It is, I think, part of human nature to take vicious satisfaction in watching somebody be totally outclassed and utterly dismantled. I’ve felt that a great deal myself, whether I’m watching boxing or political debates. For the former category, I recommend watching Joe Calzaghe vs. Jeff Lacy in their 2006 bout for the world middleweight crown, and the latter, Douglas Murray debating Flavia Kleiner in a recent discussion in the Netherlands.
I hope you will bear with the second boxing analogy on these pages in as many weeks, but although as a practitioner of the Noble Art, I can give at least a few moments of trouble to mid-level professionals and top amateurs, but I would not fancy my chances against the likes of Anthony Joshua and Tyson Fury. To be blunt, if I stepped into the ring with either of them, you’d probably be picking my remains off the floor. I, however, am aware of this – Ms Kleiner did not show this level of awareness of her own ability in debating Mr Murray.
The discussion – so far as it was one – served as a personification of the current gulf that exists between the political left and right, of immature idealism failing to answer questions that, while uncomfortable and difficult, must still be answered. Regrettably, Ms Kleiner also resorted to using insults, comparing her opponents to ‘fools’, and declaring them ‘populists’ – by which I gather she meant anyone who didn’t agree with her – and arguments ‘boring’. I’m sure you’ll agree that this was hardly a constructive, thought-provoking or indeed polite way to begin a debate.
You may also think that none of this is overly surprising in the current socio-political climate, but all of this occurred before Mr Murray had even spoken. It was abundantly clear from her incorrect assertions that she was not, in fact, familiar with any of Mr Murray’s work, and then failed (or refused) to address his questions. If I had to pick a crowning moment for the whole event, I’d be torn between either when Ms Kleiner, a white woman from Switzerland, described her opponent as ‘privileged’, or when she criticised Mr Murray for participating in the discussion over the internet rather than appear in person – if someone is ignorant of the fact that an ongoing pandemic is affecting international travel, I expect the list of things of which they’re not aware would fill several books.
Nobody wants to love Europe more than I (the culture of the continent, at least, if not the EU), but Ms Kleiner’s points and style of debate were admirable reminders of why Poland and Hungary have expressed frustration with the continent’s aggressive adherence to political correctness, and why Britain voted to leave the European Union. Immigration was one of the main points of the debate (or rather, Mr Murray made futile attempts to get his opponent to engage with it), as it has been in Western politics for many years. It once again demonstrated why left-wingers are fuelling the opponents they despise so much.
When immigration is discussed in the European context, it almost universally refers to the various influxes of Muslim populations to the continent. In public discourse, these people are beyond criticism: any attempts to do so will lead one to be branded a racist and Islamophobic.
I don’t have much time for the ultra-religious Christians one can find in the US, but I’ll say this for them – their views are, at least, consistent. What I fail to understand is how self-proclaimed ‘liberals’ can champion the causes of women and the LGBT community (as they should) while aggressively defending a group whose own track record of inclusiveness is, to put it mildly, unimpressive.
That is a discussion I would dearly like to have, but I doubt I’ll ever be given the chance since any attempt to do so inevitably results in accusations of prejudice. The disastrous debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump served as yet more proof that the need for constructive dialogue is greater than ever. While politics is by its very nature divisive, it was once possible to disagree without encountering murderous hostility. It should, for instance, be possible to point out that giving classes to adult male immigrants on how to treat women, and that a short skirt is not an excuse for rape, is an exercise doomed to fail (I am referring here to an oddly balanced report by the BBC some years ago on Middle Eastern migrants trying to adjust to life in Norway), or that teachers should be able to teach an LGBT-friendly curriculum without fear of intimidation from Muslim parents (this incident erupted in Birmingham last year).
Mr Murray’s debate with Ms Kleiner resonated with me since I found myself in a similar situation a few days after it was broadcast, except instead of being interviewed by a top Dutch journalist in front of a diverse audience, I was in the closest thing to a Weatherspoons pub that Eastern Europe has to offer with three other British expats, gorging on onion rings and overpriced IPA. I mentioned, more or less, what I’ve just written, that I’m not sure Islam is compatible with left-wing beliefs.
One may have been forgiven for thinking that I’d demanded they hand over their walls and their sisters’ phone numbers. I had all the usual denunciations: that I was racist (Islam isn’t a race, of course, but it never stops the accusation being tossed towards its critics) and not the supporter of classical liberalism that I claimed to be. They then moved on to scoff at how I was sitting, with one leg cocked over the other, fingers steepled. I’m not sure why, I think it made me feel more like Peter Hitchens, which for some reason felt like a good idea at the time, while I couldn’t get a word in edgeways.
Well, once you criticise how someone sits, you should know the argument is lost. But these were all friendly, kind and intelligent men. One is an Oxford graduate with a PhD, whose inability to politely discuss a point of disagreement truly astounded me.
Failure to address difficult issues is only driving people towards extremes – Germany’s AfD party would never have got a look-in if Angela Merkel hadn’t tried to apologise for the Holocaust by potentially altering her country’s demographics forever. Likewise, it would have been infinitely harder for Marine Le Pen to gain the ground she has if the French authorities had taken greater strides in combating the root causes of terrorism.
That, then, is my message – talking to people with whom you disagree can prevent them from becoming political opponents you’ll hate. It’s worth trying, at the very least.
After all, geopolitical dialogue couldn’t be much worse at the moment.
"discourse" - Google News
October 01, 2020 at 06:50PM
https://ift.tt/3cKwycq
Euro leftists reveal their own hypocrisy by refusing substantial discourse with those who harbour differing views - New Europe
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4
No comments:
Post a Comment