most of the people engaging with him – realise it or not, every ridiculous thing he posts just feeds into people’s anger and each response helps the algorithm grow to the point that he seems to be popping up everywhere. While some of what DH writes is uncontroversial – governments shouldn’t be corrupt or waste money – anyone who points out where he is inaccurate or inconsistent is accused of being paid for their comments or a “Labor stooge”. Perhaps his comments on corruption and “out of control” debt weren’t giving him enough attention because he recently commented on the Dan Andrews/bike boy conspiracies.
As a point of sanity here, I’d like to suggest that – regardless of your opinion of Dan Andrews as a state premier – the bike accident happened when he was leader of the opposition, so this idea that he used his extraordinary powers to shut things down does seem a little far fetched. However, I did infer Dave Hughes’ comment that Andrews had his windscreen fixed within 24 hours was somehow an attempt to destroy evidence similar to the steam cleaning of a certain couch. As a point of comparison, when a football hit my windscreen smashing it, I too tried to destroy the evidence that my stationary car was to blame by getting my windscreen fixed as soon as possible rather than do the right thing and drive around with an unroadworthy vehicle for a few weeks and hope that the substandard view didn’t cause another accident.
In “Angertainment” Coper suggests that engaging with people respectfully and drawing out the reasons for their views is more likely to get them to reflect on what they’re saying and doing. Simply yelling that an ex-drug user with a worm in his brain is probably not the person to trust for medical advice and no the fact that President Trump trusts him is NOT a reason to ignore his lack of medical knowledge probably won’t cause the person to expand their limited view of the world. In a similar vein, I remember once asking a class if someone shouting a different point of view at them had ever made them change their mind. “No,” was the response. “Then why do you do it?” I asked. “Because it feels good,” replied one girl.
So while Coper makes a strong case for not simply responding with anger, Remeikis makes a really good case that there’s a lot people should be angry about and that civility hasn’t won better rights or caused social change anywhere.
Sigh…
It’s so hard when you agree with everyone.
Anyway, both books are certainly worth a read!!
There you go again Rossleigh, exposing the facts about Dan Andrews that the unthinking LIARBRAL$ are clinging to because they are unwilling and incapable of forming relevant policies to benefit the voters, and even less willing to expose their inadequate debating skills about policies.
Funny ….. I thought Dave Hughes was a long vacant space …..
I know of Dave Hughes, however never paid any attention to him.