Comment on Dissent and Narcissism by Mercurius

Wow, Derrida wasnt kidding with that stuff about authors having no control over how a text is read. Getting j_p_z out of retirement was just one among dozens of unintended consequences. The next few extracts summarise exactly what I was trying to say: TimT: It was dumb when left-wingers claimed to be dissenters (witness Janeane Garofoleano claim that she was being silenced by George Bush and co - on national television!) And it’s equally dumb when right-wingers do it. It’s a variant on a standard victim pose. Lefty E: My point is simply the “bold dissenter” trope is indeed part of a neo-con playbook: and they will play it whether it appropriate, inappropriate, or straight-up ridiculous. Berlusconi is a clear example of the latter. Helen: spend a while reading the US blogosphere with reference to David Horowitz, Chris Muir and other RWDBs. They totally think they are now downtrodden heroes, fighting against the new totalitarianism of TEH ONE. Klaus: I take Mercurius’ ethical imperative as the only legitimate one that can be avowed: nobody ought to get to bestow the title ‘dissenter’ on themselves. Helen, again: I think what Mercurius is talking about is middle class Repubs and similar who try to buy into the narrative of persecution - David Horowitz, Jonah Goldberg, the organisers of teabagging (heh!) protests, those people. They’re really an elite but they try to pretend they’re downtrodden. Adrien To pose as a dissenter is different from being a dissenter. To properly dissent one has to actively publicly object to something for which there is powerful support. Usually at great risk. Yeah, thats pretty much all I was getting at. *And add to Helens list of elite dissenters in Australia David Flint, Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Ian Plimer etc. Liam: Your last sentence is the classic argument delegitimising any struggle of any kind—that because someone is worse off, one has no grounds for complaint. I reject that utterly. Nup, I dont think thats what the last sentence was saying at all. Freidrich: Interesting this tactic of painting dissenters as spoilt rich kid brats. I seem to recall there was a lot of that when the coalition were in power. Youve got it the wrong way round. The point I was making is that there are a lot of spoilt rich kid brats who are painting themselves as dissenters. thewetmale: To suppose that dissent is only legitimate if someone suffers is a bit off. I agree, which is why I dont suppose that. But there are an awful lot of well-publicised and widely published self-styled dissenters out there who are getting a lot of prime-time interviews and fat royalty cheques as punishment for their dissent. j_p_z So in the interests of more advanced accuracy, we all owe a debt of gratitude to Mercurius, as usual, for so gamely modelling what a blind and deaf fool looks like. Cheers. Good to know you can dish out way more than you can take, as usual. How Victorian; how WASP. Am I a Victorian WASP now? Thats a nice promotion from White Austrian-Irish Jew. (WAIJ?) Myrtle: Do you really think you should have posted this, given it is pretty obvious you have no education in the sciences? Thats rather elitist of you, isnt it Myrtle? Do you impose the same lofty standard of qualification on anybody who wants to venture an opinion about climate change, or can any bastard with a Wordpress install have a go? Id say that facing prosecution by the Vatican for his scientific papers is a pretty solid example of courageous dissent on the part of Galileo, but then without my scientific training, who am I to say? Its been a nice day for you Myrtle, but its over now. Youve insulted nearly every contributor on every thread, and your time is up. Good-byeeee!