My brother read my blog. He told me subsequently that I should start a new blog for everything I write that is serious to distance it from what I have on this blog that is quite frankly unequivocally insulting. He thinks that by confusing the two styles I am significantly undermining my objective of actually promoting awareness and concern of an essentially valid and serious issue. I have little doubt that absolutely every sane and reasonable person will think that he is absolutely right. I certainly understand his concern and I am even tempted to agree with him myself. But I don’t.
I have no desire, and in fact believe I would have no capability, to become a politician. I do see a similarity between politics and blogging when it comes to serious matters and I think I can learn a great deal from politicians that will help me in what it is I am trying to do. After all, politicians are often embroiled in controversy. They are supported by some, attacked by others and they must play a constant game of maintaining boundaries between different issues, their personal life and feelings, and the passions of the mob. Indeed, there must be much I can learn.
But should I emulate?
I am not a politician and I am not at the whim of their self imposed constraints. They pretend to be what they are not and we, the mob, simultaneously demand it and yet enthusiastically attack them when they turn out to be real people after all. It doesn’t actually matter if I offend someone. I am not looking for their vote. Neither is it in my interests to sanitise my comments to pander to the morality of those that may discover them. Why should I pretend that I am satisfied to say that I disapprove of Islam, or any other religion or opinion, when I am perfectly free to use the word "fuck"? Perhaps to maintain a level of mature debate?
But by whose definition of maturity are these constraints derived? What validity is there in imposing essentially irrelevant constraint? Does such constraint make a valid assertion more valid or an invalid assertion less valid? I fail to see a connection in the facts of the matter and instead I suggest that the connection is purely a prejudice in the mind of the reader who expects politics whenever anything serious is discussed. Politics, and politicians, are an expression of the unrealistic and irrational desire to create a reality of discussion and opinion that clearly doesn’t actually exist. Why else do we take such interest in exposing the contradiction between our political expectations and the actual lives of our politicians?
I believe that Islam, Christianity and in fact all religions, ideologies and ideas are not only open to insult and ridicule but in fact require it. The line that is drawn between acceptable criticism and unacceptable insult is so arbitrary as to be utterly meaningless. It is also a line that historically has been drawn by those with the most interest in protecting their otherwise vulnerable ideas.
There is a name for this line when it comes to religion. It is called blasphemy. Those that have, according to the opinion of others, crossed that line have traditionally paid an extremely high price. Often, they have and continue to pay with their lives.
"Behead those that insult Islam"
This is the statement of intent of an individual who has a very strong idea about where the line is drawn. It is a statement from someone that demands that absolutely everybody agree with him and that if they don’t then they should be murdered. By itself such a statement requires a new word to describe it. It is not just bigotry. It is bigotry with a genocidal lust. It is an insult beyond comparison to those that simply disagree. Why should I let this hypocrite draw my line for me? Why should I even acknowledge his line and try to tiptoe around it the best I can? I am not a politician after all. I have no interest in attempting to appear perfect and I am certainly not seeking this man’s vote.
But isn’t it just invalid to fling an insult when I could have voiced my disagreement with less offensive words? Of course not. The offence is not in the word I choose but in the opinion I express. The offence is not the language – it is the opposition. It is the fact that I oppose this mans world view. I oppose his beliefs. And if he wants to cut my head off for disagreeing with him then I see no reason to censor my opposition by restricting it to words my mother would be pleased for me to use. Fuck him. Is it not clear from those two words that I will not submit to politicking with this mans madness regardless of his threats?
Fuck is an extremely useful word within the English language. It has so many uses and meanings that it’s quite possibly the most versatile word that we have so far coined. And in each of those uses there is an intensity of expression. It is as though we can condense an entire diatribe into one singular word.
Is there anybody that doesn’t know what I mean when I say that? Do I mean it also to simultaneously convey all of my reasoning? Certainly not. But it certainly does convey my opposition and its strength. It clearly states that I am opposed and it does it in a way that cannot be side stepped, re-politicked or down played. It is a very committed statement; both forcefully clear and economically concise. And further more, it demonstrates what fanatical (scripturally literalist) Muslims need to know. The attempt to clamp freedom of speech will be resisted. The requirement that all others agree and adopt the same beliefs will be denied. There are those that have absolutely no respect, none at all, for how seriously you take the myths of your sky faerie and who object to being required to pretend they respect it at all.
I am one of those people. I do not respect religious faith at all. I will not pretend to respect faith any more than I would pretend to respect the intentions of someone who wants to rape my daughter (or anybodies daughter for that matter).
If it is labelled as hate speech then so be it. I call it free speech and the day when it is accepted as such can only come faster if more people stop pretending to be the fantasy ideal of a politician and start speaking openly and frankly about what they consider important. In other words, I think it benefits all of us if extreme line drawers get used to having their lines extremely crossed.
So I will not separate serious from insulting. The difference is entirely arbitrary and solely in the mind of the reader. I am not writing to please or offend. I am writing what I think and what I feel.
Fuck Islam. Fuck Christianity. Fuck Judaism, Fuck Hinduism - the list goes on and on.
Fuck Communism. Fuck racism. Fuck sexism – on and on and on.
The rest of this blog will cover some of the reasons why I choose one of the English languages most versatile words as a summary for everything I have learned. But "fuck" will stay and if you don’t like it or can’t accept that serious issues can be expressed with what is so irrationally categorized "foul language", then I hope I make myself clear when I invite you to fuck off.
Or should I translate that into language that means the same but conforms to your prejudice against certain words?
If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.