IKEA humans

This piece about 'IKEA humans' is well worth a read. I do not agree with all of it. I disagree with some of it. And much of it is about American issues on which I have no ability to judge. But it is interesting and thought-provoking. I have given some excerpts below.


- The persistence of the protean word "liberal" is interesting. It has different meanings in different parts of the English-speaking world, and that complicates the story. But how about this: "It is remarkable that our political conversation has again resolved into a contest of “liberal” and “conservative,” just as in Victorian Britain, with liberalism serving as the preferred philosophy of the professional and managerial elite and the working class effectively disenfranchised." (Are you reminded of Private Willis in Iolanthe?) Is that right? And why might that be?

- "How many Americans have been taught the mythology of To Kill a Mockingbird — that the upper middle class, exemplified by lawyers, bravely defends minorities against the attacks of the inbred lower orders — when in fact the lynch mobs were often led by middle-class professionals?"

- I have been following this rather shocking series about what happens to students in American colleges accused of sexual assault. In a nutshell, it seems that the alleged perpetrators (who are disproportionately black men) have little to no due process protection and are treated harshly, even in cases in which it is apparent that no assault took place (e.g. the 'victim' vigorously asserting that it was all consensual). I'm not sure what to make of this. The IKEA humans piece refers to Roman and Victorian attempts to enforce sexual morality as attempts to justify imperial power, and suggests that the ever-increasing list of taboo words serves a similar purpose in society today. I'm agnostic on that. But I would suggest that we can better understand the phenomenon of sexual assault claims, affirmative consent classes and all the rest of it as a return to more restrictive or Victorian standards of sexual morality. Efforts to enforce stricter sexual morality are usually presented (sincerely presented, I am sure) as being intended to protect women, and the current trend is no exception. 

- On Clinton and Trump. "Endless commentary has grappled with the question of why Americans voted for Trump; very little with the question of why slightly more of them voted for Hillary Clinton. ... It is widely acknowledged that Clinton is “divisive” — yet ... people across the political spectrum in fact see the same Hillary Clinton. In other words, the same history and personality that disgust some observers attract others; her strongest supporters embraced her not despite her more unsavory qualities, but because of them. ... Clinton’s criticisms of her opponent were overwhelmingly personal — analyses have shown that a larger portion of her campaign ads were negative attacks devoid of references to policy than in any other modern national campaign. Her attacks and liberals’ vitriolic, personal opposition to Trump (however justified they may be) reflect the fact that their differences with Trump are less substantive than stylistic. In fact, with regard to trade and foreign policy, Trump ran to the left of Clinton."