They Were Seven Facing Three

So after the long wait, we finally see the Tower of Joy event.  The most interesting element of this scene was how much it deviated from A Game of Thrones (Book I of A Song of Ice and Fire).   This is notable, because neither telling of the event can be said to be reliable.  The original is a dream of Ned's, where some things happen "as it was in life," and others are shadowy events from a dimming memory.  The final filmed version is a vision of Bran's, which may be a viewing of the past, a new branching of time where Bran could potentially interact, or some kind of simulacrum that is not completely faithful to the original events.  My notion of the event has been this fan made video from the audio-book which faithfully portrays the description in Ned's dream:

Which is real?  This is one more occurrence which reveals the postmodern zeitgeist that A Song of Ice and Fire originates from, and which is perhaps becoming foregrounded as we finish the filmed series.

S06E03:

 

Fear of [an Intelligent] Planet

This week's uproar about the possible bias in Facebook's posting of trending articles  provokes a response of: so what? Who cares?  The fairness Doctrine was abandoned in 1987 and since then the conservatives have done everything to exploit its demise.  This is clearly demonstrated by Fox News and the conservative monopoly on AM Radio.  There is no responsibility for any media outlet to present opposing views, or give equal time.  Since Facebook is not the only website, there are plenty of alternatives to find.  If one is depending of Facebook for a total information picture, then they are already a lost cause.

The political realm has been dumb-ed down by the proliferation of political BS without substance.  In the world of social media, accuracy, evidence, and logical argumentation have become lost. A case in point, here is one particularly unintelligent meme:

Stupidity warning!

It is a self-refuting attempt at an argument which blatantly fails. First, the Obama emblem is a generalization (in a piece trying to condemn generalizations about conservatives).  As an attempt to point out liberal hypocrisy, it is pre-framed to conclude that the liberal position is wrong.  By reasoning that the Islamic position of bigotry should be condemned rather than apologized for, then any actually (if not imaginary) similar conservative position should be condemned as well (which is not the case on the right).  Conversely,  if conservatives should be allowed to freely hold their views, then any similar Muslim views should be freely allowed (the second part of which is clearly not held by conservatives who want to remove all Muslim legitimacy).

Either bigotry is okay, or it is not.  It if is okay, there is no further point to arguing and the anti-liberal position can be labeled as such.  If it is not okay (and the liberals give Islam an unfair pass) then the Republican position presented is also bigotry. A further problem is the equating of Republicanism to Islamic belief (it would have been better to use "Conservative Christian").  They operate on two very different levels of ideology.  A political position is not like a religious belief, which is far more fundamental, and as transcendentally proposed truth, exists deeper.  It is part of one's being and, as it cannot be changed, constitutes identity.  This is why it is a protected class, (like sexuality), unlike political belief, which is fluid and can be changed over time through thoughtful reassessment (there is no cost in the redefining of this world, as it is not a fundamental truth, but contingent). This is significant here, because how one responds to two different types of bigotry is important, and they should not be equated and responded to in the same way.  Both utterances by the liberal denounce "-phobia," so there is consistency, these denouncements both concern fundamental identity (religion, or orientation)  The liberals do not concern themselves with avoiding Republican-ophobia, because it is a different kind of entity, not existing as an inherent property of an autonomous being.  There is admittedly a difficulty in embracing Islamic ideals while condemning anti-bigotry (although that doesn't apply to all Muslims - again, another generalization), but one can avoid dismissing an entire religion while engaging with the specific internal elements which they find problematic.

The defender can say that the Republican position is not really the same as the Islamic one, and that it is just a liberal construction.  After Cruz praised a country for executing gays, (as well as Trump's statements) this seems problematic, but the better argument would be to show why Republicanism is not bigoted, and the burden of proof shifts to the defender.  But, apparently, it is easier to do drive-by attacks on liberalism than construct a solid and valid argument.

As for the liberal response, it must be remembered that it emanates from an American point of view.  That is we live under the Constitution which promotes freedom of thought.  The first actual conclusion we can draw from the meme is that Islamic thought deserves as much respect and autonomy as the Republican position.  We have freedom of religion and if its okay for the conservative Christian to hold views that may be bigoted, then it must be alright for Muslim's to hold their own views.  This is the main problem that the liberal sees happening, and when Republican candidates and endless social media masses argue that certain religions don't have protected status, there is a real problem that the liberal is challenging.  As citizens under the Constitution, we have a legal system constructed to prevent religious beliefs from overtaking the law.  This is why the liberal does not particularly worry about the Muslim position.  The conservative one, on the other hand, exists as an ideology within the political system, and has an effect on the law, resulting in real life discrimination and persecution.  That is why it is more of a priority to challenge.  What Muslims do in their own countries may be reprehensible, but we are not in a position to change it, it is part of the fabric of their social construction.  But what conservatives do here, trying to impose a theocracy, is an immediate threat.  A conservative America that does what Middle Eastern theocracy do is exactly what is to be avoided.  I don't think there is evidence for liberals apologizing to Muslims for their beliefs, only arguing that they should have the same freedom of religion and thought.  If a Muslim was to try to impose bigoted legislation, as the Republicans actually do,  I fully expect the liberal response would be the same as has been.

Ultimately, a better track to take would be to ask why liberals don't challenge the Islamic bigotry as much as its conservative  counterpart, rather than assume liberals are apologetic.  As argued here, they are two different things (as far as our legal experience here in America)  Substituting Conservative Christian instead of Republican would eliminate some discrepancy, but since Christians (of this sort) do not acknowledge Islam as an equally valid viewpoint, that doesn't really help their case, and as there is a Christian wing of the party, but no Muslim wing (of any party), the Islamic view doesn't factor into legislative concerns.  What is ultimately important is the actual effect that bigoted views have in practicality, rather than the ideological presence they have in thought, and it is the conservative position which exerts practical damage.  It is a free country, hold bigoted views if you want, just don't try to enforce them in society. While this cartoon tries to reveal a superficial conservative position held by liberals, it really reveals a spuerficial understanding of liberalism by conservatives.