Friday, April 15, 2016

Double Standards, Part Two: John Beckett

In part one of this series, I discussed how Rhyd Wildermuth asked for people to give him the benefit of the doubt, when he has made something of a hobby recently in doing exactly the opposite to everyone else.

Today, I take a look at another hypocrite who seems to delight in double standards; John expressing-an-opinion-I-don't-like-is-worse-than-mass-rape Beckett, whose recent article over at Patheos is a transparently pearl-clutching "aren't those folkish Heathens bad, not like us good, non-fascist neopagans" attempt to get Rhyd off his back.

I'm going to hold off on an examination of his claims about folkishness specifically to focus on the absolute hypocrisy of his approach. Right out of the gate, he goes into a description of "a now-illegal real estate practice called steering."

"Steering" is, in essence, a practice by which neighborhoods were kept racially segregated by "steering" non-white home buyers to other neighborhoods.

Now, naturally, this has absolutely nothing to do with folkishness, but what Beckett is trying to do is paint folkish Heathens with the same broad "racist" brush that is associated with the practice of steering. It's completely irrelevant despite his ham-fisted attempt to use it as some sort of analogy, and is nothing less than a blatant example of guilt by association.

Which is especially rich coming from Beckett, who not too long ago wrote a long blog post condemning Rhyd for trying to paint druids like him as part of the New Right through... wait for it...

Guilt by Association.

Let's just take one quote from that article:
"Some of these intersections are tenuous and their inclusion here casts aspersion on beliefs and practices that are meaningful and sacred to some of us."
I've got to say, that could have been a quote from me complaining about what Beckett did to folkish Heathens, using the spurious comparison to racist real estate practices. As folkish Heathens, using ancestry to guide our spiritual choices is "meaningful and sacred" to us, too.

But when it's someone that Beckett disapproves of, that doesn't matter. It's fair game. But when someone else does it to him, well, that shall not stand.

That is the definition of hypocrisy, and I'm quite sure he's so blinded by his own ideology that he can't even see it. If you object to the use of spurious guilt-by-association, then perhaps you shouldn't use it against other people.

There's a lot more wrong with his article, and I'll deal with it all in good time. But this sort of double standard and hypocrisy from those who dare to be my moral judges is simply unacceptable.

4 comments:

  1. You are a disingenuous, dishonest, lying sack of crap. You are a bigot and a fraud. I would admonish you to be ashamed of yourself but it is clear you have no shame.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh FFS, Joe. You are an execrable excuse for a human being. This is an intellectually dishonest revision that only serves to further embarrass yourself and your leadership. It is my hope that one day you get the full measure of your worth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks very much for your thoughtful input. It's always great to see how both sides of a disagreement can come together and work out their differences without recourse to name-calling, focusing on the issues themselves. You're both a credit to your side of the folkish/non-folkish divide.

    ReplyDelete