What Is Owed: No More, No Less

 

“…I don’t owe them my approval. What I owe them is what I owe any of you: my complete and utter indifference.”

So I wanted to mention this on Friday before getting into the big American holiday weekend but life just got in the way. But, now that I have a chance, I did want to report that I made it through a whole Pride Month within the confines of a cubicle farm at a major corporate entity that gives every appearance of seamlessly playing along with the game. As per my usual modus operandi, while all was completely voluntary, I did not avoid the posts and videos and various other content pushed our way. While all were framed from a very clear point of view, sometimes completely believable and sometimes questionably slanted, some of the content was truly enlightening. Aside from the extension of an appropriate theme of “acceptance” to also include the expectation of complete “respect” and “support,” as well as an insultingly stupid character in a fictitious video scenario intended to show just how bigoted everyone who doesn’t unreservedly buy into the agenda really is, all of it passed without even getting my blood pressure up.  I’m glad it all makes some people feel better in some way or another. Good for them.

But that is as far as I intend to go. As relayed in the opening quote above, the Liberty for which I stand does not allow others to compel anything beyond “my complete and utter indifference” on such matters. Sure, they are free to ask for more and I am free to give more as I see fit. But to place additional demands on the American Spirit through government to society to employer is the new tyranny intent on crushing that spirit:

…the problem of liberty is no longer the problem of political liberty, of the struggle against a tyrannical regime imposing its arbitrary will on an oppressed populace. … The problem now facing liberty is a new form of tyranny, a “social tyranny” exercised by the populace itself over the individual. – Pages 75-76

It was not my intent but, now that I’m here, I cannot not continue down the Himmelfarb rabbit hole. She understood what too many today have either forgotten or never bothered to learn about the critical nature of  that “liberty of thought”:

As liberty of thought is absolute, so is liberty of speech, which is “inseparable” from liberty of thought. Liberty of speech, moreover, is essential not only for its own sake but for the sake of truth, which requires absolute liberty for the utterance of unpopular and even demonstrably false opinions. Indeed, false or unpopular opinions are so important to truth that they should be encouraged and disseminated by “devil’s advocates” if necessary, for only by the “collision of adverse opinions” can the most certain of truths survive as live truth rather than “dead dogma.” – Page 78

And, taking this thought to its proper conclusion, she provided direction and proper context for pushing back against this growing push for “forced” approvals (i.e. beyond what is properly owed):

Even the qualification regarding harm reinforces the moral neutrality of society, for it is only in the case of harm to others, not for the “good” of others, that society can properly interfere with the freedom of the individual. And harm itself is further qualified by being limited to “direct,” “definite,” ”perceptible” harm… – Page 84

Alas, such insight may be good for friendly discussion purposes but quite useless against the growing forces opposed to such thinking. No doubt the future is not so bright for people like me.

Madam Himmelfarb was also correct in her greater context. But we are not just looking; we are marching rather deliberately into another abyss…and a very fearsome abyss it is. (Yet, isn’t that what Americans do?)

. . .  _ _ _  . . .

For the curious minds out there, I will not fail to attribute the introductory quote above but I think it warrants broader context. Be warned: It is comedy material from the 1990s … do not read further if you know you cannot handle it.

I think so little of the variations in human sexuality that I refuse to treat homosexuals like Fabergé eggs. You’re part of the human collective; you too can be poked fun at; come, join in our reindeer games…

The only people I don’t tease are people who are defective; homosexuals are obviously not broken in any way, shape, or form. But, conversely, on the other end of the scale, I don’t owe them my approval. What I owe them is what I owe any of you: my complete and utter indifference. There is nothing more fascinating to me on the face of the planet earth than my orgasm and nothing less fascinating to me than your orgasm…

I don’t care if you have to strap a duck-billed platypus on your crotch to get off, you go right ahead. Just don’t ask me to borrow my platypus, alright. – A “do-it-yourself” transcription of Dennis Miller, Citizen Arcane (1996), 34:29

[Emphasis added] 

(EXIT CHALLENGE: Skillfully combining Gertrude Himmelfarb and Dennis Miller into the same post is no easy feat. I dare anyone to top that.)

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 33 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment): My comment was snarky.  … I did not explain the substance of my objection in any detail.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment): I do not think that indifference is the proper response in all circumstances.

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment): I do not think that the correct response is indifference.

    At what point of the post did I advocate for “complete and utter indifference” to be the “correct” or “proper in all circumstance” response to such societal pressures on the liberty of thought of the American individual? Between the title and the first line, forms of the word “owe” were used for a reason: specifically to indicate the subject was the maximum obligation or requirement a morally neutral society can demand from a free man on such matters. Nothing in the post indicated that an individual under that same banner of freedom could not (or should not) go above and beyond that which is “owed,” to something that is “proper” or “correct” according to Jerry from Arizona. In fact, I specifically allowed for it when I said:

    Sure, they are free to ask for more and I am free to give more as I see fit.

    But the obligation to members in good standing within that same moral and free society is met completely as soon as I rise to the level of “indifference.” Period.

    But, please, do go on in multi-comment responses arguing against things I did NOT say. It all kind of supports my earlier point. (I do concede that many of the wiser, more respectable members here seem to appreciate, enjoy, or (at least) tolerate this forced contrarianism. I clearly do not. I find it tedious and distracting to have someone so often seemingly misunderstand the point – on purpose(?)given how much one has to squint their eyes to distort the writing just so, it almost has to be at times – and then drone on and on in an argument with that ghost image.  I’m just glad I don’t owe you my approval…)

    • #31
  2. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    I’d weigh in on the discussion as to whether or not indifference is appropriate but …

    … I just don’t care.

    • #32
  3. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Percival (View Comment):

    I’d weigh in on the discussion as to whether or not indifference is appropriate but …

    … I just don’t care.

    I do appreciate someone who “gets it.” Thanks.

    • #33
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.