Is slagging not OK anymore?
It is not very often one gets the chance to have good belly laugh! The other day a friend shared a clip from FM104’s Strawberry alarm clock of two callers getting all the wrong answers to a quiz. Apart from the hilarity of the answers what struck me was the hosts’ candid and honest responses to the 2 callers; “Did you not know” and “no you cannot do it (quiz again)”. The atmosphere of trust and honest fun between the 2 radio hosts and the callers was palpable to anyone listening in. No one got miffed or touchy. There were no accusations of “offensive” or “demeaning” language. This moment in time went viral no doubt creating a sea of belly laughs countrywide!
The ability to take a joke, and not take oneself too seriously are traits that we as Irish people often claim as our own. The habit of “taking the mick” or “pulling someone’s leg” can seem like breathing it is so co-natural to us. How often we have had the experience of a tense work day where we can feel ourselves losing the plot a little, and an unexpected laugh or slag singlehandedly rips the tension out of things.
But as we plunge head first into unchartered waters of political correctness and hate speech regulation and the proliferation of vilifying posts on social media are we in danger of losing this endearing trait?
Why so much “offence”?
Recently we commemorated 75 years since D-Day. Most of those landed on Normandy beaches were young teenagers who died with the conviction that they were defending the rights of others. One tweet on the date commented on the fact that “many young Americans [today] whine about people making means jokes about them on Youtube and demand censorship”. The contrast struck me. Is there so much to complain about? To suffer for?
Things one would have hoped have moved on.
Is it too much to expect that any sensible person would defend the right of every human being to live a life free of abuse, harassment or discrimination? But even if some or many cross the line of basic decency, does such behaviour warrant a blanket approach to policing of language and the unintended consequences – the policing of thought? Is that not a bridge too far? Does it not resonate of the tittle-tattle or “telling tales” of 10 year olds, far from what would expect of mature adults. So familiar have we become with echo chambers, sound bites and slogans, lack of thinking and reasoning fast giving way to the lazy and childish name calling and use of language of “rights” and “choice” that we have long since accepted them.
And sadly we will have no one to blame but ourselves. But where is this going?
John Anderson, Former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia once stated “You cannot get good public policy out of a bad public debate”.
As people fear the backlash that comes with expressing their views they will necessarily disengage from the real debates and what could emerge is a voiceless, passive society where the more passionate take the law into their own hands and resorting to violence and aggression to be heard.
How can we reclaim the space for real dialogue? A space where I stand by my own words, ready, in fact excited to be challenged and having to defend my opinions. And of course in this space there is an absence of othering. We are all at one in defending each other’s innate right to have an opinion and express it without fear of ridicule or causing offence.
Using the oft-quoted phrase of Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.
The difference between having a “take” or putting a “spin” on something:
One can have a “take” on things and can be open to dialogue e.g. HBO documentary on Dorothy Hart, God is bigger than Elvis - Film star to Benedictine nun; incredible, unbelievable but nonetheless respectful, “something more” in her choice, refusing to take a “spin” on it.
One can have a “spin” on thing so- closed to dialogue and see their narrative as the reality of things and opposing narratives as “wrong”. Challenge the secular “take or spin”. It is not a reality, it is a take on reality. Self-congratulatory tone needs to be questioned. Belief in science isn’t so much as a belief in data it is more how that belief makes me look.
To dialogue at times can seem very slow, other times frustrating (where do I start) and one can have the sense of not making any progress.
Dostoyevsky in his novel The Demons has one of his characters, the Bishop of Tikhon say that “ a complete atheist stands on the next-to-last supper step to the most complete faith”, for him an atheist has rejected “gods” in favour of his search for The one God. For him the false gods is anything we mistakenly place our trust and worship. So in this sense an atheist or non-believer was just a step down from a saints. People have not simply stopped believing, it is that they believe something else - We are not living in an age of disbelief – we are living in an age of any belief (Charles Taylor).
Clarity of position
Honest disagreement is necessary and clarity of your position.
The decision between faith and no faith is a momentous one and should have important ramifications – real and theoretical.
Dialogue presuppose disagreement and distinction; otherwise it would be unnecessary. In dialogue one is trying to build a bridge. To do so one must be firmly planted somewhere, on one side. If imperceptibly and unconsciously one slides over to the other side there will be no bridge-building, only fusion becomes confusion. Peter Hebblethwaite.