Madeleine Bunting Doesn’t Get It

Madeleine Bunting bemoans the state of civilisation today:

Trivial personal anecdotes, you might say, with some justification. But what I saw at Edmonton bus station left me enraged. How can we complain about children’s antisocial behaviour when we show such dereliction in developing in them any understanding of social behaviour? Where are the buses, the stewards or bus conductors they need? Why are transport services in poorer areas so under-resourced? Treat people like animals and, chances are, they will end up behaving like them. Every morning, these kids are getting a crash-course in how aggressive self-assertion is your passport in life.

As the first commenter to her silly piece points out; one personal anecdote is hardly evidence of serial decline. And, again, he states the obvious truth; people have always experienced this sort of behaviour getting onto buses and bullying has always been going on.

What I picked up, though was the sly dig at bloggers. See? We are to blame for everything. We are individualists and therefore it is we who are poisoning public life. That’s the trouble with collectivists; they really don’t understand what individualism is. It is not a selfish disregard for others, it is a sense of self-reliance and personal responsibility.

Note, too, Bunting’s contempt for freedom of speech:

Aggression, abuse and contempt are now the normal currency of debate among strangers on blogs. Last week two prominent columnists, David Aaronovitch and Linda Grant, added their bewilderment to the growing chorus of those arguing that public debate on the internet is being strangled at birth by the quantity of personal abuse and bullying.

Really? I can be pretty robust here when discussing the idiocy of politicians, but as Mr E points out today when discussing the recent “administrative shortcomings” our contempt is nothing compared to theirs:

And to those who criticise me for the contempt I evince for those who govern us, I say this; it is as nothing compared to the contempt they display for me – me, you, and everyone else whom they purport to serve.

Any derisive comments we proffer towards the politicians who treat us with contempt; or to the well-paid journalists who trot out their propaganda, I would suggest that it comes with the territory – a fruity response is all too often all we have to express our anger, contempt and sense of betrayal.

Some participants, intoxicated by absurd interpretations of freedom of speech and individual entitlement, suggest people should be able to say whatever happens to pop into their heads, that there should be no space for reflection before speech.

Yes, Madeleine; that is exactly what freedom of speech means. If people fail to think about what they say before saying it, then likely as not, the bollocks they subsequently spew will be full of holes and torn to pieces as such – a bit like the tripe you’ve written here, really. The alternative is to stifle freedom of speech, isn’t it?

Debate has always been gladitorial. It is just that the advent of blogging has eroded the opinion journalist’s ability to present their opinions unchallenged, fait accomplis. Don’t like it, Madeleine? Well, find yourself another profession. If you write twaddle – and you do – then we will be here to let you know that it’s twaddle.