Everyone has a right to my opinions
During the COVID-19 lockdown, I’ve finally got around to a project I have mean meaning to do for a while, which I hope will prove an ongoing diversion while normal social life is on pause.
It’s called A Thousand And One Recaps.
The idea is very simple: I’m reading The Arabian Nights, or The Thousand and One Nights, the famously rich collection of stories that originate in Asia and the Middle East. Continue reading “A Thousand and One Recaps”
We’re all in this together. But what happens when we’re not?
Earlier this week I posted a tweet that got plenty of attention.
I really think there is a story to be written about the unintended consequences of the antibody test. It will create two classes of citizen – those who are immune and those who are not – with different rules for each. I think it might become incredibly divisive.
— Robert Sharp रोबर्ट शार्प (@robertsharp59) April 1, 2020
When the COVID-19 antibody test becomes available, it will split the country – and the world – into two types of person: those who are immune to the virus, and those who are still susceptible.
In the long term, when we have established ‘herd immunity,’ this won’t matter.1 But in the short term it could prove incredibly divisive, and cause the disintegration of solidarity and co-operation that our country has demonstrated so far.
Continue reading “Will the #COVID19 Antibody Test Break Our Discipline and Make Things Worse?”
This afternoon, as I was hunched over my phone composing a draft of a tweet, I paused over what word I would use to describe the COVID-19 events of the past few weeks.
Shenanigans? Malestrom? Crisis? Hilarity? Tragedy? Nonsense? “This COVID19 business”?
I began to realise that, in our discussions about the virus, we all seem to be able to slide effortlessly between gravity and frivolity. We can at once be deeply affected and concerned by the death, illness, and risk to our frontline workers on the one hand; and sharing memes about day-drinking and homeschool #fails, on the other. We all seem to be experiencing a sort of mass cognitive dissonance. Continue reading “Banter, Tragedy and the ‘Healthy Dissonance’ of #COVID19”
Jillian C. York writes a short thread on looking presentable for video calls.
Some pro-tips, from an actual pro (not the @nytimes), on how to quickly look presentable when presented with a surprise video call:
— i’m just a girl living in captivity (@jilliancyork) March 27, 2020
This reminded me of a passage in Infinite Jest where David Foster Wallace describes the phenomenon of Video-Physiognomic Dysphoria, the anxiety at having to present yourself on a video call. Continue reading “Video-Physiognomic Dysphoria”
So, voluntary self-isolation becomes a mandatory lock-down.
Plenty of people have been discussing relevant films, TV shows and literature that deal with pandemics, deadly diseases and the like. GIFs from Shaun of the Dead, and all the other zombie movies, fill my timeline.
As for me, I have found that my mind keeps wandering back to three books I read in recent years, which all include moments of apocalyptic lock-down.
Continue reading “Three Science Fiction and Fantasy Books I’ve Been Thinking About A Lot During The COVID19 Lockdown”
Some good news! Remember the local campaign against propsed feeder schools? The Langley Park Learning Trust responded to the consultation, and have decided not to proceed.
I spoke to Monica Charsley, Bromley and Bexley correspondent at the News Shopper, about the decision:
Robert Sharp, a spokesperson for the Fair Access Langley campaign group, said: “We are delighted with the decision.
“So many people worked hard to raise awareness about the consultation, and the number of people who responded was a factor in the decision.
“But it is also pleasing that the trustees have engaged with and accepted the social, educational and environmental arguments raised by the community.
“However, we remain concerned that the Trust chose to consult in the first place.
“We urge them to be transparent about their reasons for doing so, and to reassure the community that they will not re-consult on this issue in the near future.”
I want to say something quite precise about the nature of the ‘debate’ about transgender rights. It is not about the substance of the argument itself, but about how we are arguing about it.
The prompt for this is last week’s furore over a Suzanne Moore column in the Guardian, and the No Platforming of the historian Selina Todd. But it could just as easily be about any of the other controversies that have generated news media coverage and social media heat over the past few years.
First, did you notice how I put apostrophes around the word ‘debate’ above. I do that to acknowledge a point that transgender rights activists make constantly: that their right to exist should not be up for debate.
Continue reading “When does a moral argument become ‘settled’?”
Are you the sort of person who gets annoyed with ‘political correctness’? Are you fed up with ‘woke’ students and minority rights activists seeking to police your thoughts? Exasperated with civil servants attempting to social engineer us all?
Well then you had better get behind the campaign to save judicial review.
Last week Mr Justice Julian Knowles of the Administrative Division of the High Court handed down his judgment in R (Miller) v The College of Policing and another [2020] EWHC 225 (Admin). Continue reading “If You’re Worried About Political Correctness Going Too Far, then You Had Better Oppose The Threat to Judicial Review and Human Rights”
The idea of human rights being valuable in themselves doesn’t wash with a lot of people. Instead, they want to see a practical benefit to rights. Seeing horrible people benefit from the same rights as the rest of us undermines people’s support for such rights.
I worry about this a lot.
This attitude is particularly apparent this week due to the horrific knife attack in Streatham, which mirrored the awful murders at the Fishmonger’s Hall in December. In both cases the perpetrator had been released from prison following a conviction for terrorism, and so now there is discussion about retrospectively changing the release and parole procedures for such criminals. Continue reading “When Defending Human Rights, We Must Tell Pragmatic Stories That Appeal To Self Interest”
There have been a several incidents recently where a person has caused offence by their actions and language, and been accused of racism. Roger Scruton said that Chinese people were like robots, Danny Baker tweeted a picture of a chimpanzee, Priti Patel used an antisemitic dog-whistle, Louise Ellman faced deselection on Yom Kippur, and Alastair Stewart quoted Shakespeare.1
In each case, when a complaint has been voiced, other people have chimed in to say that the offence caused was unintended.
But this only fans the flames of the row. Those who have taken offence (or those who are offended on their behalf) claim that the intent of the person giving offence doesn’t matter. Rather, our moral judgments should be based on the effect it has on those on the receiving end of the words or actions.
This makes me uneasy. I don’t think that our moral judgments can be based only on how it affects those who are the perceived target. I think intent is indeed part of the moral equation.
Here’s a thought experiment. Continue reading “Offence and Intent”