,
20 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Replying to individual subtweets is problematic and time-consuming so lets address some of the issues and concerns that are being raised re: TF. Since there is a predictable refrain of free speech lets first examine the kind of speech being defended:
Here follows a brief look at the sort of incendiary and proven false material TF routinely disseminates on every medium available to him. It is a 'brief' look because otherwise this would be a 100 tweet thread and I don't want to inflict that on you. thequint.com/news/webqoof/t…
So, yes, a brief list. This makes it clear that these are not accidental slips or mistakes. They, even the 'innocent' ones (like Inzamam) are malicious and willful attempts to malign and marginalise an already vulnerable community. But they're just words, so what difference do
they make? A LOT. These tactics are meant to successfully create an enabling environment for attacks, demonisation, dehumanisation and the subsequent murder (in MANY cases) of the targeted community. Are weapons used in the support of religious fascism. The effects are visible.
If this is Free Speech, then one may as well defend Goebbels. He may not call for murder, but he creates a clear enabling environment for those that do. Want to defend that to the death? You are, except its not your death.
But lets say you want to anyway - whatever floats your boat - so lets now look at the incident in question:
TF was 'heckled and abused', as per a TOI headline. Note that even TOI is claiming he was attacked physically, which even I would not have condoned. He was not. he was
TF was 'heckled and abused', as per a TOI headline. Note that even TOI is claiming he was attacked physically, which even I would not have condoned. He was not. he was
yelled at, and even had a few supporters with him (note the Sindhudesh T-shirt guy taking selfies). Was in no danger. No even an egg or a milkshake thrown at him. If your entire claim to fame is being incendiary, then you will get yelled at. Put up or shut up. Heat. Kitchen.
Cry me a river. And here the Free Speech argument gets tricky...do the ones yelling at him not have free speech? If TF has free speech (and incitement is not free speech IMO), then so do we when calling him out - with words and not fists. Defend one and you must defend the other.
And now for FB. The more respected and prominent a person is, the greater the burden of responsibility. To call a man like TF 'fearless' is to defend his actions, past and present. It is to in fact endorse his actions. Is to defend enabling and supporting violent fascism. And
from a man of honour, a man who has spent his life resisting fascism and an overbearing establishment (as is the argument, shall not contest it), one does not and cannot expect support (and praise) for a man who is the handmaiden of fascism. A TRUE well-wisher will highlight this
not defend it. And many have. Many others have chosen the worst possible hill to die on out of reasons that I cannot comprehend and will never, ever, condone. If FB sb's track record is the issue, then note the above point. If the aim is to let this slide 'on balance', then fine
Just say so. Say that the doctrine of necessity dictates it (I'm okay with that, its one of the only doctrines that apply in the real world) but don't conflate please. Its transparent and easily knocked down. Worse, what you're doing by defending is playing to the exact gallery
that wants to condemn the very concept of liberal thought by willingly making caricatures of yourselves. Please don't make it this easy to dismiss all your past and future stances. END. Apologies for spamming your TL.
