A Point of View...Roger Scruton

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Not in the Radio 3 Forum for Radio 3 listeners they aren't.

Of course they are "allowed" - nobody's deleted your posts on this Thread, nor will they (as long as you don't suggest anyone's onanistic activities). But if those "arguments in defense of RS" are then criticised, then those criticisms are also "allowed" (and will only be "edited" if they contain inappropriate reference to sphincterial matters).

[Beef Oven!]

Of course they are "allowed" - nobody's deleted your posts on this Thread, nor will they (as long as you don't suggest anyone's onanistic activities). But if those "arguments in defense of RS" are then criticised, then those criticisms are also "allowed".

I wasn't suggesting my posts have been deleted. I'm saying that if anyone thinks that Roger Scruton has something valid to say, they must preface their posts with sufficient mitigation (as in posts 1 & 2) so as to ward of a politically correct onslaught from the usual suspects, be resilient and fend off all-comers, or remain silent. It's a very nasty environment in this forum, if you don't subscribe to the politically correct view on things, as laid down by the usual suspects and unwittingly or knowingly reinforced by the moderators.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think that I have a higher opinion of the resilience of Forumistas, BeefO - I don't believe that there are members who are fans of RS, but who don't post because they're scared of ... who? Bryn? Richards B & T? S_A? MrGG? frenchie? Me? (Me?! - I throw a hissy fit if I see a wasp in next door's garden!)

The arguments opposing RS's aesthetics (and his politics) have been made strongly - and you have agreed with many of the points about aesthetics expressed in those opposing arguments. If there are corresponding arguments which demonstrate that RS has valid aesthetic opinions, (about DSCH, perhaps) they haven't simply been made yet.

[Stanfordian]

I wasn't suggesting my posts have been deleted. I'm saying that if anyone thinks that Roger Scruton has something valid to say, they must preface their posts with sufficient mitigation (as in posts 1 & 2) so as to ward of a politically correct onslaught from the usual suspects, be resilient and fend off all-comers, or remain silent. It's a very nasty environment in this forum, if you don't subscribe to the politically correct view on things, as laid down by the usual suspects and unwittingly or knowingly reinforced by the moderators.

Hello Beefy,

I must admit I've sensed similar things too!

[Richard Barrett]

So,

what are these valid things Scruton has to say? I haven't come across a single statement of his which doesn't fall either into one or both of the two categories I mentioned in my first post to this thread, or into the category of just plain factually incorrect (and, in the case of his statements on music, probably wilfully so). I don't have any problem with people defending him if they have some solidly based arguments, but just saying things like "compared to the position taken by Islam and Islamic influenced governments on such matters as gender, LGBT, rape, etc he is quite benign" doesn't excuse his positions at all, given that he would claim them to be superior to those held by most Western people, let alone those from other cultures, because they're supposedly made from a position of superior erudition and civilisation. To be clear: there's no excuse for sexism, racism, homophobia etc. wherever it comes from, and it should be rejected whether it comes from Saudi Arabia or an English self-styled conservative philosopher.

[Richard Barrett]

I must admit I've sensed similar things too!

What do you suggest then - that those of us who have strong views, and facts and/or direct quotations to back them up, on some subject or other, should stay mum for fear of offending members who have strong opposing views but might be a bit short on facts? That would surely be political correctness gone mad!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The idea that "political" discussions (or, if one prefers, "political 'discussions'") create "a very nasty environment" amongst Forumistas is one of the reasons why such Threads are generally discouraged, it might be added.

[Beef Oven!]

It's not about 'fans of Roger Scruton' who are members and 'scared' to post. It's about an intolerant environment that puts people off. And I know what the house-narrative about 'putting people off' is 'It's MrGG's swearing', or my 'confrontational contrarianism'. But that can't be why we don't attract and retain active members to the forum.

The thread was seized upon and turned into a free for all on the 'odious' and 'bigoted' Roger Scruton. The thread should have been about his 10 minute talk on R3 about the ills of political correctness and the arising witch-hunts, as he sees it, and the crucially important development of the idea that people are not presumed innocent until shown to be otherwise. None of which has been discussed or commented on.

I think that I have a higher opinion of the resilience of Forumistas, BeefO - I don't believe that there are members who are fans of RS, but who don't post because they're scared of ... who? Bryn? Richards B & T? S_A? MrGG? frenchie? Me? (Me?! - I throw a hissy fit if I see a wasp in next door's garden!)

The arguments opposing RS's aesthetics (and his politics) have been made strongly - and you have agreed with many of the points expressed in those opposing arguments. If there are corresponding arguments which demonstrate that RS has valid aesthetic opinions, (about DSCH, perhaps) they haven't simply been made yet.

[Richard Barrett]

The idea that "political" discussions (or, if one prefers, "political 'discussions'") create "a very nasty environment" amongst Forumistas is one of the reasons why such Threads are generally discouraged, it might be added.

That's very often because people post unsupported but aggressive opinions and then get even more aggressive when those arguing against them bring in facts and references. I'm not just sitting here saying "Roger Scruton is an egregious individual", I'm letting him say that for himself.

[Beef Oven!]

Exactly - the strange idea that "my ignorance is as good as someone else's knowledge." I have plenty of facts to back up my description of this person as "odious" and "bigoted" which I shall list when I have a spare moment.

That's very often because people post unsupported but aggressive opinions and then get even more aggressive when those arguing against them bring in facts and references. I'm not just sitting here saying "Roger Scruton is an egregious individual", I'm letting him say that for himself.

Just post the accusation, then go looking for the supporting evidence

[cmr_for3]

Radio 3 Forum members don't like Roger Scruton, but it's not coming over in a way that casts them in a good light.

Nice to find a fellow fan of Scruton. Even if you are not, well done on arguing one should play the ball rather than the man.

[Pulcinella]

But that can't be why we don't attract and retain active members to the forum.

Oh yes it can.
That's exactly why I left for a while, until I was coaxed back.

And that's a FACT not an OPINION.

[Bryn]

Nice to find a fellow fan of Scruton. Even if you are not, well done on arguing one should play the ball rather than the man.

Merriam-Webster, the Oxford dictionary and other sources define "fan" as a shortened version of the word fanatic. Fanatic itself, introduced into English around 1550, means "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". It comes from the Modern Latin fanaticus, meaning "insanely but divinely inspired". The word originally pertained to a temple or sacred place [Latin fanum, poetic English fane].

Seems to fit the bill in this instance.

[Beef Oven!]

Seems to fit the bill in this instance.

I do not have excessive enthusiasm for Roger, or an intense critical devotion. This is what political correctness can do to the most even-handed of members, such as yourself.

Your normal standards of fastidiousness have been suspended, temporarily, while you go through this acute episode of political correctness, I hope.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I quite liked Aesthetics of Music even though I disagreed with quite a bit of it. Apologies for the ad hominem but isn't Roger a bit like Nietzsche - an ok philosopher who over-reached himself when it came to music ?