Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

I can't help but think that a lot of this language policing is a from of 'anywhere' etiquette.

Oh it's definitely a new form of etiquette, though I'd call it 'woke' etiquette myself.

A lot of people refer to etiquette and manners as the same thing, there's a thread on AIBU right now about holding cutlery the 'wrong' way round for example where people are using the terms interchangeably.

I don't think that's the case at all. I've always though manners and etiquette are complete opposites. Manners being about making people feel comfortable and welcome, etiquette about excluding them on the basis of petty and ever changing 'rules' that only the select, in the know, few are aware of.

FWIW though I don't think it was wrong to point out that kith and kin might have specific connotations for some, since we were deliberately talking about some sort of phrase that wouldn't have those connotations.

Maybe it goes to show though that people who want to say those things, like the rest of us, are limited to the language we have. So they use it in a way that reflects their beliefs.

I'm getting serious Double Plus Ungood vibes from your post Goosefoot.

I really don't mean this rudely, but so what? What difference does it make what vibe you get? Maybe that says something about you rather than me.

What's the issue you have specifically? That I think the financial sector is seriously problematic, and those who profit from it and support it are benefiting from something exploitative? And it's important to talk about that? That I am not happy with allowing phrases and ideas, often fairly general ones, become taboo statements? Reading British political philosophy?

I'll add to all of that that I don't think that kind of climate is at all helpful to Jews or black Americans or any other marginalised group, it's only helpful who individuals who are looking to associate themselves with marginalised groups so they can avoid criticism of their own activities.

I'd also say, if people want to use code words for ideology that won't be recognised by most, they will. And since they will be unrecognised by those who aren't meant to know, people won't generally know about it.

re JK Rowling, someone has mentioned microchimera entering via the placenta and containing different chromosomes...

That's the same argument incels make. A study was done on fruit flies and they extrapolated it to mean a woman with numerous male sexual partners will have children with the DNA of all her previous lovers. (This is the level of discourse they get to.) Funny to see where this shit argument has migrated to.

I can't help but think that a lot of this language policing is a from of 'anywhere' etiquette.

Just as you won't be accepted into upper class society if you don't know the correct way to use a fish knife, or the correct form of address for a dowager duchess, you can't be accepted into 'anywhere' society unless you learn all these abstruse and ever changing rules about which phrases are currently regarded as problematic. And if you don't understand or aren't willing to go along with the rules than you're a bigot and therefore persona non grata.

It's a great way to shut the 'unelightened' people out of the discourse, isn't it?

I think this is spot on. Annoyingly many of the people who are keen to enforce this etiquette and show off their detailed knowledge of it have no interaction with or care for the people they try so hard to avoid upsetting.

Honestly I tend to assume good faith until I have firm evidence otherwise.

So do I, but I'm not sure how possible that is if the conversation is on social media - there's always someone to take offence on behalf of.

re JK Rowling, someone has mentioned microchimera entering via the placenta and containing different chromosomes....

Arnold thank you.

It's interesting that nonetheless JK's ratio is okay - she has something like 140,000 likes for the tweet, even on twitter which is self-selectingly woke.

I also think she went into it knowing exactly the reaction she would get (and hopefully is employing a PA/image management consultant to deal with the fall out rather than reading it herself).

Which of course doesn't stop the responses being utterly horrible, but I suspect they will be giving a lot of people pause for thought: "Hang on - 'live your best life, but biology is real' is transphobic now? A polite, compassionate, thoughtful but reality-based tweet provokes this sort of unhinged raging response? WTAF?"

Has anyone been following the pasting JK Rowling is getting on Twitter?
Its frightening,

Yes, it's all a bit Kmher Rouge for my tastes.

Woke authoritarianism in general is all a bit Khmer Rouge for my tastes.

Autumn

'Somewheres' and 'anywheres' have been used by some commentators to explain the brexit (or Trump in the US) divide.

'Somewhere' being people who have remained in their stable communities for long periods and seen them change, 'anywheres' being people who are mobile and have moved from place to place.

I'm not terribly keen on the division as with so many others it cannot explain Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Indeed, BarbaraStrozzi. As LangCleg said way above, in the UK, class is the original sin; in the US it's race.

I'm reminded of what an ex of mine - lapsed Catholic atheist Dubliner - once said about the Troubles: "part of the issue is there is no neutral language - once you have named a certain city as either 'Derry' or 'Londonderry' you have picked a side just in virtue of your choice of name."

There is no language which can't be co-opted, stolen, tainted with association. And this is getting worse, not better, with the rise of the Twitter soundbite.

Just in case anyone's confused (I don't think most people are), and bringing it back to the context of this thread...

I don't think "kith and kin " is a taboo phrase. I was explicitly responding to:
Kith and kin feels like it could be used in the 'present' without the baggage of national identity

Because I happen to know that for a fair number of people in the UK, in some contexts, it does indeed have that baggage.

Can't imagine anyone having a problem with me saying, "I'm sending Xmas cards to my kith and kin".

But if we were to start discussing in terms of, "Community isn't what it used to be because of lack of kith and kin nearby", or "Housing should prioritise people who have kith and kin in the area," I'd expect people like La Hopkins to be all over it like flies on shit, eagerly exploiting precisely the "baggage of national identity" . (And in the unlikely event little Miss "Final Solution" Hopkins needed guidance, her good pals in the racist white southern African scene could tell her exactly where to find and exploit that baggage.)

But like I said, obviously it's up to people to make their own decisions whether to use that language in that context. A PP disagrees it's a risk – OK, fine, we have different takes. No biggie.

Re "uppity" - one thing I've noticed is that common US usage is taken as the absolute arbiter of whether something is a "dog-whistle". So, as you say, for probably a century, UK usage has been that "uppity" is a class based issue. In the US it's racists - and suddenly we in the UK are no longer allowed our usage.

Similarly, I've had Canadian friends immensely angered by the use of phrases like "Eskimo kiss", which would be deeply offensive if used in Canada, but (admittedly due to complete ignorance) has no racist connotations at all when used in the UK.

I used to post on a US website which refused to let me use the word "fag" in the context of cigarette, because in the US it only exists as a pejorative word for gay man.

I will also put my hand up and admit that I am not at all familiar with the "somewhere, anywhere, nowhere" thing.

Is there a handy guide for people like me please?

I'm also feeling increasingly uneasy about the accusations of 'dog whistling' and 'micro-aggressions' . Not because I don't think they exist as observed behaviours but because they discourage any serious, honest public discussion.

Honestly I tend to assume good faith until I have firm evidence otherwise.
Only recently found out that 'uppity' is supposedly racist when for 67 years I've seen it as a class or sex prejudice. Uppity servants, uppity women, uppity self made (nouveau riche).

I'm getting serious Double Plus Ungood vibes from your post Goosefoot.

Has anyone been following the pasting JK Rowling is getting on Twitter?
Its frightening,

I can't help but think that a lot of this language policing is a from of 'anywhere' etiquette.

Just as you won't be accepted into upper class society if you don't know the correct way to use a fish knife, or the correct form of address for a dowager duchess, you can't be accepted into 'anywhere' society unless you learn all these abstruse and ever changing rules about which phrases are currently regarded as problematic. And if you don't understand or aren't willing to go along with the rules than you're a bigot and therefore persona non grata.

It's a great way to shut the 'unelightened' people out of the discourse, isn't it?

I'm increasingly uncomfortable with the dog-whistle business. There are plenty of reasons people might have negative views of bankers, the financial sector, that have zero to do with Jews or anti-semitism or anything related to those things, and I don't think having to clarify constantly that we don't mean x, y, or z is helpful.

I once mentioned something said by a British political philosopher about social organisation to an American, who then went on to tell me this was a dog-whistle for a certain anti-black political faction in the US. Which was idiotic because it made no sense, and the idea being talked about was an interesting one. But the discussion was completely derailed and shut down.

I feel like we are getting further and further into a quagmire of taboo words and phrases, with an magical ability to conjure up demons if we use the wrong combination. It's back to purity politics, but in this case its the language that becomes tainted as soon as it is associated in a particular instance with an unsavoury person or view.