Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This is like, the best internet flame war I've ever seen. Except it's in real life.
I am in awe of his ability to compose a 5 minute sentence of such total bollocks, yet be hilarious and quite correct at the same time.
I want to be like him. Even the bit that is a twat.
he gave us a really tongue in cheek lecture on Baa Baa Black Sheep on Monday morning
Totally. Amis is being a cunt. You can't make horrific statements like he did and then just say "get over it, I changed my mind".
the basis of the original attack?
He has played down the significance of it ever since, but he was no way explaining just an instinct.
he said that, after a horrifying event, he felt certain illiberal instincts.
i dont think thats such a terrible thing.
"The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order. What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation - further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they're from the Middle East or from Pakistan ... Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children..."
didn't he dismiss those opinions in the same interview in which they were utterred?
'There's a definite urge - don't you have it? - to say,'.
which changes everything, clearly. it means theres an urge there, because in one sense, it would reduce the risk of terrorism, but at the same time, theres an implicit recognition that that is an urge to be rejected, because its illiberal and short sighted.
"I was conversationally describing an urge that soon wore off."
Oh, well, that's alright then. As long as you only thought it was a good idea for a little while.
most people dont instantly see exactly how things should be and never question it.
the guy is actually being candid enough to say that when the events first happened, he felt certain urges (and merely urges, it doesnt mean he supported him at the time, just that he was contemplating, resolving the different issues in his own mind), which he quickly resolved.
if you don't, after events like that, ever feel conflicting ideas, even if just for a little while, i worry a little.
in any way, at all, ever, that people should be discriminated against en masse because someone from the same background committed an awful crime. I find that mentality completely disgusting. And so I'm with Eagleton. Amis's subsequent limp attempts to justify his comments end up with him virtually pleading with Eagleton to let him off the hook.
It's been blown out of all proportion, of course. But, if you will come out with crap like that whilst being in the public eye...
and then rejected it based on rational thought, then does your opinion hold that much value? if you havent thought about why there might be an appeal to an idea like that and rationalised in your own mind why the idea is short sighted and morally wrong, then how can you say you've rationally rejected it.
lets be honest. if you ask the question; 'would these actions reduce the risk of terrorist attack in the uk?' there is an argument to say that yes, they would. but there are much better arguments to say that ultimately, it would be not only morally wrong, but also would exacerbate the situation. but you can't claim to hold that opinion in a true, rational sense until you've thought through these questions yourself and understood why one aspect has a certain pull. otherwise, you're just following a received opinion.
Some ideas are bad enough, intrusive enough, unjust enough, and have historical precedents so bad, that: yes, you can throw them out on the basis of principle without giving them any more time.
the word 'should' is misleading. if you want to represent what he actually said, i suppose 'could' is a better word, in that he is expressing that that is a response one could feel to the actions. saying 'should' implies a belief that something is the right course of action, which you can't feel until you've contemplated all the other courses of actions, and as he makes clear, when he does, he realises that the illiberal approach he discusses is inappropriate.
into a kind of intellectual colouring in exercise.
Do you really think it's necessary for it to go:
"Shall we hang them?"
*crosses out "hanging them"*
"Shall we throw them out of the country?"
*crosses out "throwing them out of the country"*
Of course it doesn't go that way!! SOme things are just WRONG through and through. And pressuring and harassing people from minority groups according to the principle 'guilty until proven innocent' is something that does not require any thought to rule out.
Not being funny yeah, but you appear to be basing your entire viewpoint on the premise that Amis actually thinks the things he said about Muslims being rounded up and the like... when I would've thought it was clear that he was just describing what could happen to Muslim society in a deteriorating climate, without making any judgement on it himself.
He's also right when he talks about 'urges'. EVERYONE has stupid little prejudices that come to the surface from time to time. It's primeval. For some people, it's racism. For me: The Levellers. For you, it's conspicuously competent musicianship. Zort.
For the most part, it's nothing to get knickers in a twist about. Though I still believe that if you fully immersed yourself in Meshuggah, you would appreciate it.
that has been discredited though?
misquote amis, you can at least agree on that, yes?
It's that Amis went a bit further than he should have, and was outed. He did not, in a removed way, say that he could understand people having the urge to punish certain groups of people for actions by others that have nothing to with them. He said that he had felt this himself. Which is, in my eyes, a pretty shocking admission from someone who should know much, much better.
theres nothing wrong with having prejudices, provided that you recognise theyre prejudices and deliberately correct your thinking. he just admitted, that, like others, he feels prejudices and impulses which he realises are wrong.
and the problem is that he misquoted him, because i dont think its possible to argue that the sentence he deliberately omitted did anything other than completely change the meaning of the comment. its academic dishonesty, and i really dislike academic dishonesty. people who deliberately misread or mislead dont deserve respect.
for having an illiberal instinct, which is a bit self righteous. I just got into this because everyone has been leaping wholeheartedly to Amis's defence, and I think what he said was definitely worth picking up on, if not to this extent.
I think it's more that I consider it ill-advised to say such stuff.
However, I do think John seems to be implying that someone who admits to having had racist thoughts and then decides they are wrong is no better than someone who is just racist and thinks that's okay.
I wouldn't say those two people are equal at all. In this case it sounds like Amis has at least realised his error.
I'm aware that some people are dismissing Eagleton because he so blatantly misquoted the original interview.
Something which he has past form with I think...
the ones about strip searching were talking about a post 7/7 gut feeling. i think theres a positivity in raising these things, discussing them. it doesnt mean he agrees with them.
because of his complete and utter academic dishonesty. very poor.
I was mildly outraged when I read Eagleton's original article until it emerged he had blatantly misquoted Amis - it was a really sloppy and inadvised attack. I was almost feeling a bit sorry for old Mart until I just saw him on C4 news and he came across as a confused and meandering boor.
Rubbish old men, both some time past their use by date.
i saw terry eagleton speaking somewhere this summer and was hugely dissappointed by him, he's rubbish, seems to have written some cod-philosophical book on the meaning of life.
I'd still stick up for him
He's just being rebellious
Kingsley Amis > Martin Amis
Eric Van Lustbader > Martin Amis.
Come on now. That's not funny, surely?
I thought it was hilarious.
"...he moved like a dancer..."