Somehow I don't think using the human body as a metaphor is the best strategy for someone arguing for diversity as an end unto itself. Sure, if all the organs or organelles of the body exist in a state of mutual fear and distrust the body itself will be in bad shape, but will it be much better off if each organelle does its own thing, as they must if this is to be a meaningful metaphor. All I'm saying is that body metaphors are better arguments for unity than diversity, and while Doormouse in his/her own fashion may be arguing for a form of unity, it's probably not the sort of unity of purpose and function that a living body requires. I also have to disagree with the Vigilance's exemption of religion from insult, if not also from "exploitation" or "violence." Religion isn't the same as ethnicity; it's a value system and as such is subject to criticism, even if the criticism proves "insulting" to those criticized. It would make as much sense to call it bigotry if people are criticized for their ideology -- though I suppose that's exactly what some of the Trumpophobes are doing. You can interpret that either way: that they're calling Trumpists bigots for criticizing the ideology of people like Doormouse, or that Doormouse is a bigot for equating Trumpism with bigotry. Trumpism is bad enough (in its blind faith in folksy billionaires, for instance) without jumping to that conclusion. Meanwhile, Doormouse has resolved to ruin next month's holiday gatherings with politics ("We shall challenge our relatives' ignorant views"). Vive la Resistance!
3 comments:
Cancer occurs when the dna within a cell mis-triggers and, rather than carrying out its program, it begins multiplying out of control. One does not cure a body of cancer by being accepting of the cancer, by being nice to the cancer, by "hugging" the cancer. One eliminates the cancer by taking a scalpel and removing the diseased tissue.
You prove my point. If the Vigilance objects to people being equated with cancer, then Doormouse should avoid equating society with a human body.
The only useful part of the analogy is the fact that sometimes hard decisions must be made and one shouldn't be afraid to make those decisions. Choosing to remove a lung is a difficult decision and the body will never function as well afterwards, however, if one chooses not to remove the lung, one accepts a much sooner death and a lower quality of what remains of one's life.
Post a Comment