Exalting Curiosity

That's a great way to start my day - thanks thatbags. He is so right - ooooh' er, have to be careful there . Seriously though, he makes a very, very good point.

Yep, keeping an open mind is always a good thing to do, and shaming is a very effective tool to use in preventing that.

A good, straightforward read.

Would you personally be prepared to be seen at a Nazi rally, which is taking the article to it's end?
I dont think that that would be very wise. There are limits. The idea will have been planted.
None of us go around with banners explaining what and why we are doing things.

It is perception as well as reality as well as curiosity as well as support as well as other things about what we do and how we behave.

And memory lingers. And suspicion lingers.

Of course there are limits. There always are. There are limits to what one can judge about a person one just happens to see "at a Nazi rally". Being there, observing (like a reporter, for instance) does not really mean anything if one takes no further part in Nazi activities. Being at one might just mean one is studying the phenomenon.

I think Mein Kampf has been republished recently in Germany. We need to know what drives bad or wrong ideas.

Would you judge a war correspondent to be someone who approves of war because they record the horrors of it? One could be a pacifist and a war correspondent at the same time.

Fascinating interview between Dave Rubin and Tommy Robinson here. Even if you don't want to
listen to Robinson himself, I recommend a listen to the first few minutes of what Rubin is saying at the beginning. It is wise and it shows what real opne-mindedness, real moral puzzling, is like.

It is not shocking that people mistake curiosity with support, but it is pathetic and it is tragic
is part of his article. But I dont agree with this part.
It is not shocking, it is natural.
And people have to be careful how often they do this type of thing.
Plus even if the message that it is support only gets out to some people, it wont reach all, and conclusions will be drawn whether that person likes it or not.
A person cannot police and dictate another person's thoughts no matter how much they object.
Will read your other link later.

" I used to argue that it was society that shapes media (art, etc). In recent years, at least where media is concerned, I believe it has gotten so sick and twisted that the media is now shaping society. Good for anyone, especially someone like your dad who may wield some influence on others (warranted or not) to take the time to fully understand what is going on in our political landscape."

I also found this response interesting.
Why is it that so many changes to the law are announced in the media before being announced in parliament?

Interesting question at the end of your post, dj, about changes in laws being announced in the media before they are announced in parliament. I have not noticed this myself but that may be because I presume that either parliamentary spokespersons tell media (e.g. the BBC) about what is being done in parliament, or because people (media people or otherwise) watch what is going on in parliament and report what they see. I don't see any of that as a problem.

I don't think the media shapes society; I think it reflects the society it is part of.

What you describe as natural may well be natural, obi. That doesn't necessarily make it a good thing. Lots of 'natural' things are not good.

I don't agree that just listening to what people one thinks one will disagree with is in any way, shape or form a bad idea. If people make judgments based on their prejudices rather than on facts, then their judgments are wrong-headed, which is exactly what Dreyfus's article is saying. Making such judgments is what we have to be careful about, imo.

Even MPs complain about government decisions being announced anywhere but parliament, bags.
It means that the government is too close to the media.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-media-is-the-most-right-wing-in-europe-yougov-finds-a6859266.html

I knew this was a bags one. Who's Harry Dreyfus anyway?

'ang on. Will google.

I read the article with interest, referring to the Tommy Robinson link, I will click on to that later. People like Tommy Robinson gain credence because there is a culture of denial, it's all around us. I recently went to see the film "Spotlight" which was about the abuse of children by Catholic priests in Boston and how the church tried to cover it up for so long. The full magnitude of the abuses were much greater than the original number mooted at the outset of the film. Nevertheless, and rightly so, it turned public opinion against the church, in Ireland for instance it's iron grip was loosened a while back. A good thing in my opinion.

Going back to Tommy Robinson therefore, it's my belief we have a similar culture of denial, mainly by the left, that sections of Arab men have a deep disrespect for women, particularly western women and this is now beginning to play out in swathes of Northern Europe, and as more reports emerge, so do the allegations that various governments have tried to suppress and distort the magnitude of the assaults and if governments are not honest then they too could be accused of shaping society to one that is compliant and fits in with their agenda. As with the priest scandals, suppressing problems instead of standing up and recognising and dealing with them in an appropriate manner will turn public opinion against these apologists once they grasp the full extent of the situation. If the Catholic church had dealt with the paedophile priest problem properly maybe they would not be viewed as the corrupt and evasive institution they are. Maybe the could have been honest and said that although the problem is more widespread than we thought, the abusers still only account for 6% of priests to put into some kind of perspective. Unfortunately a few bad apples skew people's attitudes. I can see a direct comparison between that therefore and the grooming and sexual assault phenomenon carried out by a minority which will impact on the well behaved majority, because it's an inconvenient truth that can't be faced by many governments in Europe.

A recent case came to trial in England whereby a young girl was raped by 3 Somali men and she and her relatives met a barrage of intimidation by the men themselves and their female relatives in and outside the court. Which poses the question, where were the authorities when this was going on, why was it allowed. How have we come this far down such a dangerous road where political correctness is allowed to trounce justice because seemingly no one can take abuse on in case they are branded racists. Hence the Tommy Robinsons of this world.

Oh right. So, his dad got flack for going to a Ted Cruz rally. Yes, that's daft. Doesn't necessarily mean he supports him. Anyway, Ted Cruz is better than Trump!

I don't know much about Cruz. Does he advocate something awful, like a wall with razor wire along the Mexico boundary? Or tearing down all mosques in the US?

Part of being famous means that you lose many of your freedoms to behave in ways that you could as an anonymous citizen. This is why people in the public gaze are, and need to be, circumspect. Jo Bloggs can do pretty much what he/she likes as not many people are interested in him/her.
JB can also makes quantum leaps about what goes on in a celebrity's head and since JB is anonymous he gets away with it.

Media interest can be roughly translated as cash generation since titillating the curiosity of the public is what sells the media product.

Media announcing laws etc before they have gone to Parliament is something else entirely. This could fairly be described as dangerous since it shows no respect to the electorate who have elected representatives in the House to safeguard their interests and even worse indicates that these representatives, our MPs, are impotent to fulfil their purpose.

When I say it is natural, it is normal, it is what people do, whether right or wrong. No point the writer telling people off for it.
We have to be careful of wrong judgements, but it happens all the time, literally all the time. Trying to stop it is like trying to stop the world from spinning. It aint going to happen.
So therefore it is up to people to be careful what signals they signal if you see what I mean. Saying it is pathetic and tragic is way off. People form opinions all the time about everyone.

I couldnt care less if his dad goes to a Ted Cruz rally, but opinions will be formed. He really ought to know that. It is not going to be top of peoples minds that he is there to only or merely listen to opinions. Often people do things for a myriad of reasons, not just one, So even if people were to think he was there merely out of curiosity, it doesnt mean that he wasnt there for other reason too.

Cruz is Trump Lite. They agree on most things. Have a look near the bottom of this link to see a table showing the difference between what they believe

Cruz v Trump

What I find strange is that this article needed to be written. Of course it is always best to listen to other points of view and find out what others think and why they think it. Isn't that supposed to be what the USA was founded on? Why Richard Dreyfuss attended a Cruz rally I really don't know but if he is a Cruz supporter or if he just wanted to hear what Cruz had to say (as he claims) what does it matter? There have always been people in the media spotlight with differing views. Just an attempt by a little known son to use his father's name to get his writing more widely read I suspect.

Never mind. Hilary will win.

Amen.

I think the father must have been getting a lot of flack on Twitter and the like. The son is defending him. Sweet.

I think possibly one of the reasons people are unable to attend political meetings just to listen these days is because heckling is no longer part of the political arena. If you are sitting in the audience your views must be similar to the politicians, fear of hecklers means that anyone with really opposing views will be sifted out before the meeting. I was watching film of some meetings in the 1960s and the heckling was great. Mind you the politicians were often great at replying as well. Something we have lost as politicians spend their time asking spin doctors what they should say rather than what they believe.

I agree Harry Dreyfus has more than one reason to write the article and one of them is to be better known for his writing, but I do think it matters that a well known actor like his father was seen attending the Cruz event.

Like it or not Richard Dreyfus will be perceived as making a statement by attending the event. He will be labelled because of it. Now he might not care about this, but it will still happen and the only way he can change this is by being seen to attend events by all the candidates. That's life at this time. A less wealthy successful actor is unlikely to copy Dreyfus because it would probably ruin his career. Dreyfus probably doesn't care about his work prospects at his age. Some people will be influenced by his attendance at the event and some will be angry at Dreyfus being seen to give credence to Cruz's campaign. This bothers me.

I watched the start of the Dave Rubin and Tommy Robinson interview and agree with what Rubin said. My problem with giving Robinson air time is, like many political activists he speaks a lot of half truths that make his position more plausible. People might listen to him and agree with some of what he has to say and think he's OK and talks a lot of sense. Their perception can be changed, but they take him at face value without digging deeper and that's my problem with giving him air time.

However, I realise I am tying myself in knots over this because I think I believe in free speech (and that it comes with responsibility and consequences), yet I don't want people like Robinson, Cruz or Trump to gain respectability. Colour me confused.

trisher I think you're spot on. Nobody challenges the speaker, Cruz is speaking to the choir. Everybody cheers because they're all believers and it like a human need kicks in to belong in the herd, not stand alone and be vulnerable.