6 ms·

> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was v

by Joeboy 4y ago

> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
I would say he was quite vigorously defended by liberals. Since the 1970s there pretty much hasn't been such a thing as the left, especially in Rushdie's hayday of the 80s-00s. If there was, I doubt it would've spent much time worrying about the fate of a bourgeoisie fantasist. Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use to understand Anglo politics) has conflated the terms left and liberal. And while I respect the drift of language as natural and intrinsic to culture, this misplacement has created a silly situation in which hypocracy, action and in-action are misattributed. Because these are two groups (overlapping in some cases) but distinct in a fundamental way. In fact, I would say articles such as this are entirely flawed in that they don't grasp this distinction because they take institutional journalism's political narrative way past its power to describe reality. Edit: BTW, this affects conservatives and "the Right" as well. Most of the people that rise to the top of the Rupblican and Tory parties are effectively "liberal". Most would not abolish civil liberties, equality before the law, etc. Just about everyone elected to government in both the UK and the US in all parties sit on a spectrum of liberalism. Mostly they just disagree about what year the government needed to stop doing things to create a "liberal" society.
- tunesmith 4y ago
  Sorry, can you expand? I'm not sure what you meant by "this term": free speech? And which two groups: offensive vs abusive speech? Which distinction?
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    [dead]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jzb 4y ago
My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it. However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a specific op-ed or talk show. Finding copies of coverage as it was happening is a little tricky.
- jojobas 4y ago
  If there is a group that is likely to be violent at that sort of provocation, you very much want to provoke them so they can be found out and somehow extinguished.
  - smt88 4y ago
    You can't extinguish an ideology, and someone who has been murdered is already murdered even if you do. By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators. Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.
    - jojobas 4y ago
      Yes you can, that requires some balls (such as not allowing fucking Hizb ut-Tahrir run schools). You'd think it violates the free speech principle, but smart people have that covered by the paradox of tolerance. Also we put fake kids online and young-looking cops to lure predators all the time for that exact reason. As long as there are people wishing to "behead those who offend Muhammad", there should be an offensive Muhammad cartoon on every street light.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      We absolutely should do that, if we can do that without actually harming children. Literally this is why we do not do that: because it would be wrong to harm children. There should also be an international institute of holy text destruction. Build a big armored building where once a day, mass-market copies of all holy text's in common circulation in the world are unceremoniously set on fire and live-streamed. Because if you can't deal with that without trying to kill someone, you have no place in modern society (not to mention that contextually, burning a holy text - and a flag for that matter - is considered the correct way to dispose of it).
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
the only thing I remember was then President Bush calling it a bad book while defending its freedom of speech. But yes he hardly qualifies as liberal-minded.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Wtf since when do presidents give book reviews?
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    He probably read it to see what all the fuss was about. I did. Its not a good book. Rushdie is a fucking boring writer.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      I agree actually, hated it. But I'm pretty sure Bush meant bad as in immoral. I don't think he really had the concept of bad as a literary quality.
    - snovv_crash 4y ago
      Haroun and the Sea of Stories is aimed at children, but fantastic. Can't comment on the others because I haven't read them.
  - filoleg 4y ago
    No idea, but Obama has pretty good spotify playlists he keeps sharing updates on[0], and I feel like book reviews aren't that different. 0. https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-playlist-kendrick-lamar-beyonce-harry-styles-rosalia-more/ https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-p...
tmnvix 4y ago
I was too young to remember the surrounding events, but I do know that Rushdie's close friend Christopher Hitchens has spoken about being turned away from his leftist roots because of the lack of support for Rushdie from many on the left.
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
There was kind of a moment around 9/11 & invasion of Iraq&Afghanistan when the "left" (a term I hate, but I'll put aside that hate for now) pivoted on how it treated Islam, Islamic countries & immigrants and speech which was inflammatory around Islam. And in that context I think there was on the whole some sympathy on "the left" for Rushdie before, and less so after. (But like, I also think you can't make any broad generalizations about "the left" which in the US especially is some sort of stupid umbrella term which collapses neo-liberal centrists in with radical socialists, as if they have much in common at all.) Prior to 9/11 the feminist movement and the left generally was fairly openly hostile about Islamic fundamentalism (and probably Islam generally), the Iranian regime, in the same way as it was around Christian fundamentalism, etc. e.g. I vaguely remember a feminist convention of some kind, I think in Toronto, late 90s? when a pro-Iranian women's group showed up and had a table, and it caused a big stir and a far left socialist feminist group of some sort went over and vandalized their table and tried to evict them, etc. But after the American/Republican reaction to 9/11 and the wave of brutal Islamaphobia ("clash of civilization" crap), acts of violence against immigrant Arab populations, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. many people on the left took principled positions on this that I think were on the whole more nuanced and were sympathetic to most Muslims in the context of the times; to try to denounce the imperialism colonialism, Christian nationalism, etc. that was flooding the culture. I think burning a Koran or whatever in a post-9/11 era is a lot different from pre/9-11. At least in the first 10 years of the millenium doing something like that is a clear and explicit racist and bigoted act. Rushdie, tho, that's more complicated. I think this has been a hard line to straddle. And many since took far more un-nuanced positions; idiots like George Galloway have taken their so-called anti-imperialism from this time and turned it into an outright pro-Putin, pro-Assad, reactionary politics which is in no way left wing or socialist, but ... at some point originated from there? It's worth pointing out that post the post-9/11 point Hitchens himself pivoted from "left" (with a good critique of liberalism) to neo-conservative hawk. And he did so in a pretty ugly way.
- jimbo9991 4y ago
  Hitchens is still a liberal whether he is neoconservative or not because neoconservatism is a form of liberalism. Its just "liberalism in one country", or "great power liberalism" i.e. in the US context the constitution doesn't apply to our enemies, which regardless of whether or not it is moral or wise in modern times, it is certainly an accurate reading of the text and intent of the constitution. Neoconservatism for instance is almost always framed as defending liberal societies against illiberal societies, as an ideology its adherents hold liberalism in very high regard. The common arguments against neoconservatism are that they hold liberalism in too high of regard/violently high regard, and of course that you cannot be truly liberal if you are illiberal in fighting illiberalism. I still remember that Poppins quote being used by neocons to justify ugly wars, before it became popular with young Democrats during the Trump years.

by Joeboy 4y ago

DubiousPusher 4y ago

I would say he was quite vigorously defended by liberals. Since the 1970s there pretty much hasn't been such a thing as the left, especially in Rushdie's hayday of the 80s-00s. If there was, I doubt it would've spent much time worrying about the fate of a bourgeoisie fantasist. Nothing against Rushdie btw. I loved the Satanic Verses. But institutional journalism (which provides the fundamental model most people use to understand Anglo politics) has conflated the terms left and liberal. And while I respect the drift of language as natural and intrinsic to culture, this misplacement has created a silly situation in which hypocracy, action and in-action are misattributed. Because these are two groups (overlapping in some cases) but distinct in a fundamental way. In fact, I would say articles such as this are entirely flawed in that they don't grasp this distinction because they take institutional journalism's political narrative way past its power to describe reality. Edit: BTW, this affects conservatives and "the Right" as well. Most of the people that rise to the top of the Rupblican and Tory parties are effectively "liberal". Most would not abolish civil liberties, equality before the law, etc. Just about everyone elected to government in both the UK and the US in all parties sit on a spectrum of liberalism. Mostly they just disagree about what year the government needed to stop doing things to create a "liberal" society.

tunesmith 4y ago
Sorry, can you expand? I'm not sure what you meant by "this term": free speech? And which two groups: offensive vs abusive speech? Which distinction?
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  [dead]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

jzb 4y ago

My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it. However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a specific op-ed or talk show. Finding copies of coverage as it was happening is a little tricky.

jojobas 4y ago
If there is a group that is likely to be violent at that sort of provocation, you very much want to provoke them so they can be found out and somehow extinguished.
- smt88 4y ago
  You can't extinguish an ideology, and someone who has been murdered is already murdered even if you do. By your insane logic, we should put kids out on the street by themselves to catch child predators. Sometimes the safety of the threatened party is more important than finding out who wants to harm them.
  - jojobas 4y ago
    Yes you can, that requires some balls (such as not allowing fucking Hizb ut-Tahrir run schools). You'd think it violates the free speech principle, but smart people have that covered by the paradox of tolerance. Also we put fake kids online and young-looking cops to lure predators all the time for that exact reason. As long as there are people wishing to "behead those who offend Muhammad", there should be an offensive Muhammad cartoon on every street light.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    We absolutely should do that, if we can do that without actually harming children. Literally this is why we do not do that: because it would be wrong to harm children. There should also be an international institute of holy text destruction. Build a big armored building where once a day, mass-market copies of all holy text's in common circulation in the world are unceremoniously set on fire and live-streamed. Because if you can't deal with that without trying to kill someone, you have no place in modern society (not to mention that contextually, burning a holy text - and a flag for that matter - is considered the correct way to dispose of it).

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

the only thing I remember was then President Bush calling it a bad book while defending its freedom of speech. But yes he hardly qualifies as liberal-minded.

geysersam 4y ago
Wtf since when do presidents give book reviews?
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  He probably read it to see what all the fuss was about. I did. Its not a good book. Rushdie is a fucking boring writer.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    I agree actually, hated it. But I'm pretty sure Bush meant bad as in immoral. I don't think he really had the concept of bad as a literary quality.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    Haroun and the Sea of Stories is aimed at children, but fantastic. Can't comment on the others because I haven't read them.
- filoleg 4y ago
  No idea, but Obama has pretty good spotify playlists he keeps sharing updates on[0], and I feel like book reviews aren't that different. 0. https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-playlist-kendrick-lamar-beyonce-harry-styles-rosalia-more/ https://pitchfork.com/news/barack-obama-shares-2022-summer-p...

tmnvix 4y ago

I was too young to remember the surrounding events, but I do know that Rushdie's close friend Christopher Hitchens has spoken about being turned away from his leftist roots because of the lack of support for Rushdie from many on the left.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

There was kind of a moment around 9/11 & invasion of Iraq&Afghanistan when the "left" (a term I hate, but I'll put aside that hate for now) pivoted on how it treated Islam, Islamic countries & immigrants and speech which was inflammatory around Islam. And in that context I think there was on the whole some sympathy on "the left" for Rushdie before, and less so after. (But like, I also think you can't make any broad generalizations about "the left" which in the US especially is some sort of stupid umbrella term which collapses neo-liberal centrists in with radical socialists, as if they have much in common at all.) Prior to 9/11 the feminist movement and the left generally was fairly openly hostile about Islamic fundamentalism (and probably Islam generally), the Iranian regime, in the same way as it was around Christian fundamentalism, etc. e.g. I vaguely remember a feminist convention of some kind, I think in Toronto, late 90s? when a pro-Iranian women's group showed up and had a table, and it caused a big stir and a far left socialist feminist group of some sort went over and vandalized their table and tried to evict them, etc. But after the American/Republican reaction to 9/11 and the wave of brutal Islamaphobia ("clash of civilization" crap), acts of violence against immigrant Arab populations, invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. many people on the left took principled positions on this that I think were on the whole more nuanced and were sympathetic to most Muslims in the context of the times; to try to denounce the imperialism colonialism, Christian nationalism, etc. that was flooding the culture. I think burning a Koran or whatever in a post-9/11 era is a lot different from pre/9-11. At least in the first 10 years of the millenium doing something like that is a clear and explicit racist and bigoted act. Rushdie, tho, that's more complicated. I think this has been a hard line to straddle. And many since took far more un-nuanced positions; idiots like George Galloway have taken their so-called anti-imperialism from this time and turned it into an outright pro-Putin, pro-Assad, reactionary politics which is in no way left wing or socialist, but ... at some point originated from there? It's worth pointing out that post the post-9/11 point Hitchens himself pivoted from "left" (with a good critique of liberalism) to neo-conservative hawk. And he did so in a pretty ugly way.

jimbo9991 4y ago
Hitchens is still a liberal whether he is neoconservative or not because neoconservatism is a form of liberalism. Its just "liberalism in one country", or "great power liberalism" i.e. in the US context the constitution doesn't apply to our enemies, which regardless of whether or not it is moral or wise in modern times, it is certainly an accurate reading of the text and intent of the constitution. Neoconservatism for instance is almost always framed as defending liberal societies against illiberal societies, as an ideology its adherents hold liberalism in very high regard. The common arguments against neoconservatism are that they hold liberalism in too high of regard/violently high regard, and of course that you cannot be truly liberal if you are illiberal in fighting illiberalism. I still remember that Poppins quote being used by neocons to justify ugly wars, before it became popular with young Democrats during the Trump years.