Most people are stupid. Not Stupid Stupid. Not 'couldn't-trust-them-to-sit-the-right-way-round-on-a-toilet' stupid. But stupid. Nice, ordinary stupid people. Hardworking, honest stupid people. It's the only word left off those sentences:
'What I want to know is," barks a ruddy faced man in the audience of Question Time, "why should decent, ordinary, hardworking, taxpaying, [stupid] people like me have to pay to keep someone like this in [prison] [benefits] [ballet recitals]?"
Well, perhaps not stupid. That implies a lack of capacity. But they are uninformed and relatively uneducated. What else would they be? It doesn't mean they are bad people. Kids are stupid and we like them.
It's not a big problem either. The vast majority of ordinary life goes just fine if you are stupid. You can buy your food shopping, do your job, raise children, fall in love, have hobbies and feed the cat. That's not all you can do. You can travel the world and stand in awe at it's majesty, you can write a series of number one hits, you can carry out an act of such bravery and self-sacrifice as to make you a martyr for a worthy cause.
But I believe that the core issues around a subject like the one discussed in this thread fall slightly and often out of the skillset of nice ordinary people. It's not that they shouldn't have and voice their opinions - that's democracy (although it's worth noting the indisputable fact that democracy only becomes more effective the more informed the population) but rather than forming useful and reasoned views on political issues - which are complicated and often come down to decisions on morality and ethics (even more complicated) - requires a little more.....training.
You wouldn't know it too look at politicians but this stuff requires some expertise. A level of elitism. We've come to the odd position where people think that everyone has a valid opinion on political matters. Which is nonsense. Everyone is allowed an opinion (apart from the far fringes, the disenfranchised, the imprisoned etc) but that doesn't automatically make it valid. In fact you can usually tell the opinion least worth hearing by the way it begins with the line, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I think..." Much like the worst rebuttals begin with, "Yes but that's just your opinion..." It's sort of an off-shoot of the culture around words like "respect" and "offense." The belief that simply having a view (religious, cultural, political) means it needs to be treated with respect. It doesn't. Often quite the opposite. And that if you don't like what you hear or what someone says back you can claim to have been offended. Like it gives you special rights to consideration. Which it doesn't. It's just a whine.
Your honest Joe no doubt has a fully functioning moral compass but that doesn't mean it will point the right way when a highly nuanced and complicated moral issue is on the table. Right now some people are no doubt thinking 'What is complicated about what to do with people who preach praise for the butchering of a British soldier on the streets of London?' Well if you can't see the balancing act that must necessarily exist between dealing with the odious and the dangerous and maintaing a civil society with equality before the law and freedom of speech above all else, then I think you've proved my point.
Just like you can guess the views of a woman in a burka or a screeching, rabid mullah, I'm afraid you can all too easily guess the views of the honest, ordinary, taxpaying, hardworking gent who starts off by saying they should be hanged. The more emotional, the more angry you are - the less you have to contribute to debates which require dispassionate and reasoned thought. Which they do.
In this thread, too much kudos is given to ordinaryjoe'ism. I think my point is that if these issues didn't effect everyone we would be quite content to leave them to be hussled out in the worlds of expertise and academia. But they directly effect us and so they become our job. They have to be our job. But many of us are just not qualified to do it. Even though we have to. I'd count myself as one of them, mostly. I don't know nearly enough. But I think I know just enough to know how little I know.
Even though he was talking about candiates running for president, Sam Harris said it quite well:
"Ask yourself: how has "elitism" become a bad word in American politics? There is simply no other walk of life in which extraordinary talent and rigorous training are denigrated. We want elite pilots to fly our planes, elite troops to undertake our most critical missions, elite athletes to represent us in competition and elite scientists to devote the most productive years of their lives to curing our diseases. And yet, when it comes time to vest people with even greater responsibilities, we consider it a virtue to shun any and all standards of excellence. When it comes to choosing the people whose thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions, then we suddenly want someone just like us, someone fit to have a beer with, someone down-to-earth—in fact, almost anyone, provided that he or she doesn't seem too intelligent or well educated."
So what skills might be missing from the purview of nice ordinary people tackling issues such as this. Well for a start I would suggest a thorough familiarity with and understanding of the immutable and all-trumping right to protected free speech. Nothing gets in the way of this. You hear me? Nothing. No matter how unpleasant someone's views. I would genuinely prefer to live in a country where a lunatic preacher can freely praise acts of heinous brutality and be allowed to stay and afforded the same benefits as everyone else than one where a special, partially-elected bunch of oligarchs can determine - without consultation - whose views can or cannot be heard. It's frustrating how this - the ultimate right - is so often not given the respect it deserves in these discussions. Every generation has a pressing and urgent need to expell a certain class of people, to silence a certain minority, to obtain a perceived modicom of safety in exchange for giving away - just a little - but of their freedom to think, to choose, to listen.
Hitchens said it far better in 7 minutes then I ever could:
Christopher Hitchens -- Free Speech Part 1 - YouTube
I think everyone's view is not equally valid. If you look at the EDL and think they should be given a shot if they weed off a few of the more extreme elements, you are wrong. Objectively wrong. Demonstrably wrong. And should go away and read a book.
It is a fact that the more educated people become the more liberal they become. Conversely, the least well educated will often have the most reactionary, defensive, aggressive views. The ultimate question is why this fact, which stares us all in the face, doesn't get through to people. If you ask Vicky Pollard why she is wearing a tracksuit and fat she might be well aware the answer is because her impoverished background grew in her a propensity for naff clothes and a penchant for fried chips. But ask her why she thinks paedo's should be publically castrated and she'll tell you it's because it's the right thing to do. I'm up for closing this gap. It's ok that people who got less lucky with their educational opportunities have less informed opinions. But it's not ok that they don't know this.
Until they learn this they should be hung, castrated and then deported.
I've forgotten what I was talking about.
