Sunday, March 20, 2005

Random Rambling Thought

Censorship might be the foe of freedom-of-speech, but it also provides the dangerous allure of the forbidden.

How else could you explain Christopher Hitchens's defence of David Irving, the infamous Holocaust denier and crackpot "researcher" (whom other eminent scholars, mostly British, supported too)?

There is no room for relativism if residual media is used to conform to an existing rigid ideological framework, especially when historical documentation is falsified to do so.


I'm really sick of hearing this group or that pointing fingers at each other for being politically correct pansies (which has lost all meaning. Example: The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a book written not for "conservative elites," but populist right-wingers. I'm looking at you, O'Reilly) without acknowledging the hypocrisy of their act. When did people start harbouring resentment for intellectual authority? Where does this mistrust stem from? (I'm speaking in general here. I just feel like jiving today.) There's truth to the old adage that opinions are like assholes, "everyone's got one." But not everyone's opinion should be treated equally and seriously. In case no one sent the memo, there is such a thing as being informed. My gosh, I said it. Listen to my snooty mouth run. Like the Da Vinci Code guy I met at M. Biologique's art exhibition. I was listening to one conspiracy theory after the next dressed up as "common sense." Oh, the evidence is there, Lily! It's as clear as day! Well, of course it is, silly! When you follow someone else's paved path, there's never room for incompatible material. (Not to mention the likelihood of taking a wrong turn down the road is increased as recorded history gets murkier.)

Arg! I hate arguing on the offence all the time. I try to dismiss the chicks who give me the usual "I heard from this person who read it somewhere." And I've met enough closeted misogynists to deny them the pleasure of seeing me submit. But I'm always accused of being stubborn (which I don't believe I am since my opinions sway depending on the strength of support). Is it wrong to admit that I sometimes leave conversations less informed about a subject because all I get are "I speak, therefore, I'm reliable" type responses? Is that why I am better at adapting to someone else's interests than asserting my own?

Oh wow, Rougette (36, theology student, mother of 2) was right. I know I can be aggressive at times, but when it comes to being assertive, I can't even tell J.Lass to quit using my cell phone for non-emergencies during French class. ("My boyfriend/girl friend/mother/brother/father just paged me.") So yes, I probably do do a lot of grinning and bearing to maintain a bubbly public persona. (That's why I keep a blog for venting purposes.) It's a cause for wonder that I've been able to keep myself from going through Dr. Strangelove's survival kit for as long as I have.

No comments: