a random attack on opposition

Let me just say, in response to no one in particular, I think it’s assanine to remove thoughts from a particular people and then a particular person, so as to disembody them. To do that, and then to desire that such not be done to you, is to break the Golden Rule. There’s a lot of that in the blog world, you know. When I think of aligning myself with a particular movement to counter another movement I start to think I agree with Groucho Marx, “I don’t want to be a part of any group that would have me for a member.” Why should I define myself in terms of what I’m not?



Filed under Personal

2 responses to “a random attack on opposition

  1. religionandatheism

    All departures are definitions. For example, if I say “I am not a banana”, that is a positive statement about belonging to a set in which bananas are not found. I’m not saying that you should get involved in groups merely because they oppose something you disagree with, I’m just raising the stub of a philosophical point. Also, belonging to some groups who oppose something you don’t agree with is the best option. Indeed, some groups exist only to oppose. For example in political activism you get this. In the UK (where I am) the CND (Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament) exist solely for the purpose of opposing nuclear weapons development and proliferation. Their supporters are part of CND precisely because the group opposes something they too wish to oppose. Of course, you could phrase the other way around: their supporters agree with CND’s objectives. So you can phrase it negatively or positively, but the outcome is the same. So overall, I don’t think opposition in and of itself is necessarily a bad thing. That it may be done badly is quite another thing. On that I would agree: there’s a lot of bad opposition being done, the internet, as you point out, included.

  2. Thanks for your comments. I was thinking more in particular about a way of describing people groups like “Anabaptists”, “Pietists”, “Revivalists”, “Ecumenists”, or “Atheists” in such a way that you rail against their ideas without really defining or describing them. In doing that you disembody the idea from the people, their history, their habits of being. This is much harder to do when you’re looking the person in the face.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s