RSS

Ten years later…

11 Nov

We now have a situation where a type of reverse racism is applied to mainstream Australians by those who promote political correctness and those who control the various taxpayer funded “industries” that flourish in our society servicing Aboriginals, multiculturalists and a host of other minority groups. In response to my call for equality for all Australians, the most noisy criticism came from the fat cats, bureaucrats and the do-gooders. They screamed the loudest because they stand to lose the most – their power, money and position, all funded by ordinary Australian taxpayers.

So spoke Pauline, feisty Dancing With the Stars celebrity and ex-prisoner — the latter probably being very silly really, but it does seem to have broadened her outlook — in 1996.

I got very hot under the collar at the time and wrote to everyone from the Prime Minister down.

Now reading the opening of Daniel’s latest entry — the bit that is public — I really can’t be bothered.

Go on over to National Party pinup boy David Graham instead. Far nicer to look at, and much more sensible.

  • Related entries. See also (of all things) Julie Bishop’s third-hand knowledge of English teaching 08/09 Oct 06: I edited a number of comments on that post because certain of them deviated markedly from the subject at hand. The trigger of that deviation was a gratuitous swipe at Arthur by Daniel which took the form of a patently absurd proposition: Talking about appeal to ignorance, it has always amazed me that so many folk who ‘teach’ creative-writing have never had any fiction published. And many of those who teach English have never had anything published in the open market at all. Arthur and his friends (not “gang”) reacted. I was disappointed by the whole turn of events. What did any of this have to do with how to teach Wuthering Heights? I replied thus:

    Dear me, a few comments rather stray off the theme of this post! I have now edited out the irrelevant bits in what threatened to become a flame war, which I do not want here. I might add that I do not really agree either with the comment by Daniel that started it, but decided to pass on that one. Although I have done a bit of writing and editing, I certainly have not been in the running for the Booker Prize or the Miles Franklin Award. I also know of teachers of creative writing who are themselves very fine writers, and I know of good writers who could not teach to save their lives. I know good teachers of creative writing whose own talents are not great, but who have an interest and knowledge, obviously, and the ability to bring the best out in others.

  • UPDATE

    Please add “and a total absence of integrity” to the revised revised version of Daniel’s indirect comment recorded in my last comment on this post. Hard to keep up really.

    Monday update

    I wasn’t going to add to this, but when I dropped in on D just now I found something so funny I can’t resist it. Talk about being hoist with his own petard:

    “Given the considerable number of ‘irresponsible half-wits’ and ‘dishonourable or disturbed egomaniacs’ who author mainstream blogs or comment on them, perhaps… ”

    READ THE REST OF THIS VERY CONTROVERSIAL POST APPEARING SOON ON SECRETLY SEEKING UTOPIA (see below for joining details). Cheers!

    P.S. Because there are a number of derivative blog authors who, because they have little talent themselves, are feeding off my ideas and thoughts in order to bring some substance and colour to their own boring blogs, I will, in the future, limit the amount of information I provide on all future topics.

    Anything I might say to that is clearly superfluous!

    Is mine a “mainstream blog” I wonder? I wouldn’t have thought so. And I may as well say something so obvious even the legendary Blind Freddie would see it: I have been ranting here and elsewhere with varying quality for over five years now, and my flirtation with Seeking Utopia is by comparison a nine days wonder. I found lots to talk about before that, and no doubt will again, so while I wish Daniel “cheers!” and good luck, I don’t miss him. The feeling is no doubt mutual. It’s a free country, and a comparatively free cyberspace; he can do what he likes.

    Site Meter

    Advertisements
     
     

    Tags: ,

    8 responses to “Ten years later…

    1. AV

      November 11, 2006 at 10:40 am

      Now reading the opening of Daniel’s latest entry — the bit that is public — I really can’t be bothered.

      If and when you can be bothered ( 😉 ), that portion of Daniel’s diatribe that he permits the infidel to see is deconstructed in this entry at Bruce’s.

       
    2. marcelproust

      November 11, 2006 at 1:02 pm

      You’ll see that Daniel has complained that you have taken this “snipe” without reading the rest of the post. Perhaps you need to explain.

      Like you, I don’t know what Daniel goes on to say. I doubt if, judging by the starting point, it will be greatly informed by the very long history of thought about the limitations on the power of the majority to impose its will on “minorities.”

      The political/legal area in which this thought has crystallised is the concept of “rights.” My reading recommendation is to read Ronald Dworkin, “Taking Rights Seriously” before going to the trouble of asking Daniel for permission to read what he has written.

      And it’s not as if the concept of limitations on the rights of majorities to act in their own interests and against the interests minorities is even some tacky left wing idea. It’s even there in relation to corporations, where there are limitations on the “right” of majority shareholders to have their way regardless of the interests of minority shareholders. If you take your claim to court, it’s called “the oppression remedy.”

      I, for one, can’t really be bothered (sorry, Daniel) to ask Daniel for permission to read an entry which, from its opening lines and in the light of previous form, looks as though it is starting from the wrong place and may well be heading the wrong way. And I don’t think I would have the energy, even if the blog were “open,” to begin to try to set right the misconceptions that I suspect would require addressing were I to join in the discussion.

       
    3. ninglun

      November 11, 2006 at 1:33 pm

      I, for one, can’t really be bothered (sorry, Daniel) to ask Daniel for permission to read an entry which, from its opening lines and in the light of previous form, looks as though it is starting from the wrong place and may well be heading the wrong way… Exactly. But may of course have headed somewhere else. My feeling is one either puts one’s entries online, and then uses the various means available to moderate comment, or one really makes them private… If Daniel’s blog had allowed comments without the loyalty test, I would have made my remarks there in exactly the form I made them here.

      You’ll see that Daniel has complained that you have taken this “snipe” without reading the rest of the post. Perhaps you need to explain. I have looked now. My judgment was based on themes which emerged in the recent post you and I both commented on a little while ago, and my assumption that I was reading a thesis statement which the rest of the post would merely elaborate. I think Arthur realises I haven’t joined his “gang” (does he have one?) — as our recent quite amicable discussion of religion would make clear to a fair-minded reader, as Arthur and I were in fact disagreeing about various points. Which is fine by me. By implication, I would say my blog could be called “derivative”, and I would agree. I do not claim either genius or originality. I am just commenting on life, books, politics, or whatever from my perspective, but it is authentically my perspective, without my being anyone’s clone or groupie. I may be right or wrong or neither or both; that is for my readers to judge. I am not a party animal in politics and never have been. That has made some people quite cross with me in the past.

       
    4. Bruce

      November 11, 2006 at 2:12 pm

      I think that even if you can’t comment at “Seeking Utopia”, the fallacious base premise that he presents in his entry (rendering whatever else he bases on that premise also fallacious) is worth criticism as it is mirrored elsewhere; ie. fallacious arguments that assume majorities have proprietorship over rights. It’s been used to oppress dehumanised minorities for a long time.

       
    5. Daniel, indirectly...

      November 11, 2006 at 6:30 pm

      As read by ninglun…

      P.S. Anyone who would offer criticism of this (or any other post or article) based upon two and a half sentences clearly demonstrates their gross stupidity and immaturity.

      Says it all really.

      This seems to have replaced the note to which Marcel and I referred. And I did study Latin at University, and if that seems irrelevant, go visit Daniel.

       
    6. ninglun

      November 11, 2006 at 8:14 pm

      Daniel has subsequently revised the revised version of his indirect response to this post:

      P.S. Anyone who would offer criticism of this (or any other post or article) based upon the beginning two and a half sentences (two of which begin with ‘perhaps’) clearly demonstrates to the world their gross stupidity, their unbelievable intellectual mediocrity, and their profound immaturity. Followed by a quotation in Latin which translates as I hate the vulgar rabble and drive them away. Cute.

      Granted the “perhapses” may have led to a total refutation of the idea that minorities are a threat to majorities (and I really hope that is the case) I stand by the observation that the earlier post on gay marriage and other issues, which most of you can no longer read, went the other way. Hence my comment (and Marcel’s), which may more properly have appeared on Daniel’s blog. Except it is secret, and I for one don’t like the cultish feel that generates.

      I have also spent some time tracking Daniel’s comments all over the internet, and comments of people about Daniel. I found quite a few. It goes without saying there were many where I would have sided with him on this issue or that, and others where I think he is either too extreme, or quite wrong. There is no problem with that, except that Daniel really is extraordinarily sensitive and really does have a tendency to personalise issues. Most of the Arthur business is, I now realise, a furphy. And you may recall I jumped on Arthur at one time for tending to “flame” Daniel; I’m not sorry I did that as the whole business was irrelevant to that particular thread.

      The rot set in, I think, when I said Arthur’s critique (personal bits aside) of Daniel’s views on homosexuality was “fair”. I stand by that judgment.

      If that makes me a person of “gross stupidity, … unbelievable intellectual mediocrity, and … profound immaturity” then I wear the tags with considerable pride. I may even put them on my “Who am I?” page sometime. 😉

      I should also point out that Daniel was and is free to post his observations here, so long as they conform to my rather broad standards of acceptability. Contrast Conversation with Kevin, keeping in mind that I agree with Kevin on very little really, and he knows it.

      Now I will get back to not bothering.

       
    7. AV

      November 11, 2006 at 11:37 pm

      If that makes me a person of “gross stupidity, … unbelievable intellectual mediocrity, and … profound immaturity” then I wear the tags with considerable pride.

      “A sneer from him is a compliment.” (Channelling Gandalf.)

       
    8. AV

      November 13, 2006 at 12:41 pm

      Is mine a “mainstream blog” I wonder? I wouldn’t have thought so.

      Remember President Bush’s dictum: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists?”

      Well, Daniel defines himself against “mainstream” opinion, so anybody who disagrees with him is classified as “mainstream” by definition.

      “Either you are with Daniel, or you are mainstream.”

      At the same time, as Bruce and I have discovered, Daniel defines himself against “elites” (and he has slapped us both with the “elite” label on various occasions), so anybody who disagrees with him is an “elite” by defintion.

      “Either you are with Daniel, or you are an elite.”

      There’s a basic contradiction here. In order to define himself against elites like us, he has to identify himself with the oppressed mainstream–the “silent majority.” In order to define himself against mainstream rabble like us, he has to consider himself “elite.” Pointing out the contradiction only serves to highlight your elite/great unwashed status.

       
     
    %d bloggers like this: