I’m a thundering pub bore. I love sitting in my local, spouting off, pontificating, sometimes arguing.
Recently I popped in ‘for a couple’ and had considerably more, during an enjoyable chat with a chap I’d occasionally spoken to, but not hitherto in any depth.
It started with discussing ‘woke’. He’d overheard me talking to the landlady’s boyfriend and chipped in with a 32-year old gay man’s perspective. That’s the joy of the early-evening chats there, the place is not so busy as to stop people just dipping in and out of conversation, without it seeming rude or intrusive. That’s the pleasure of a good pub, in fact – which is why today’s news that the number of pubs in England and Wales has dropped below 40,000 for the first time is such a tragedy.
He was circumspect about younger LGBT activists, well-aware that many had neither the experience nor maturity to be so categorical. He also disliked their need to polarise what were (the term he frequently used) ‘grey areas’. However, he felt obliged to be pretty tolerant of their activism, since he’d faced all sorts of issues himself as a Catholic growing up in Ireland.
We got onto whether – and when – someone of my (or even his) age should shut up and let things go – however easy it seems to refute the absurdities one sees. Shouldn’t one, at some level, always accept that a younger generation will do and see things differently?
He was vaguely on the Left, but entirely reasonable in discussion – not a hint of any demonising for those with other views. He was especially good on how this is the default mode encouraged by social media. We both wondered how likely was it that such pub conversations could occur with people 10 years younger than him, let alone with those now in their teens, when they got older?
I’m very unsure there’s any justification for a ‘quietist’ approach to obvious nonsense, other than for loved ones we spend a huge amount of time with, and who don’t represent those ‘other’ views, however often one disagrees with them.
For the rest, it’s not really to do with how socially appropriate it is to be ‘at war’ with this prevailing orthodoxy. We all refrain from constantly discussing things, based on the situation and how obsessive or annoying you want to appear!
I’m more intrigued with the oft-repeated claim that the woke are ‘on the right side of history’ and reactionaries like me are incapable of seeing this – Schopenhauer’s famous observation that “everyone mistakes the limits of their own understanding for the limits of the world’s”.
When should any individual just give up and accept what his or her reasoning, in terms of logical argument, concludes is wrong?
My inclination is to say ‘never’ – or there’s no point in thinking, full stop. We’re back with poor Winston Smith being tortured by O’Brien, screaming that his obstinate insistence on the freedom to say “two plus two equals four” is mere arrogance, easily crushed by historical forces.
I certainly remember how, studying Quantum Mechanics for my degree and doctorate, I’d just have to accept things which seemed impossible to understand conventionally. It’s famously an area where anti-intuitive reasoning is required – perhaps ‘acceptance’ is the better word.
But that’s physics, where one has total faith in the intellectual integrity – and the eventual empirical testing and possible disproving – of theories. The problem is that for socially constructed ‘theories’ (of which woke ‘critical theories’ are exemplars) there is frequently a refusal to accept any empirical evidence, let alone the exposure of such ‘theories’ to falsification. In truth, these aren’t theories at all, but personal beliefs and prejudices, elevated through force and bullying into demands on others.
Surely the point is that only free discussion can deal with this – and no one should keep quiet, just because he or she is scared to speak out or is told to shut up for some greater good, to ‘be on the right side of history’.
Paul Sutton can be found on Substack. He is the author of two collections of poetry.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Hypocrisy still a thriving industry in The People’s Republic of Krankie.
Coming soon south of the border…..
Living in Sturgeon’s one party state is shit, (even though only about 30% of the electorate vote for her).
We wish we could win the lottery and move to a more normal part of the UK
Though not as bad as Krankieland, don’t expect too much from the rest of the UK.
Don’t care. We want out of this.
So her freedom of speech could lead to a ballot where freedom of choice is extinguished. I agree with freedom of speech but I do not agree with her aim. Religious beliefs should not be forced on others.
All laws are meant to reduce somebody’s freedom to do something, hence, this doesn’t make a good argument (a property it shares with bleating — a neutral verb would be more appropriate here — about costs or public health). The lady can only be a menace to society if she’s actually a witch, ie, a person capable of speaking words of power (etc) which cause undesirable effects on their own. This is a ludicrous proposition.
Further, what she proposes would need to be a menace to society and whether or not or under which specific conditions unwanted pregancies may be legally terminated certainly doesn’t qualify for that. People getting children is not a menace to society, rather the opposite. Pregnancies also don’t occur accidentally: Without casual sex, an option available to everyone, there won’t be unwanted pregnancies (corner cases intentionally ignored).
Lastly, when she’s free to make her argument, this offers an opportunity to refute it. People who believe their different opinion on the matter would be correct should certainly be able to do that without resorting to bleating about abstract concepts like choice, extremism or personal autonomy. Especially if the same people are all for their personal autonomy but not so much about the personal autonomy of others. SNP members can be regarded as principally in favour of forced injections of experimental medical products without clear benefits (if any).
While I decidedly disagree with the notion that people’s consensual sexual habits should be regulated by the state using the pretext that they’d be public health issues — especially after two years of flagrant abuse of them same pretext by members of the other political faction — (apparently an ADF position) arguments ought to be addressed with arguments and not with guilty-by-association based prohibitions.
The Scottish parliament doesn’t exist by the grace of God and hence, its members have no authority over other people’s consciences or sins.
“Why is the Scottish Government Trying to Silence Me?”
Because they’re a National Socialist Party, and that’s what they do.
They’re never happy unless they’re oppressing someone.