The banjo player is leaving a world famous band after receiving backlash for approving a controversial book. An apology was issued, but that too received backlash. It’s funny because he’s the banjo player, in trouble for reading a book.
For those of you that don’t follow Mumford, here’s the explanation given by Winston.
I understand the desire to be moderate on issues, I have certainly noticed reactions he describes repeated in other situations. Criticizing the Left will result in people assuming you to be on the Right. However, he flattens the blame more evenly than I think reasonable.
The Left came out against him because he thought well of a book by Andy Ngo that criticized Antifa. The Right came out against him because he apologized to the mob. The Right doesn’t have many examples of popular contrarians to support, so he quickly gained and lost the status.
One side was mad that he read a book. The other side was mad that he apologized for reading the book. These are not the same complaint. However, this being difficult for fans to cope with is another serious problem that can sound funny when out of context.
Reminds me of a bank I used to visit. A television was installed for those waiting in line. Attempts were made to find a moderate news source. Eventually they tried The Weather Channel, but that was too political. Bank ads were kept on a loop, and now the TV is unplugged.
I expect the majority of music I hear to be written and recorded by people with political differences to me. That is a minor thing compared to religious songs produced by heretics.
To this I want to describe adiaphora, apostasy and the Donatist controversy, but that would turn this final thought into another thread.
Furthermore, I am reminded of this clip. *https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1407729409600016389?s=20&t=HTAyzsmI0fya2TYplJM0lg
When critiquing the shifting lexicon the usual response is that language evolves, this is natural, what’s the harm? We no longer use thee and thou in typical conversation, certain terms could/should/would be the same.
Denial of this seems similar to someone saying gay when indicating happiness. Yet, there are word games being played, definitions matter- perhaps not to participants at first, but not every change is an improvement. The difference is not always as subtle as saying pop or soda.
Differences can be as consequential as saying football or soccer. Perhaps the same, perhaps completely different and differences indicate ignorance. Context and target audience help determine word choice. Yet, word choice correlates with meaning.
In addition to word games, the logic being utilized is a stacked deck of cards. Your definitions make me look bad so I’m going to formulate new meaning. I can do this because things I don’t like are a social construct, we need to develop new constructs that affirm my desires.
This is the way to Utopia, I’m on the right side of history. It’s setting up the dialogue so that no one can reasonably oppose. Your disagreement proves you don’t understand, your disagreement proves your definitions are wrong.
No sensible person can disagree, it’s a catch 22. The only way to avoid pejoratives is to agree, and pragmatists define winning based on agreement. In order to win you must agree, and only winners can claim to have virtue and honor.