Yesterday I was savagely torn into... okay, I was mildly
gummed by a toothless class warrior armed with what are commonly, if generally
incorrectly, referred to as memes. Of course memes ain’t what they used to be
but accused as I was of confirmation bias, a condition I freely admit (unlike
those who believe that memetic argument is the thing) I nevertheless had a look
at what they had to offer. The same old tired aphorisms posing as truth; no
good to anybody with an actual engagement with the living world, but useful, I
guess to those whose life view has been shared almost entirely by the
meme-makers guild, whose important works include:
- The sainted Margaret alongside “If they attack you personally it means they have not a single political argument left.” By one who started out questioning your legitimacy, but is singularly unimpressed by ‘creative’ vocabulary and the fact that he had to look up half of your invective.
- The claim that Churchill said “Some people’s idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” By somebody outraged that you dared challenge their views.
- And any number of mangled statistics presented as fact to prove a point nobody cares about, superimposed on an old photograph of somebody nobody remembers.
Memes can be funny – who hasn’t laughed at Batman
slapping Robin? – but they are hardly the definitive way to win an argument. The
way you come out on top of an argument is firstly by not getting into one, secondly
by having impeccable facts at your disposal and the wit to wield them and
thirdly, being able to point and laugh at the ridiculous posturing of the other
side. (It drives them bandy!) Which brings us neatly on to Caroline Lucas who,
having decided to continue public self-harming, has demanded (again) a second
referendum so that those of us who knew exactly what we were voting for last
year can demonstrate that yes, leaving the EU completely, along with all its
institutions, is... exactly what we voted for.
Of course she won’t be happy with the inevitable outcome
of the general election, itself touted as a second referendum, so her proposed
next vote would effectively be a third referendum. It reminds me of when, faced
with a diary clash she had to decide whether to support a rally to lobby for
equal vegan rights for environmentally sensitive gay tigers or attend a routine
vote in the House of Commons.
By the time she made it on to the stand to deliver a
rousing speech at the tiger rally people were already beginning to disperse. “Why
are you so late?” she was asked. She explained that she had to make a choice;
attend parliament and do her duty by her constituents, or be here, fighting for
gay tigers. “I tossed a coin” she explained. “But that couldn’t have taken so
long” protested the inquirer. Caroline replied, “I had to toss it 37 times.”
No comments:
Post a Comment