A Point of View...Roger Scruton

[Beef Oven!]

This one? Number 9, where I said I read his book and found his words on DSCH [about melody and harmonics] enlightening. And then in a pathetic attempt to portray myself like you guys, as a politically correct person, I distanced myself from him by saying that we don't share the same musical tastes (recordings or gigs).

That gives me fan status?

Oh dear, keep digging Bryn!

If you say so.

Have you read his books on music? I have.

Most enlightening. I am pleased to say that for example, he shed so much light on the music of DSCH for me, a real lightbulb moment. I really understand why I love DSCH's music, and being divested of the mystery, has not lessened my enjoyment of it. It almost goes without saying that Roger and I have completely different music libraries and go to different gigs!

Pots and kettles notwithstanding, try number 9 for starters.

[Beef Oven!]

Agree with all, but must say that one must not fall for the straw-man argument that political correctness is about being mindful not to cause offence. Political correctness, aka cultural Marxism, is not a simple and uncontentious plea for good manners - as Roger elucidates, and the contents of this thread demonstrates.

Just listened to RS's POV after Ferney's exhortation above. It is well argued and I think his plea for an end to the witch hunt culture , spurred by social media is a sensible one. His initial example - the hounding of Sir Tim Shaw - after remarks made at a conference about female scientists is a complex case . Sir Tim maintains his remarks were satirical and ironic something Scruton doesn't mention even though it helps his case . There were subsequent allegations that his comments were misrepresented and spun so as to portray them as outrageously sexist. The social media was response was damning and almost all from people who were not present at the event who thus had no idea of the context. This is the first important point that perhaps RS doesn't make enough of - the role of journalists ,and social media commentators in stirring things up , with inaccurate reportage.
He then moves on to talk about the difficulty of criticising elements of Islam without being accused of Islamaphobia. I am not so sure - I think most people can distinguish and point out strains of intolerance in Islam as they can within Chrisitanity without causing offence. In short I have heard many criticisms of Islam that have not been met with cries of Islamaphobia . The problem is that it is an inexact term - there is outright hatred of Muslims expressed both verbally and violently in our society and we should acknowledge that .
He then makes a lot of Rene Girard's observations on the scape-goating mechanism . I don't disagree with any of this but like a lot of anthropological theories it's just a theory - as a piece of descriptive analysis fair enough .
He ends with his recent hounding on social media following his appointment to the new building commission ( for those who have been following the thread a neat joining together of aesthetics and social media outrage ) and a plea for greater tolerance and understanding complete with a quote in Arabic from the Quran. To be honest I found little to disagree with BUT he fails to point out instances where political correctness might actually oil the wheels of a civilised society . By avoiding words that needlessly give offence that is surely a good thing. With the freedom to express as wide a range of views as possible must also come the responsibility not to inflame through causing gratuitous offence . Equally we should be looking to be offended at every available opportunity .

[Joseph K]

aka cultural Marxism,.

There's no such thing.

[Beef Oven!]

There's no such thing.

Where do you get the time to read all my posts????

[Joseph K]

The point is, you et al are very quick to go mad and shout about Trump, Roger Scruton and other targets that are acceptable to political correctness, but you won't say a dickie-bird about Islam, for example, which espouses the same 'odious' and 'bigoted' ideas about women, LGBT, same sex marriage etc. You are only interested in easy targets. Since you seek examples of binary thinking, I'll ask you - are you a coward or just short-sighted?

It probably something to do with the fact that Trump, Scruton etc. are individuals, whereas there are millions of Muslims in the world whose world-views, as you would expect, have great variety, just like Christians.

[Bryn]

There's no such thing.

Oh yes there is.

There again, finding two self-diagnosed 'Marxists' who agree on the question of aesthetics is a major task.

[Ein Heldenleben]

What are the fundamental assumptions that he's making? I'm not picking up on it .....

If I could find my copy of the book I'd answer - I think some one has "borrowed" it !

[Beef Oven!]

It probably something to do with the fact that Trump, Scruton etc. are individuals, whereas there are millions of Muslims in the world whose world-views, as you would expect, have great variety, just like Christians.

No, it’s not that. There are plenty of individuals who espouse intolerant, odious ideas on LGBT, same sex marriage, gender roles etc from an Islamic theological/doctrinal perspective and he doesn’t go after them. It must be something else.

[Joseph K]

No, it’s not that. There are plenty of individuals who espouse intolerant, odious ideas on LGBT, same sex marriage, gender roles etc from an Islamic theological/doctrinal perspective and he doesn’t go after them. It must be something else.

There are plenty of people who express odious ideas who aren't Muslim. Many Muslims who don't express such odious ideas. So why pick on Muslims?

[Beef Oven!]

There are plenty of people who express odious ideas who aren't Muslim. Many Muslims who don't express such odious ideas. So why pick on Muslims?

Who said anything about Muslims?

[Bryn]

There are plenty of people who express odious ideas who aren't Muslim. Many Muslims who don't express such odious ideas. So why pick on Muslims?

Oh but surely expressing views from an "Islamic theological/doctrinal perspective" does not necessarily mean they are so expressed by a Muslim, does it?

[Beef Oven!]

Oh but surely expressing views from an "Islamic theological/doctrinal perspective" does not necessarily mean they are so expressed by a Muslim, does it?

I think it almost certainly does. But I fail to see the relevance of what Joseph, and now you are getting at. Please clarify.

[Bryn]

I think it almost certainly does. But I fail to see the relevance of what Joseph, and now you are getting at. Please clarify.

In my case, the way a thread about Scruton's Point of View has been diverted into the attributability of 'politically incorrect' view to those coming from "an Islamic theological/doctrinal perspective".

[Joseph K]

I think it almost certainly does. But I fail to see the relevance of what Joseph, and now you are getting at. Please clarify.

My point is that 'Islam' is not monolithic and as such, cannot be compared to the views of one individual.

[Serial_Apologist]

The point is, you et al are very quick to go mad and shout about Trump, Roger Scruton and other targets that are acceptable to political correctness, but you won't say a dickie-bird about Islam, for example, which espouses the same 'odious' and 'bigoted' ideas about women, LGBT, same sex marriage etc. You are only interested in easy targets. Since you seek examples of binary thinking, I'll ask you - are you a coward or just short-sighted?

Before looking at Muslim or other non-western social norms and practices, one starts from a premise of critiqueing the superstructural cultural expressions of ones own political system, given that ours has been the main transmitter and driver of cultural modification through globalised economics. Obviously one takes to task institutions other than those sired here which, where they do, hold homophobic and mysogynistic world viewpoints, but does so in solidarity, supporting individuals and groups as needs demand. Political correctness is right when it says we do not go into cultures abroad and force our views and practices on them - colonialism and noe-colonialism have already done enough damage, where advantageous using pre-existing norms and hierarchies to their own purposes. In the domestic arena one acknowledges the role that racist discrimination and exclusion from the host culture have bequeathed a legacy of fall-backs to practices that had historically served to cohere what would become immigrant communities in hostile foreign lands. This hasn't of course prevented "us" from selectively adopting some of these "foreign" customs when they have proved enriching, eg in the areas of food, music and "spiritualiity"; but acknowledgment of such gets deemed to fit the maligned category of "political correctness" too, and one could think of innumerable exemplifications of this being used for purposes of misrepresentation.