I lived in Saudi Arabia for six years. You learn quickly that blasphemy laws don’t create respect. They create performance. During Ramadan, even non-Muslims can’t eat or drink in public during the day. When I applied for my visa, I had to declare a religion; “none” wasn’t an option, nor allowed.
I also taught first grade for 11 years. One rule we drilled into kids: you don’t get to hit someone just because they hurt your feelings.
This ruling does exactly what we teach six-year-olds not to do. It makes other people responsible for someone else’s actions. We’re sliding down a slope and abandoning the basic psychological framework that makes liberal democracy possible.
Thanks for this excellent and necessary analysis. There's something so perverse, so grotesque about punishing a person for provoking the violent reaction that led to their assault. The analogy you drew to the victim blaming of scantily-clad rape victims is perfectly apt.
What's most maddening about this particular episode, though, is the pernicious norm of Islamic exceptionalism we all know to be lurking behind it.
If someone had burned a copy of the Communist Manifesto outside a socialist meet up, blame would be cast squarely at the feet of any enraged socialist who responded with violence. The congregant stirred to violence by the burning of a bible outside their Sunday service would probably be seen as especially culpable for failing to regulate their emotions and behaviour. Aren't Christian supposed to "turn the other cheek," after all?
The violent Muslim, on the other hand, conforms to people's expectations, and so they see the violent reaction as predictable, and by extension the person who predictably evoked it as blameworthy.
But there are so many issues with bowing to this unexamined intuition instead of upholding secular principles consistently.
First off, it's infantalising of Muslims, who're seen as requiring special protection due to being less able, or less inclined, to regulate their emotions. This damages the public perception of Muslims.
Another is that the obvious exceptionalism stokes resentment towards Muslims by non-Muslims, who rightly perceive that they're held to higher standards of conduct. This doesn't do Muslims any favours, either.
Finally, it incentivises Muslims to continue nurturing, and transmitting to their children, a sanity-jeopardising sensitivity to any insult -- perceived or intended -- to their religious symbols, because it has the desired effect. Non-Muslims not only self-censor for fear of provoking a violent reaction, but they even censor one another This is not going to assist with the integration of Muslims into secular societies, where the freedom to ridicule ideas with which you disagree is embraced by so many.
This is the crux of my confusion/disgust/aversion to progressivism, as it has most assuredly resurrected (quasi) blasphemy laws. So much of what I vehemently disagree with stems from this fundamental turn from liberal principle toward progressive dogma.
I salute your efforts, dedication, and eloquence, Ms. Pluckrose — while crowned with my (invisible!) colander, praise be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (ramen🙏).
A liberal, pluralistic, secular democracy is completely incompatible with the idea of elevating subjective feelings over objective facts — whether those feelings relate to offense, disgust, anger, exceptionalism, or otherwise.
And those who attempt to claim liberal values while twisting reason to justify & enable this incompatibility are, quite simply, quislings whose efforts directly help the authoritarian leanings of those they profess to abhor (or in some cases, ignore — looking squarely at all the trans entitlement activists & their “allies” both sitting and unwitting).
Keep those elbows up, we need more fighters and firebrands!
Nice summation, Helen. No doubt judges today are heavily influenced by the climate into which they were elected and expected to rule. It's a problem.
Excellent, Helen, as usual; but particularly excellent
I lived in Saudi Arabia for six years. You learn quickly that blasphemy laws don’t create respect. They create performance. During Ramadan, even non-Muslims can’t eat or drink in public during the day. When I applied for my visa, I had to declare a religion; “none” wasn’t an option, nor allowed.
I also taught first grade for 11 years. One rule we drilled into kids: you don’t get to hit someone just because they hurt your feelings.
This ruling does exactly what we teach six-year-olds not to do. It makes other people responsible for someone else’s actions. We’re sliding down a slope and abandoning the basic psychological framework that makes liberal democracy possible.
Thanks for this excellent and necessary analysis. There's something so perverse, so grotesque about punishing a person for provoking the violent reaction that led to their assault. The analogy you drew to the victim blaming of scantily-clad rape victims is perfectly apt.
What's most maddening about this particular episode, though, is the pernicious norm of Islamic exceptionalism we all know to be lurking behind it.
If someone had burned a copy of the Communist Manifesto outside a socialist meet up, blame would be cast squarely at the feet of any enraged socialist who responded with violence. The congregant stirred to violence by the burning of a bible outside their Sunday service would probably be seen as especially culpable for failing to regulate their emotions and behaviour. Aren't Christian supposed to "turn the other cheek," after all?
The violent Muslim, on the other hand, conforms to people's expectations, and so they see the violent reaction as predictable, and by extension the person who predictably evoked it as blameworthy.
But there are so many issues with bowing to this unexamined intuition instead of upholding secular principles consistently.
First off, it's infantalising of Muslims, who're seen as requiring special protection due to being less able, or less inclined, to regulate their emotions. This damages the public perception of Muslims.
Another is that the obvious exceptionalism stokes resentment towards Muslims by non-Muslims, who rightly perceive that they're held to higher standards of conduct. This doesn't do Muslims any favours, either.
Finally, it incentivises Muslims to continue nurturing, and transmitting to their children, a sanity-jeopardising sensitivity to any insult -- perceived or intended -- to their religious symbols, because it has the desired effect. Non-Muslims not only self-censor for fear of provoking a violent reaction, but they even censor one another This is not going to assist with the integration of Muslims into secular societies, where the freedom to ridicule ideas with which you disagree is embraced by so many.
Fantastic. Honestly I think this should be required reading as part of every college freshman orientation.
This article offends me.
If that offends you, it’s because you’re a bigot.
If you think I’m a bigot,
That offends me.
If that offends you, that’s because of your white tears and you’re a Karen.
If you’re really upset and your name is really Karen
well, get over it!!!
Otherwise, I’ll be offended.
I have a right to be offended.
You don’t.
This is the crux of my confusion/disgust/aversion to progressivism, as it has most assuredly resurrected (quasi) blasphemy laws. So much of what I vehemently disagree with stems from this fundamental turn from liberal principle toward progressive dogma.
Yes, I think it is decidedly regressive
I salute your efforts, dedication, and eloquence, Ms. Pluckrose — while crowned with my (invisible!) colander, praise be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (ramen🙏).
A liberal, pluralistic, secular democracy is completely incompatible with the idea of elevating subjective feelings over objective facts — whether those feelings relate to offense, disgust, anger, exceptionalism, or otherwise.
And those who attempt to claim liberal values while twisting reason to justify & enable this incompatibility are, quite simply, quislings whose efforts directly help the authoritarian leanings of those they profess to abhor (or in some cases, ignore — looking squarely at all the trans entitlement activists & their “allies” both sitting and unwitting).
Keep those elbows up, we need more fighters and firebrands!
💪💪🇨🇦🇬🇧
Excellent post once again, Helen.
Or as one of my favorite political cartoons puts it:
"Announcing, 'I'm offended' is basically telling the world you can't control your own emotions so everyone else should do it for you."
When Christopher Hitchens (peace be upon him) said "all deities are man-made" I think it says all we need to know.