Chi Ta-wei spoke of multiculturalism in ridiculous teletubby terms of "support" for "different identities, including gender, sexual preference and ethnic identity..."
He neglected to mention the nature and source of that "support": the implicit threat of coercive violence operative in State action. Multiculturalism is dependent upon State support for housing, healthcare, education and other State monopolized "social services" and on the various laws mandating the attempt to achieve some statistical measure of "equality of opportunity" in order to garner political support. Such "equality of opportunity laws" extend into State legislation governing hiring and firing preferences in nominally private enterprises, with patronizing and shameful "positive discrimination" imperatives being perhaps the best known example.
Multiculturalism, as espoused by cretins like Chi Ta-wei, cannot be satisfied on the basis of voluntary forms of support - of one human being freely volunteering to "support" or help another - for that sort of action is fully compatible with Liberalism (of which "Libertarianism" is simply the more coherent and consistent variant) and a comparatively depoliticized society. No, what cretins like Chi Ta-wei and their accursed "comrades" demand is the further and further politicization of social relations among people and an ever increasing scope for State power - a demand they often mendaciously cover up beneath light-reflecting cloaks such as "social responsibility"*.
Consider that couplet he uses above: "ethnic identity". In what ridiculously cartoon-like shallowness can a person's mere ethnicity ever be claimed as the basis of his or her identity? Is not the very coupling of those terms like that inherently racist - taking as it does, the physical features of a person's appearance common to some group as a distinguishing modifier for that person's entire identity? I say it is - and that Leftist assistant cretins like Chi Ta-wei ought to be called on this as the superficial, anti-intellectual, amoral, patronizing racists that they are. This is consequential to the collectivist, rather than individualist, nature of their ethical premises - the imperative to identify individuals as members of some collective or another - or to not identify them at all, except perhaps as in some incomprehending sense of "other" (or alternatively, "right-wing").
That people like Chi Ta-wei can be taken seriously as "intellectuals" by being given posts at putatively prestigious Universities merely evinces the weakness of moral leadership, and intellectual rigour at such institutions in addition to the crippling faults of a Statist political economy - one which supports and even celebrates such institutions and their humanities and social science departments, and which does so in deliberate ignorance of the fact that they are little more than intellectually poisoned youth hostels for which many young people must get into debt to attend.
And yes I would say that to the face of the Chancellor of National Chengchi University - without any hesitation whatsoever and with perfect pitch, clarity and articulation.
*C.f. the deliberate ignorance of aspect in this statement on conservatives by George Lakoff, linked to by Ben Goren because he has it in mind to use the word "interesting":
"They don't think government should help its citizens. That is, they don't think citizens should help each other."Bullshit.
My word, Mike. Is it really necessary to call the guy a cretin four times in a 500-odd word post? Do you have previous with this guy?
ReplyDeleteIf not, what happened to the fellow who said he always remains civil except with people who are asking for it? You might think him a div but, really, what has he done to merit this kind of abuse bar have an opinion that you don't like?
He may be mistaken but it doesn't make him, as you seem to be implying, some dangerous left wing extremist. At the very worse, I would say it makes him naive. You'll probably argue such ignorance IS dangerous but I still can't see how spewing this kind of vitriol is warranted.
With the amount of reading you seem to do, you must come across much more offensive stuff than this, which is really pretty tame.
"Is it really necessary to call the guy a cretin four times in a 500-odd word post?"
ReplyDeleteWell there were other terms I could have used, but I certainly wouldn't want to tarnish the title "associate professor" by ascribing it to him - I do not hold all academics in contempt, and I will therefore not dignify him with their titles. I could have said something like "communist confessor" for example, but that may have been too strong. Do I have 'previous' with him? No.
"If not, what happened to the fellow who said he always remains civil except with people who are asking for it?"
Did you read Chi Ta-wei's piece? He was asking for it by the manner in which he expressed himself; my only choice is between whether his concealment of the nature of the "support" he says multiculturalism means occurred because he himself doesn't realize what he is talking about (hence, "cretin") or because he does so realize and is using rhetorical stealth (though not particularly well) to conceal what he is really arguing for (hence, an appellation rather different from "cretin"). I thus decided on the more optimistic presumption that his writing was just extremely sloppy rather than calculated sleight of hand, and that therefore "cretin" was the most accurate noun.
"He may be mistaken but it doesn't make him, as you seem to be implying, some dangerous left wing extremist."
Yes it does, since the danger of his words remains irrespective of his intentions - Stalin once called people like this "useful idiots".
"...you must come across much more offensive stuff than this..."
What offends me most is not simply swear words or a sarcastic tone but those ethical principles diametrically opposed to my own. When uttered naively or in sincerely held error (for example, when gun control arguments are made on consequentialist grounds) I may take a more lenient and civil attitude and try to persuade. But when they are uttered in concealed form, I can assume only aggrevated ignorance or intellectual dishonesty - which cries out for exposure and the appropriate contempt.
But that's the point: you've called him a cretin and thereby so graciously given him the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteIsn't it either of? You seem to be having it both ways: useful idiot AND conniving scumbag. I didn't go into detail in my initial post because
I thought it would be implicit from this "except with people who are asking for it" that I know your feelings regarding intellectual dishonesty (I feel the same way). But by bestowing the "cretin" epithet, aren't you (at least publicly) accepting he's not malicious or cynical and therefore, by your own standard, not deserving of this stick.
At any rate, how do you determine whether someone is being mendacious or not?
edit: either of = either/or
ReplyDelete"Isn't it either of? You seem to be having it both ways: useful idiot AND conniving scumbag."
ReplyDeleteWell, "dangerous leftwing extremist" and "conniving scumbag" are not the same thing (and both are your terms, not mine). The salient aspect here isn't intention, it is consequence.
Mike, I'm afraid you are now being disingenous or just missing the point. Like you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but, unlike you, I won't call you a cretin because, er, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
ReplyDeleteI think my point was perfectly clear and you're just muddying the waters. He's either naive or he he's not. Your criterion for getting personal is a lack of intellectual integrity yet, as I've said, you claim you're giving this guy the benefit of the doubt.
Your comment that "The salient aspect here isn't intention, it is consequence" is inconsistent with your position on intellectual integrity. If you can't see this, there's not much more I can say.
James
ReplyDeleteRead again that bit where I said...
"But when they are uttered in concealed form, I can assume only aggrevated ignorance or intellectual dishonesty - which cries out for exposure and the appropriate contempt."
... then reconsider what you are accusing me of.