So, one piece of surprisingly pleasant news in these dark times. Nike, the Walmart/Monsanto of shoes, picked Colin Kaepernick, the black player who was sidelined for protesting police brutality in the NFL, for their new ad campaign. I was quite surprised that a corporate giant took such a progressive position on this issue. As it turns out, they also have campaigns featuring a hijabi and a transgender athlete.
But, lest we think the world is a better place, it emerged that the New Yorker magazine had invited Steve Bannon, Trump's one-time brains trust, to a one of their high-profile gabfests. The invitation was swiftly rescinded following the inevitable outcry. The New Yorker is elitist but as sophisticated as they come. It has some brilliant writers who take extremely progressive positions. So, why invite Bannon? Maybe the editor, David Remnick, thought he could engage Bannon in a battle of wits and win. In India, I'm sure a number of guests go on to Arnab Goswami's show thinking they can outargue him because they are obviously smarter than him. Then, they get clobbered to death because they are toothless villains in a movie starring Arnab, who carries out the "debate" on his own terms. Also, I suspect his microphone is set to a higher volume than his guests so he can just outshout them when they are getting the better of him. Many a smart man (and its always men) have felt the urge to defeat bigotted fascists in a battle of the wits and become the shining-armoured knights of the progressive world. Most of them are smart enough to realize that by giving fascists a platform, they are legitimizing their views. They are reducing fundamental differences about how they see the world to intellectual disagreements. So why do they do it, despite being somewhat aware of the damage they are causing? Hubris is the only plausible answer I can think of.
But, lest we think the world is a better place, it emerged that the New Yorker magazine had invited Steve Bannon, Trump's one-time brains trust, to a one of their high-profile gabfests. The invitation was swiftly rescinded following the inevitable outcry. The New Yorker is elitist but as sophisticated as they come. It has some brilliant writers who take extremely progressive positions. So, why invite Bannon? Maybe the editor, David Remnick, thought he could engage Bannon in a battle of wits and win. In India, I'm sure a number of guests go on to Arnab Goswami's show thinking they can outargue him because they are obviously smarter than him. Then, they get clobbered to death because they are toothless villains in a movie starring Arnab, who carries out the "debate" on his own terms. Also, I suspect his microphone is set to a higher volume than his guests so he can just outshout them when they are getting the better of him. Many a smart man (and its always men) have felt the urge to defeat bigotted fascists in a battle of the wits and become the shining-armoured knights of the progressive world. Most of them are smart enough to realize that by giving fascists a platform, they are legitimizing their views. They are reducing fundamental differences about how they see the world to intellectual disagreements. So why do they do it, despite being somewhat aware of the damage they are causing? Hubris is the only plausible answer I can think of.
No comments:
Post a Comment