3 ms·

Reading this again, I cannot miss the irony that Alan is accusing our culture of the very thing he has done - retreat from the complexities of conflicts in our

Reading this again, I cannot miss the irony that Alan is accusing our culture of the very thing he has done - retreat from the complexities of conflicts in our modern culture. Racism and sexual violence are at the top of that list. FWIW, discussing either of those topics as a white, middle-class, middle-aged male doesn't come with a lot of natural/implied moral authority. For the philosophically inclined among that group, in which I'll include myself, we are used to starting these kinds of discussions with the premise of our natural-born right to contribute (as he argues for - i.e. otherwise all identity politics excludes those without the identity, effectively killing the concept of political discourse). For my part, I've come to the conclusion that the greatest good we can do is support the voice of those who clearly have a natural right to speak about those issues by virtue of experience. One way to do that is to be the listener as they take the pulpit. Not because what they have to say is inherently the correct view, or ours is inherently not, but because they do deserve the forum to figure out an answer to these problems that can work for them and society- a forum they have been denied. I share Thomas Jefferson's view that the principles we cherish, that were developed over millennia, were formed through vigorous debate amongst those with a natural-born right to the outcome. I'm more curious to learn what is invented when we support the forum vs. position ourselves as a group being victimized by the vehement demand for our silence. While the vehemence is off-putting, it may also be a signal of how great a wrong has been done. We cannot exclude the later if we are unwilling to be patient with the former. I'm reminded of my gratitude for how many second chances society has given me. It seems common decency to pay it forward.

empath75 9y ago
Even if you agree that it’s preferable that certain topics be addressed by particular groups are are most affected by them — at the time Alan Moore was writing originally, that wasn’t an option. Either a white male wrote about it or it didn’t get written about, for the most part. He (and the rest of the British Invasion) opened a lot of doors for various topics to get addressed in mainstream comics for the first time. Since then, the doors have opened wider for a more diverse group of writers in comics, and that’s a good thing, but I don’t think you should be too angry at Alan Moore for at least trying to address complex issues in an intelligent way.
- sirspacey 9y ago
  Good point, he was a pioneer in bringing those topics to the art form. His response didn't anger me, it just struck me as less than consistent with his justification for withdrawing from the public debate.
  - olavk 9y ago
    He is NOT withdrawing from public debate. His works are a part of and a contribution to this debate, and as far as I know he have no intention of stopping working. He is just wants to withdraw from the journalistic social media shitstorms based on limited readings and misunderstandings of his works.
olavk 9y ago
> One way to do that is to be the listener as they take the pulpit. So you are basically asking Alan More to shut up and stop producing literature because he is white and middle aged?
- sirspacey 9y ago
  Definitely not. Your previous comment (he still publishes vs participates in journalistic debates) makes a lot of sense. I'm saying that, personally, I haven't found a way to bring my values to these conversations in the public space that doesn't feel awkward, so I focus on sharing the talks/posts of those I agree with who do share that identity. Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you feel as I sometimes do that our right as people to participate in this public debate is being challenged or questioned on our identity alone. As much as I'd like to argue that isn't a basis for exclusion, there is something to consider in it. It's a hypothetical for me, a reality for others. That gives me pause. It doesn't mean the other person's interpretation is one I must or should adopt, but it seems unwise to form opinions that exclude their experience when talking about the rules that should govern society. The poster above pointed out that in Alan's case, those points of view weren't really even in the market without him and the British invasion. That's context I hadn't considered here. I was curious to see what the holes in my viewpoint were and that's certainly one.

empath75 9y ago

Even if you agree that it’s preferable that certain topics be addressed by particular groups are are most affected by them — at the time Alan Moore was writing originally, that wasn’t an option. Either a white male wrote about it or it didn’t get written about, for the most part. He (and the rest of the British Invasion) opened a lot of doors for various topics to get addressed in mainstream comics for the first time. Since then, the doors have opened wider for a more diverse group of writers in comics, and that’s a good thing, but I don’t think you should be too angry at Alan Moore for at least trying to address complex issues in an intelligent way.

sirspacey 9y ago
Good point, he was a pioneer in bringing those topics to the art form. His response didn't anger me, it just struck me as less than consistent with his justification for withdrawing from the public debate.
- olavk 9y ago
  He is NOT withdrawing from public debate. His works are a part of and a contribution to this debate, and as far as I know he have no intention of stopping working. He is just wants to withdraw from the journalistic social media shitstorms based on limited readings and misunderstandings of his works.

olavk 9y ago

> One way to do that is to be the listener as they take the pulpit. So you are basically asking Alan More to shut up and stop producing literature because he is white and middle aged?

sirspacey 9y ago
Definitely not. Your previous comment (he still publishes vs participates in journalistic debates) makes a lot of sense. I'm saying that, personally, I haven't found a way to bring my values to these conversations in the public space that doesn't feel awkward, so I focus on sharing the talks/posts of those I agree with who do share that identity. Not to put words in your mouth, but perhaps you feel as I sometimes do that our right as people to participate in this public debate is being challenged or questioned on our identity alone. As much as I'd like to argue that isn't a basis for exclusion, there is something to consider in it. It's a hypothetical for me, a reality for others. That gives me pause. It doesn't mean the other person's interpretation is one I must or should adopt, but it seems unwise to form opinions that exclude their experience when talking about the rules that should govern society. The poster above pointed out that in Alan's case, those points of view weren't really even in the market without him and the British invasion. That's context I hadn't considered here. I was curious to see what the holes in my viewpoint were and that's certainly one.