Whether you are or are not Charlie, heed the words of Kirk Lazarus

A mishmashed perspective on freedom of speech, conservatism, and a suggestion for how to balance these contradictory philosophies.

Never go full retard. A simple enough instruction to live by and one that neither begins nor ends with the headline dominating terrorist activities in France recent weeks. I haven’t extensively researched the matter; I followed the story, read a few opinion pieces and, of course, witnessed the social media explosion of opinions, feelings and rants. This post relates to the Charlie Hebdo-linked murders and the associated freedom of speech debate, along with comparisons between far right- and left-wing philosophies, which all have the same things in common: extremism, often coupled with a gross lack of tolerance.

In my frequent moments of pondering, I often feel that a lack of tolerance is responsible for too many of the world’s ills. It seems that the old maxim of “everything in moderation” has given way to the prevailing sense of extremism in life. When we all woke up to the risks of cardiac disease due to poor dietary choices and sedentary lifestyles, we stopped supersizing our meals and opted to supersize our opinions. And, whether or not social media plays the substantial role that I believe it does in this respect, suddenly the only thing to match our supersized opinions were our estimations of how important these opinions were. With so many platforms available to air our views and a ready supply of pseudointellectuals to praise and preach these thoughts, the internet has brought out the activist in every Tom, Dick, Harry and Sally. Oops, Sally probably should have been mentioned first, now I’ve gone and pissed off the feminists. 

And activism is a wonderful thing, it helps to bring about much needed changes by challenging existing paradigms, bringing about debate, enlightening and empowering others. But our lack of application of moderation has resulted in a lot of our activists going full retard. Because Sally et al have had their missions justified by their disciples, and now, not only do they believe that their thoughts are important, but they are in fact also the right thoughts to have. The only right thoughts to have. You might as well wave to Tolerance as it gets thrust overboard into shark infested waters because Sally, Tom, Dick and Harry have gone full retard. And what happens when you go full retard? Well, Boko Haram and the Charlie Hebdo-related incidents are pretty good examples, although they are both, unfortunately, overwhelmingly linked to a religion which has, in-turn, unjustly been used as a justification for the actions of full retards. And as a result of that, the masses have taken to blaming the entire religion and all of its followers for such terrorist actions, citing the same old lines to encourage fear and hate. But you can’t blame Islam for the actions of radicals in the same way you can’t blame the manufacturers of alcoholic beverages for the actions taken by an intoxicated person – the person chose to go to extremes. And on a side note, should it be mentioned, I am not interested in any feedback regarding the definition of infidels and the meaning of the word “infidel”, one cannot condemn an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. 

As previously mentioned, the topic of Charlie Hebdo cannot be broached without considering the very important aspect of freedom of speech and expression which is so explicably bound to this incident. I cannot comment on the depiction of Muhammad and the associated outcry, I can only condemn terrorist responses because one cannot justify murder on the grounds of being offended, even if the offence is to one’s religious sensibilities. As a Christian, I have encountered innumerable slights against my religion, ranging from personal interactions to open mockery in the media. It does bother me and I do feel that something as profound as religion and spirituality should be respected, whether or not the belief is shared, but the fact is that you can't force people to do so. Fear mongering in response to offence-causing criticism, commentary or mockery is what breeds reactions such as the rampant Islamophobia which is evidenced in so many virtual and real life spheres. I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, saying that Islamophobia is justified, I am simply stating that one can appreciate it as a natural response to these kinds of events, even if it is grossly unfair to allow the actions of a few to taint many. While most rational people would back down in response to threats against human life, doing so can, in my mind, only encourage further oppressive action and when viewed from that perspective, I applaud the remaining Charlie Hebdo staff for their defiance. However, I also have to ask the question as to why it is so necessary to be outrageous in attempts to offend Muslims? 

I believe in free speech, I believe in freedom of expression. I despise the Thought Police in all their various manifestations, from the "liberal" feminazis and Social Justice Warriors to the conservative homophobes and religious fanatics. You're probably wondering how I can lump liberals and conservatives under the same banner and a superficial glance would likely leave me being viewed as rather ignorant, but if you look past the left- and right-wing labels you'll see my logic. Because these are the kinds of people, the kinds of full retards who feel entitled to tell others how they should think, who they should associate with, how they should feel, who they should love, what they should say, how they should say it and who they should admire. It doesn't matter which form of rhetoric is employed, whether their gross lack of tolerance is hidden behind political correctness for the liberals or conservative correctness (yes, it's a thing) for the right-wingers, it tends to boil down to the same thing – telling you what you should and should not accept. 

In the right corner, there's probably not much that is acceptable, with the laws of God and man being so cleverly phrased to convince you that everything from your metal music, skinny jeans and Harry Potter books to your sexual preference and acquaintances of other spiritual beliefs or ethnicity are the manifestations of the devil and must be purged from your life. 

And in the left corner, we have the enlightened politically correct crowd telling you that no matter how tolerant and accepting you think you are, you are prejudiced, privileged and perpetuate hate should you dare to think of yourself as a good person if you are a cis-gendered white male. Not that you're immune to their criticism if you're not a cis-gendered white male, because while the liberals preach tolerance and acceptance, they always seem to highlight just how intolerant and unaccepting everyone and everything that doesn't represent their chosen cause is to make you feel guilty for being yourself. Whether it's your opinions, the company you choose to keep, your reactions to experiences in your past, your body type, your job, your country of origin, your skin colour or the way you speak, there will always be something about you which ousts you as a bigot. The irony of course, is the fact that while preaching tolerance and acceptance, the liberal full retards have actually become imprisoned by their liberty and intolerant in their quest for tolerance. Because you're free to express your opinions, but not if those opinions could in some obscure way possibly offend someone. I think Steve Hughes has the best definition of political correctness: 

"...because the age of political correctness, which is actually intellectual colonialism of psychological fascism for the creation of thought-crime."

Hmmm. Liberal thought and fascism in the same description, isn't that a contradiction? And that's the problem, when you go full retard, whatever message it is that you're trying to put across is lost, it could have even become twisted to the point where your initial intention, no matter how well meaning, has the opposite effect. Whether it's through becoming lost in your own philosophies or the fact that your extremist opinions have resulted in no one taking you seriously anymore, the net result is that you render yourself pointless. 

And so we discover that no matter which philosophy we apply in our lives, we're imprisoned in some way. If we're conservative, we're blinded by our intolerance and if we're liberal, we're free to speak our minds, but we're overly conscious of causing offense. And even if we’re not fully conscious of the great offending power of our words, there are numerous people out there ready to point out your prejudices, including ones you didn’t even know existed, and make you answerable for them. An example that springs to mind is one narrative pushed by SJWs which I mentioned in another post in which it is asserted that all men, no matter how good a person an individual man can be, are a part of rape culture and they should just accept it and modify their behaviour so that no woman will ever feel intimidated in their presence (since every woman thinks that every man is waiting to grab her, knock her out and take her into a hidey hole to have his way with her). People will always find something to be offended by if they decide to feel offended, and you can actually choose how you respond. Because being offended is a reflection of an individual’s sensibilities, it’s an internal response which is influenced by that person’s upbringing, education and experiences. No one likes to have their feelings hurt, to be mocked or humiliated – it’s very difficult for personal attacks to not affect you on an emotional level – but that doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for your reaction. 

And I find myself quoting Steve Hughes again to add to this point: 

“…you are starting to legislate into people’s subjective world views, making out they have the right never to be hurt again, which is a form of over-protectionist propaganda.

“It’s an illusion because obviously people get hurt on the Earth, both physically, emotionally and intellectually. There’s no way to stop this, and trying to create laws around this, is a blatant form of oppression disguised as a protectionist idea.

“Why can’t people have their feelings hurt? Why can’t get people get offended and feel bad about ideas they don’t agree with. How you deal with that in your emotional worldspace is entirely your responsibility. No one can make think or feel anything I don’t want, and to think that I can blame someone else for the way think and feel is a complete illusion.”

So now to get back to Charlie and how it is seemingly attempting to actively offend millions of Muslims across the world. If I believe in free speech then I cannot make exceptions regarding what is and isn’t acceptable because then I would be a hypocrite. Do I believe it’s right to make a concerted effort to offend people? No I don’t. I don’t see the point. I can appreciate the point when it is made in a satirical manner because that in itself often employs mockery and can easily offend people, but the point of satire is to convey a deeper meaning. Whether it is to challenge the status quo or to draw attention to important, hard-hitting issues in a humourous manner, satire has a purpose which extends beyond simply being offensive. As previously mentioned, I won’t pretend to be fully enlightened as to the lead-up to the attack(s), I am aware of the rationale behind 2010’s “Draw Muhammad Day”, but my personal opinion is that continued rehashing of this debate is yet another example of going full retard. What purpose does repeatedly defying the idea that Muhammad should not be visually depicted actually serve? People are fooling themselves if they honestly believe that continuing in this vein is going to exhaust the supply of religious extremists, if anything I can only visualise a vicious cycle. I feel that the point for free speech has been made and it’s time for people to move onto the next matter, but that’s just me. Me using my right to freely express myself with my own self-imposed degree of moderation. Why should I moderate myself? Because with the right to freedom, comes the responsibility to be respectful of one’s fellow man. But unfortunately you cannot control people and I cannot force my philosophy on others. While I can hope that others would be respectful of me as a human being, not necessarily as a person, I cannot expect it and so I need to be tolerant of them. 

To conclude this rather mishmashed piece, I’ll end as I began. When you go to extremes, it doesn’t matter what philosophy you apply in life, you’re likely to simply end up trapped in some manner. Whether it’s a prison of your short-sightedness or a prison of unattainable philosophical ideals, the end result in pretty much the same. Don’t go full retard.