Friday, January 02, 2009

Murphy's Law #10: the evil that the Devil does...

It seems that Richard Murphy's commenters are getting more and more extreme...
There is a strand of thinking running amongst some of your correspondents that confuses liberty with licence. Freedom of expression does not always require that we must endure the type of hyper-aggressive abuse that you have been subjected to in recent days. It happens that my mother is German - of Jewish family - and she grew up in Berlin during the inter-war years. She witnessed exactly the same patterns of abuse - used systematically as a tool for intimidation and subjugation by the thugs of the far-right - and the tactic proved vary effective since ordinary people withdrew from the political space of the centre left and centre right because it was made frankly too unpleasant and scary. Only the most courageous were prepared to take a stand, and they were physically beaten up and worse for their troubles.

The language employed by some of your detractors, the Devil’s Kitchen blog providing extreme examples, is appalling, and to justify this in the name of free speech is pure humbug. This is no more nor less than an attempt to intimidate you. Full marks to you for standing your ground and retaining your dignity.

Yup, that's right: being angry and sweary on a blog that you don't have to read is, in fact, analogous to the repression practised by the Nazis. As Timmy says, ain't this the Godwin's to end all Godwins...?
Yes, really, the Devil ‘effin’ and blindin’. Obnoxio and his potty mouth, this is indeed the same as the Nazis and their suppression of public debate.

I think we might need to retire Godwin’s Law now, eh?

Maybe I should join in and say that Richard Murphy's moderation of comments is absolutely analogous to the suppression of free speech practised by the Nazis, eh? Or rather, given the man's leanings, that of Stalin's Communist Party.

Or maybe we could all calm down and point out that Richard Murphy is still a know-nothing fuckwit who simply can't take robust criticism of the reams of utter shite that he publishes. And, of course, that his commenters are hysterical loons...

P.S. For your delectation, here's some more Turd Sandwich from The Kitchen archives...

  1. Murphy's Law #1

  2. Murphy's Law #2

  3. Murphy's Law #3

  4. Murphy's Law #4

  5. Murphy's Law #5

  6. Murphy's Law #6

  7. Murphy's Law #7

  8. Murphy's Law #8

  9. Murphy's Law #9

Enjoy the wisdom of Richard Murphy in bite-sized chunks! And then realise that he influences government policy! And then blow chunks...!

UPDATE: I enjoyed this comment by Smigeon, over at Timmy's place...
They don’t like it when their own tactics are applied to them, do they? For 40 years, starting in the late 60’s, the left has been shouting down anyone who thinks differently, heaping abuse and ridicule on them, making out that they are morally bereft, and generally making anyone who holds right-wing views feel beleaguered and harrassed in such a way that they think twice about expressing their views in public.

So now a few obscure bloggers start applying that treatment back to the left, and the left immediately goes crying that they need government protection. Well, fuck you, you fascists — have a taste of your own medicine.



Katabasis said...

Speaking of censorship, DK I wanted to give you a quick nudge to remind you (and anyone reading) about this:

Time to stand up and be counted - help Craig Murray

It's only 10 days before Craig wants us to help him distribute the book online. Any help is appreciated....

Anonymous said...

Everyone seems to forget that the Nazi's were, in fact, left of centre. Nazi was an abbreviation of national socialist (more apparent in the original german). So the comparison to the Nazi's is actually appropriate.

Rory Meakin said...

I tried to make a further comment in response to those who criticised me. Alas, it appears I've been censored so I hope you don't mind me repeating it here, DK:


It is interesting to note that, despite your response being 3 or 4 times as long as my post, you didn’t bother to address the one question in it. I asked “why might someone have a right not to be abused?”. Instead of answering it, you provided a list of typical characteristics which often serve as a conductor for abuse. Such a list is of no more consequence to questions of extinguishing free expression than is a list of aesthetically offensive clothing items provided to explain why they ought to be banned.

Now, there are indeed people whose discourse is less than polite. And there are people who might be put off discussion with such people because they seek to avoid such impoliteness. But this is a measure of individual preferences and how they interact with one another. Extinguishing freedom does not guarantee freedom. It extinguishes it.

There can be no right not to be abused in a free society. The price of such a right is liberty. While you may argue that freedom of expression should be extinguished for the greater good of the reich and its social harmony, it is frankly barking mad to argue that extinguishing freedom of expression guarantees freedom of expression. That’s the stuff of Alice in Wonderland.

And you say I suffer from “perverted logic” for not believing that crushing freedom guarantees freedom. Completely barking!

It doesn’t matter how many rude words and offensive analogies DK uses, no one is forced to read them or pay any attention. Everyone is perfectly free to ignore them.

You say that what you amusingly call my “perverted logic is that associated with the political fringes, usually these days of the far right.” So what if it is? An idea is right or wrong on its merits. It is quite depressingly childish to consider the identity of the messenger when assessing the message. Would you change your mind and think something was right if only one lot of people stopped believing in it and another lot started? I suspect you might.

And you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

Speaking of which, “I’m not suggesting Tim has anything to do with them, or their racist opinion, but”. This sounds like the mirror image of “I’m not a racist, but”. There’s nothing like alluding to racism for closing down a debate, a favourite tactic of the left.

“As I’ve said before - I am not accusing those who have linked here of physical thuggery - but it is the next step from the position you take. And the attitude you take is profoundly dangerous to large numbers in society - who have the right to live in peace without being menaced by anyone.”

Here you demonstrate more muddled thinking, or perhaps ill-concealed duplicity. To ‘menace’ is to threaten someone with harm, according to Webster’s online dictionary. Now, either Tim and DK are physically thuggish (including threats) or they are not. I don’t recall either having disputed that people should have the right to live in peace without fear of being menaced by anyone. But being unpleasant and abusive is not the same as being threatening and menacing. Interestingly, you don’t seem to mind people being menaced by agents of the state for expressing themselves.


It’s not just a strand of thinking here which ‘confuses’ liberty with licence. Your dictionary and thesaurus will, too: “freedom which allows or is used with irresponsibility”. Freedom of speech isn’t about allowing people to say things you find agreeable. It’s about not restricting people from saying things you find disagreeable.

Houdini said...

My grandfather died at one of the death camps, but would I use that as the basis for making a whine?

Boy on a bike said...

Regarding the comment by Smigeon about the left heaping abuse on the right:

It's common to see left wing stickers on cars, but very rare to see any right leaning stickers.


I've always had this feeling that if I put a rightish sticker on my car, some angry leftist would key my paint or slash my tyres. But I'd never do that in return to their car. They are good at shutting down freedom of expression through intimidation.

Oswald Bastable said...

This is because those stickers are worth more than their cars.

Rob said...

It's Kristallnacht all over again, I tell you.