2 Comments

One problem with the Internet is that people react to almost anyone famous on Facebook, or in the world of media, as if they know them personally -- like J.K. Rowling. The Internet has turned the globe into a village and famous people get to be the people in the village everyone has heard about, therefore automatically on the gossip mill. They are ripe for criticism and presumed to be fair targets just because their fame is supposed to entitle them to criticism. We can raise them way up, up, up and we can bring them way down, down, down. I know that when the only thing anyone sees is the typed word, and not the body language that goes with it the chances of being misunderstood by thousands of people in thousands of different ways, on the Internet is enormous. I have posted things and have been astounded as to how others interpreted what I said. But thank God I am not famous.

In this Internet village we are allowed to do something it is no longer considered ethical to do in real life -- we can rip someone's life and reputation apart just by jumping to conclusions when our outrage is triggered. We can express our desire to hunt witches and burn them. It is not a positive quality because it shows that even with extensive education and liberal values we still like the idea of rippling someone apart with our fangs.

I'm not sure about your opinions on most of your subject matter because I haven't researched it all but I do have strong opinions on the J.K. Rowling fiasco. In spite of people who say their dignity is on the line with every utterance on the multiple possibilities of gender variation, those possibilities are mostly a matter of opinion. There is no definitive science on the subject. So, J.K. Rowling has a right to state her honest opinion without the hysterical backlash of being told she has stabbed millions of her readers in the back. Her statement had no other agenda. She has proven her interest and respect for the trans/inter/gendered community and within that respect she a right to her variety of opinions as those who think otherwise. They can disagree with her without damning all the good she has done for them.

If someone belongs to the trans/inter/gendered spectrum I would think that the best course for living a calm and stress-free life is to accept the fact that many others will not see things your way -- even those who are with you on the same spectrum. To go ballistic anytime someone, who in all other circumstances has proven to be on your side, states a belief that doesn't jive with yours is asking for a life of suffering.

The other day I was listening to a fellow named Will, who was interviewed on the CBC, who expressed their pain and suffering at others who chose to address them as "him". They look male, sound male and have a name like Will but their feelings were hurt when someone jumped to the conclusion they were male. That is a formula for self-torture.

I know this is a right-wing slur but I do believe there really are Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), who because they are highly activist and highly vocal appoint themselves as the purifiers. This could be about any movement, sexist, racist, animal rights or trans-gendered. They create rules the rest of the world must obey or be excoriated. Because of their ability to be outraged they are media gold and get the bulk of the interviews and profiles from the media. The media judges them as representing every other one of their kind. The majority of those in those movements who are are kinder, more empathetic, more generous in their understanding and more live and let live rarely get to be interviewed.

So basically I agree with the Harper's letter. I have found it appalling how much the liberal/left can eagerly destroy someone's life and career basically because that someone stated a contrary belief or political preference. Currently we have the boycott of a corn meal food company because it's CEO supports Trump. That means all the people working for that company, many who may be against Trump are to have their financial rug pulled out from under them. I was once appalled by a CEO in B.C. who was videoed kicking and mistreating a Doberman Pinscher in his care. But I refused to sign a petition that he be kicked out of the company. That petition did get him eventually kicked out of that company. I think there should have been some consequences, some "re-education" but I can't imagine him being left with a kinder feeling towards dogs as a result. And I can't see him being impressed with the superiority of liberal kindness.

So, now I just ignore actions to lynch some miscreant on the Internet. I will state my opinions, based on facts, and why the person was wrong. But not in such a way that implies a superior sense of moral self-righteousness and demand for God's "terrible, swift sword" of justice.

And I don't have a problem with the signatures of people who have some practiced and acknowledged expertise in liberal justice. I can disagree with them. So can everyone else. But to say their opinion is no different than anyone's is misleading. They make an income on that reputation. And they would be the ones targetted by SJWs.

Expand full comment