Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Right Not to Applaud
In 2015, Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner was presented with the Arthur Ashe courage award. The award is for athletes who exhibit courage in the face of adversity. A unanimous standing ovation from a roomful of wealthy, successful actors, media figures, and pro athletes tends to undercut any narrative of oppression and persecution. In fact, anyone in that audience not in a wheelchair who remained seated risked immediate career-threatening blowback in social media. It would have taken far more courage not to celebrate the award that to be its recipient, a situation that bears resemblance to the expected audience response to speeches by Fidel Castro (he/him) or Saddam Hussein (he/him).
I bear no animus towards Jenner. I watched and admired Jenner’s performance from a very respectable 10th place in the decathlon in the 1972 Olympics to the especially electrifying gold medal performance in 1976 back in an era when Soviet bloc countries seemed to have the edge in a lot of track and field events.
I admit to being baffled by Jenner’s current journey or whatever you call it, with more pity than judgment.
Something is deeply out of whack in our social contract. As Americans, we are strongly inclined to grant each other the widest possible zone of personal autonomy. If you are an adult who wants to get some unfortunate tattoos and join a goofy cult, it is not my place to stop you, and certainly not government’s role. However, you do not have the right to mandate my approval of your choices.
The left has successfully destroyed any power to formally or informally enforce traditional, conventional values and replaced that state of affairs with a far more pervasively, broadly enforced, woke value system that is being applied in every corner of our lives and thoughts.
The right to withhold applause needs to be re-established and fiercely defended. It is precisely where mutual respect resides in a pluralistic society.
Published in General
?? People had to say they were straight, even when they weren’t.
You’re claiming that people didn’t have to affirm heterosexuality in the past the way they have to affirm wokeness today in order to avoid social opprobrium. Have I understood you correctly?
But having to pretend you’re straight is de facto being forced to affirm heterosexuality. See my point?
Two sides of the same coin. They were damned if they did (by a Conservative state govt no less) and damned if they didn’t. It all seems to hinge on freedom of expression (including not expressing). And it shows that it isn’t just the Left that punishes speech.
Oh me neither, you got me.
But you’re saying that this actually is what remaining silent in these circumstances is. Remaining silent, or openly disagreeing, shouldn’t be punished – I agree with that. But I think that should have been the case for Disney as well.
We can’t control how other people perceive our staying silent. And the issue seems to be that they act in response to our beliefs (presumed or stated) rather than our actions.
The OP was about people in a room applauding Jenner. Sincere? Insincere? We can’t tell without omniscience. But assuming insincere, I see people going along to get along – and that isn’t new.
Consider another sacred cow: support for Israel. How much of it was sincere, how much insincere? Again, we can’t tell without omniscience, but it’s easy to say which was the more comfortable position to take. And how not taking it had consequences.
Today it seems that we are supposed to clap for everything and everyone. It has even affected many churches. (Maybe more about that another time.) Another big thing is the standing ovation. Often we are not only supposed to clap but stand as well. That used to be done rarely and with good cause.
My wife and I were at a concert, the classical orchestra kind. They were from Ukraine and they were mostly good. But they did a patriotic American song very poorly. We did not participate in the standing ovation. We did not think that they deserved it. It was a purely emotional reaction to the patriotic song. We were rebuked as “unpatriotic” by the annoying lady behind us. We are actually quite patriotic, but it seemed that they had just thrown together something that they only played to please us. It was really quite pathetic. I can appreciate when, for example, the national anthem is song before a ball game. Just don’t have someone out there who cannot sing.
Perhaps you would have stood. That is fine. I should not be considered “lesser” for not having done so.
Just like all the “new age” people who believe in reincarnation think that they were royalty, No one is ever just a simple peasant.
One of my favorite plays/films.
Since I can’t know every individual’s circumstances, I’ll just say that as a general rule if those individuals had no option to remain silent about their sexuality, then I agree with you that this was the same situation. It certainly was not the universal state of affairs. Many gay actors in public light simply avoided discussing the topic of sexuality, in order to hide it. I’m not debating the fairness of that situation. I simply note that they had the ability to do it.
Do public figures in our society still have the ability to hide their personal beliefs in similar circumstances? I argue that they don’t. That may be due to many factors new to our society, like the internet and social media. But, as a societal force, it is unique nonetheless.
The Disney situation gets complicated: they were given special privileges by the state decades ago, then decided to publically attack the state government over a piece of legislation and lost those privileges. The state giveth and the state taketh away. However, they did have the option of silence but chose not to use it.
I’m not so much concerned the response to our actions, but our decision not to speak. I’m not nit picking to score points, it’s a crucial distinction. We must all face consequences for our actions, but the idea that we must face consequences for making no statement is, I still hold, new to our culture.
Heh. We were at a concert last week where everyone gave a standing ovation at the end. Well, after a bit of regular applause, one guy stood, and then others started to stand, and pretty much everyone did after that, . . . except us, although I think we did end up standing by the end because we’d been sitting long enough and we were ready to leave.
I mean, . . . the concert itself was okay. Everyone did a good job. The choral selections were sometimes weird. (And the one that was focused on social justice was ridiculously off-putting for a Christmas concert.) But . . . eh, let’s hold the standing ovations for the really excellent stuff!
I don’t get the whole argument here. It’s very simple, as Bob Hope once put it nearly fifty years ago, “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.”
The joke is that not only can approval and coerced conformity be mandated but participating as well. And of course, silence is violence.
It once was okay to stay out of other people’s business and to have people stay out of yours. But that’s less and less the case these days. And for not participating you can be disciplined, fired, arrested, or, worse, debanked which I think amounts to loss of employment, risk of impoverishment, and even the loss of your home, and threatened with starvation.
Of course, people will stand and applaud a transsexual man being given an award.
When I was a kid we’d say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school. And of course they’d play the national anthem before all the games. As far as I know, these things are still done in most schools and sporting events.
There were always a couple of kids who refused to say the pledge for religious reasons. I think that took a lot of nerve, and I’m sure it was uncomfortable for them – id’d them right away as a little odd. I admit wondering what their deal was, but I never said anything to them about it. I’m sure other kids were less deferential at times.
As an adult, I’m not a huge fan of doing the pledge. It does seem a little idolatrous, to be honest.
And of course the more recent flap about athletes refusing to stand for the national anthem is also a similar circumstance. That was a refusal to participate in a public affirmation, and those athletes faced a huge backlash for that.
I got the impression that athletes kneeling before the flag was an active form of affirmation of a political point of view.
I think you’re right about that. But I think all of these refusals to go along with a crowd in its public affirmation or celebration are attempts to make a counter-statement of some kind.
You might be saying (wrong as you would be), “I think this nation is inherently racist and as a result young black men are frequently murdered by the police. And so I refuse to celebrate it.” And that’s a political statement.
Ot you might be saying “I think transgenderism is an unhealthy condition for a person to be in, something to be treated, not celebrated, and so I won’t applaud this person for encouraging others to persist in this unhealthy course of action.” And that, too, these days is a political statement.
We can lament the fact that a political statement can draw criticism, but that’s just the way it is.
As for me and the pledge when I was a kid, my problem with it was more practical. Though I always said it, I would think, “For the love of God, we just did this yesterday. And the day before that. What do they think happened in the last 24 hours? I’m a 3rd Grader in rural Kentucky. I went home and watched the Dukes of Hazzard. I promise, the villainy of Boss Hogg and Roscoe P. Coletrain has not turned me against my country.”
True, however when the whole team is doing it, it becomes an active form of protest when one doesn’t. And probably puts a huge target on you.
I never understood the “kneeling” part anyway. I could see turning your back to the flag. But kneeling suggests obeisance. Honor. Worship.
Kneeling is like standing up. Sitting on the bench is passive, but kneeling is a positive statement.
It’s also a position of begging.
One may require more energy than the other, but they’re both positive statements. In either case the person is making a choice about their conduct in order to communicate some message. And for the concerns raised in the OP, it makes no difference. Whether you’re kneeling, or refusing to applaud, you’re causing yourself to conspicuously go against the crowd, and unfortunately subjecting yourself to criticism in either event.
I don’t see a difference with respect to the issue raised in the OP.
*Edit: And, I should point out, in neither case are you doing anything to disrupt the event or interfere with anyone else’s enjoyment of it.
Making a political statement during an apolitical event is disrupting and interfering with others’ enjoyment of it.
I did not appreciate the hymn to social justice in the middle of the Christmas concert I attended last week. That was entirely inappropriate and detracted from the rest of the event.
Of course, in the 2020s, everything is politicized, but it should not be this way. We need events that are free from political messaging. Save your posturing for a more appropriate venue.
Do you think that the highlighted maxim is a good idea?
Is it wisdom, or discretion, or cowardice? Are we to never point out any problem?
This part made me think, OB.
Do I bear animus towards Jenner? Should I? Maybe it depends on what “animus” means.
I have strongly negative feelings towards Jenner. I think that he is a perverted freak. I might have some sympathy with is alleged problem if he dealt with it privately. He has become a crusader for the madness — or malevolence – of the bizarre trans phenomenon.
I have a feeling that the modern tendency toward non-judgmentalism, even tolerance, is precisely the thing that has allowed our society to degenerate into Sodom and Gomorrah.
Is speaking an action?
What I’m getting from you is that it’s okay for people to respond to expressed belief, but not okay for them to respond to unexpressed belief.
It’s a slippery slope. They’re both about responding to perceived belief rather than actions (as usually understood). If you accept one then you’re half way to accepting the other.
People legitimately respond to other people doing things, or not doing things.
Responding to perceived beliefs seems different.
That seems the core of it, rather than having people respect silence as definitive (which is like asking people not to think).
You tried to raise the tone, I’m impressed!
When guys in my presence would talk like that, I never felt a need to partake with my own comments. I could notice, evaluate, and appreciate such things without their help, and figured they could without mine. There was never any problem about it.
Maybe I wasn’t doing my part to do maintenance work on the gender roles that had been constructed over so many generations, but I doubt it.
Maybe you were never suspect?
Everybody doesn’t have to work as an enforcer, it just takes a critical mass.
Or…..are we saying conservatives were always fine with gay people, so long as they stayed in the closet? Live and let live, mind your own business, never mind the antisodomy laws that were applied selectively, etc. Which I think is a bit of a conservative fantasy, tbh.
I don’t know if we are saying that, but I am not.
Conservatives who supported Bush The Younger should think back to the days after Nine Eleven, when suddenly “you are with us or agin us.” Which ended up meaning you support the war against the people of Iraq, because of Ooga Booga Boogie Man Hussein, or else you are a cowardly pro-destruction of the USA domestic terrorist.
Those of us who foresaw that the “limited war” that was to result from Shock and Awe might turn into a massive de-stabilization of the nation whose people were much more Western-like in attitudes than the Saudi Arabians were thus were warned by that president to shut up. (Saudi Arabians were after all the ones who were the identified hijackers, not any Iraqis.)
I think it’s a good rule of thumb for young children to follow. They are not mature enough to discern when you should make a stand on principle and in what way. It’s not a philosophically sound premise, but has its purpose. In any case, I only brought up the phrase in order to contrast the general principles of modern society and the one in which I was raised.
I think we’re getting off topic. I’m arguing that forcing people to break their silence on personal beliefs is a new phenomenon in American Society. Whether or not it is OK for people to people to respond to unexpressed belief is a deeper issue and discussion would likely be very philosophical in nature.
My personal belief on the matter is that we have the right to keep our personal beliefs private. A society which violates that right is forcing you to choose between betraying your conscience or suffering consequences. These are the methods of Pagan Rome, Soviet Russia, and Maoist China. It is very concerning to me that I should see this trend gaining public approval in my time. The effect of social media may have been a large factor.
Let me just say that I generally agree that the right to speak (or refrain from speaking) is not the same as the right to be immune from the consequences. Indeed, we think truth-tellers are courageous precisely because they accept those consequences.
I also tend to agree also that anyone who did not think that a wealthy white male who “transitions” amid widespread and vociferous approbation is exactly a profile in courage probably wouldn’t go to the awards ceremony.
And I would agree with them. Jenner ought to reject awards for heroism, especially in a time when an Iranian soccer player who maintains silence during his national anthem to support the genuinely oppressed women of his homeland faces real consequences.
Still, your example is telling, Zafar: The behavior of adolescents toward peers isn’t really equivalent to adults doing their aggressive best to ruin—socially, financially—anyone who disagrees with a proposition that would’ve seemed completely ludicrous a mere decade or so ago. E.g. “A trans-man is a woman, and as much a woman as any other woman if not more so.”
And frankly, Zafar, I’m perplexed that “progressives” don’t seem to see that the people who are being more or less forced to sacrifice in the name of this Trans-Worship are…ta-dah! Women.
Anecdote: In my denomination, considerable angst has always been expressed at the demographic realities of progressive post-Christian religion, namely that in spite of its earnest inclusivity (anti-racism, semi-socialist natterings about World Community, etc.) it seems to attract and retain white, middle to upper-middle class, well-educated people…and no one else. As with other Protestant mainline denominations, for a long time the clergy was virtually all-male. That began to change a few decades ago, and now the majority of seminary students are female. And yet…and yet…men (mostly of the loathed White Male variety) seemed nonetheless to be more likely to land ministry jobs, especially the plum ones.
For instance, in one church with which I am intimately acquainted, two (white, male) ministers served about a decade each. Then a female interim minister was in place during the search process (about a year) at the conclusion of which, out of many candidates was chosen …guess? Another white male!
Except that this white male had discovered, fortuitously, upon the dissolution of his marriage that he is actually non-binary. A quick change of the pro-nouns and…guess what? They now count as a diverse and “courageous” hire because, of course, it is a lot more interesting and brave to be a (white, heterosexual, middle-aged) man with they/them pronouns than to be a mere woman.
Same principle allows Caitlyn Jenner to be Woman of the Year, and that UPenn male swimmer to be nominated as female athlete of the year, and some creepy little dude who has been a “girl” for less than a year to be invited to the White House to speak to the President on behalf of…women?
And if you object to this, on the grounds that being a woman is an actual thing, with burdens and problems and vulnerabilities peculiar to that biological condition…?!
Seems to come from the same impulse. I think we all carry the potential within us.
Of course we do. But still—it’s difficult to see why the behavior of teenaged boys should be taken as indicative of a more general, Heartbreakingly Unjust Treatment of the Unusual.
And I don’t quite see why it’s an improvement to train teenagers that the way to avoid Heartbreakingly Unjust Treatment is to declare yourself NonBinary or GenderFluid or whatever. And then gang up on the kid who still (oh, the humanity!) believes that biological sex trumps “feelings.” Let alone the kid who thinks that’s the way God made ’em.
It is also a very bad idea to train a child to believe that a mortal injury will result from any failure of her peers to wholeheartedly embrace and celebrate her variance from typical (or stereotypical) gender roles, however mild or temporary these may be. As Jonathan Haidt has written, we are training children into very bad mental habits of the kind that will make them less resilient and even more susceptible to serious mental disorders. That is, setting innocent children up for lots and lots of pointless unhappiness.
Two iterations of the impulse?
Its the same impulse.