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 is 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 his status.
One side was mad that he read and endorsed a book. The other side was mad that he apologized for his prior approval. 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 due to implications made regarding global warming. Bank ads were kept on a loop, and now the TV is unplugged.
Additional thoughts.
I expect the majority of music I hear to be written and recorded by people with political differences from 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.
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, word games are being played, and 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 (futball), perhaps completely different and differences indicate ignorance. Context and target audience help determine word choice. Yet, word choice correlates with meaning. I am thinking of the Council of Nicea and the attention given to distinguishing between homoousios and homoiousios.
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 a new meaning. 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 it. 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. To win you must agree, and only winners can claim to have virtue and honor.
–//–
I am one of the many people who grew up fascinated and inspired by the way Monet and Van Gogh painted. As a young adult, I learned that this style of painting was laughed at and heavily criticized by the academy that trained and defined artists. Impressionism was a pejorative.
Yet, this style (Impressionism and Post-Impressionism) was later loved, vindicated and emulated by amateurs and professionals. However, just because something is despised at first doesn’t mean it will later be approved. A fork without prongs is unique, but it is not useful.
It seems common to observe people wanting to be Copernicus. Heathens claim him as they continue a pursuit against dogmas of religion. They do this in abundance, as is required when overthrowing archaic doctrine. However, the other side claims Copernicus as well.
Their claim is with observing that historical religious domination has already been dismantled. Those swinging swords in the air are surrounded by ruins, because cathedrals have already fallen. They claim Copernicus because the state has since formed a new religion out of the ashes. It is secular, denying theistic might and intervention, yet it has constituted sacred texts and obedience with a fervor that resembles a monk offering penance for coins.
Copernicus is the archetype seeking to rival the state religion. Whether that religion be Christian or not depends on your location. The heroes want a Diet of Worms moment, but at a time when the Pope has no strength. Seeking the claim of fighting a bear, its age and health are insignificant. It could have been a cub, but a bear nonetheless.
Blog 