The Morally Righteous and the Perpetually Offended

An article appeared in the Irish independent yesterday.

I don't remember signing up for an unwanted mammy… did you?

It's not just recommended reading; it should be compulsory reading as it sums up a lot of what's rotten about the way society is heading.

Dick Puddlecote loudly sings its praises and Frank Davis rows in as well.

The article expresses basically what I have been saying for a long time [only better written] about the creeping prohibition that is the hallmark of the last couple of decades, and longer.  Like the blowing sands of a desert, it creeps inexorably forward  onto good  arable land and rendering it bland and unproductive.  They don't approve, so it must be banned or regulated.  It makes people happy so it must go.  It's unhealthy so it must be illegal.

There was a competition somewhere that Herself mentioned – something about writing an article on what we think would make our lives better.  My response was to be treated like an adult, and that I couldn't spin six words into six hundred and we forgot about it [until now].

That's only half the story though.  Of course I want to be treated with the respect and trust that my age would imply.  I am not an infant who has to be told what's good for me and what's bad for me – I know or don't care, and everyone else can mind their own fucking business.  But there is another aspect to this creeping prohibition and that is the willingness of the sheeple to all bleat Nanny's mantra. 

The Morally Righteous are to be found in the comments under the article.  They aren't the Nanny State but they cheer it on, oblivious to the fact that it's none of their fucking business and that sooner or later they will find themselves under Nanny's jackboot.

HelenofTroy: A total ban on cigarettes cannot come soon enough. Its a worthless occupation.

kanokpan58@yahoo.com: Do you smoke Ian ?? I don't and hope the "Ban" happens soon !!

So why does HelenofTroy want a total ban?  Is she forced to share a small room with twenty smokers?  Do smokers constantly stub their butts out in her eyes?  No.  She disapproves and therefore it should be totally banned.  How many other worthless occupations are there?  Does HelenofTroy have a Farcebook account?  Does she use Twitter?  I bet she likes to lie out in the sun on a Summer's day, yet they are all "worthless occupations" so does she want them banned as well?  No, of course not, for she is Morally Superior and therefore has the right to decide what's worthless and what isn't.

Similarly kanokpan58@yahoo.com doesn't smoke, and just because he/she doesn't, all smoking must be banned.

These people are idiots.  They lap up the verbal diarrhea from the Nanny State and think this gives them the moral high ground.  They are no different from the Perpetually Offended.  They don't like something so it must be banned.  They have some idea that they are morally superior and therefore should have the right to boss and sneer at others.  We must live by their rules, and if we don't, they scream hysterically and complain that Something Must Be Done.

I have no time for The Nanny State, and treat both the Morally Righteous and The Perpetually Offended with the utmost contempt.  Roll on the revolution – I have my piano wire at the ready.

I must ask Herself about that competition.

Maybe I'll enter after all.

It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr

Comments

The Morally Righteous and the Perpetually Offended — 10 Comments

  1. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that both of the commenters you cite seem to have completely overlooked the most pertinent part of this whole article, i.e:   “Let me state that this is not about smoking. It was never about smoking. Since the smoking ban all those years ago, both sides of the debate have made the mistake of assuming it was only about cigarettes.  In fact, it has always been about so much more than that.”  Thus illustrating precisely the point that the author was trying to make. 

     

    It happens so often in comments under these types of articles that I’ve started to believe that there is actually a basic need in many people to feel that somehow, even if only in just one small area, they are doing better than at least some other people.  The War on Smoking, with all its accompanying State-sponsored encouragement and propaganda, it seems, fulfills this need in quite a lot of people, and the enthusiasm with which they have grasped (and continue to cling) onto it – even to the extent of missing the entire point of an article, simply because it threatens, albeit very vaguely, to stray away from the hitherto resolutely anti-smoking mantra adhered to by the press – says more, I think, about their general level of self-esteem and their ability to feel important and worthwhile in their lives than it does about their dislike of tobacco smoke.

     

    It kind of answers the question as to why the public did not, in their droves “stop them at the gates,” as the author suggests they should have done.  The opportunity to fulfill this driving need in their lives to identify someone – anyone – else that they could “feel better than,” was so strong that even the possibility that anti-smoking was indeed just a precedent-setting “Trojan horse” was not sufficient for them to resist the temptation.  And it still isn’t.  Of course these people don’t want their sunbathing or their evening glass of wine or their box of chocolates persecuted, criticised, taxed and regulated almost to non-existence but, just like the parent whose offspring is accused of bullying other children cannot or will not see that their son or daughter simply isn’t the lovely, friendly, charming child they so want them to be, these people would rather simply close their eyes, cross their fingers and hope for the best regarding their own preferred vices in order to avoid the painful process of admitting that this one precious area in which they can feel “better than” someone else is nothing more than pure self-deception.

    • I couldn't agree more.  The idea that a section of society was to be "denormalised" and put-upon gave the other section a feeling of superiority which so many crave.  Now they could join up with the big bully in the playground and watch with glee while the picked upon could be picked upon.  It gives them a new status and they relish it.

      Look at how many people now talk about smoking being "disgusting" and "smelly" and a "filthy addiction".  Fifty years ago no one would have dreamt of complaining about other people's smoking habits, yet now suddenly they are crawling out of the sewers and the place is crawling with them.  Already the unthinkable is happening and people are starting to openly turn on those they consider obese.  Soon we'll have tutting and snide cracks at the overweight on the streets – yet more empowerment of the feeble minded and insecure.

      There is probably some kind of hope that "because we sided with you over smoking we know you'll never turn on us".  The sheeple don't get it, but that article does!

  2. See? That's what I meant in a comment to one of your earlier blogs when I said that the narcissism of the snowflake generation stems from the narcissism of their elders – with the difference that somehow in today's world the narcissistic righteous more than ever dare to boldly come into the open, emboldened by the morale high grounders who made it into politics and all these nice NGOs and "charities" that are lapping up tax money to use it to nanny everyone who's not up in a tree by the count of three.

    Won't go on forever though, I guess – the voices of the great unwashed who are fed up of being nannied are getting louder.

    I hope. 😉

    • I have noticed of late that items criticising the Nanny State are becoming more common.  Here we had a TD openly talking about relaxing the smoking ban, and I have seen a few articles in papers that would in the past have even refused to print a letter of dissension.

      People are beginning to wake up.  They are realising that this isn't about health but about power, control and money.  I think millions of vapers are suddenly waking up to the fact, as there is no better illustration of the fact that Nanny doesn't give a shit about health.

      • Couldn't agree more – vaping was what made me wake up and have a good look. But I guess the majority of vapers will only start waking up when the TPD will make a difference from next year on. They'll be surprised because suddenly they won't be able to buy their liquid only in 10 ml bottles and with no more than 20 mg / ml of nicotine. I'm very curious what will happen then.

  3. It will be a difficult day indeed for many vapers when they finally come to realise that the only way they can protect their vaping habits from the authoritarians is by joining forces with smokers rather than joining forces against them.  Because, all the time they continue to agree with the “reasons” for the smoking ban, and the “reasons” for giving up smoking, and keep quoting the “facts” about the harm of smoking they put themselves in an extremely weak position.  Many vapers, it seems, have yet to grasp the fact that to every objection they make, no matter how strong or how accurate or how truthful, the counter-argument: “Well, you would say that, wouldn’t you – you’re a vaper!” is a much stronger one that it would seem on the surface in terms of convincing those members of the public who neither vape nor smoke (who currently form the majority of the population) that banning, regulating, restricting or taxing e-cigarettes and e-cigarette accoutrements is a good idea, and that the views of vapers are nothing more than those of a biased group and so should not be taken seriously.  And for the health zealots who are keen to demonise vaping in the same way as they have smoking, they even have the little additional barb for vapers (which, of course, they didn’t have for smokers) that they can add for emphasis, i.e.: “Well, you agreed with it when we suggested it for smokers, for all the reasons that we suggested it for smokers – so how come all of a sudden you don’t agree with it now?”  The implication of hypocrisy or any kind of personal NIMBY-ism is a far more powerful persuader than it should be, but powerful indeed it is.  Yet so many vapers just can’t see this, despite having often been on the receiving end of just such rebuttals whilst they were still smokers.  It’ll hurt, that’s for sure – albeit mainly just vapers’ pride (no-one, after all, likes to have to admit that they’ve been duped or made a mistake, do they?) – but if it doesn’t happen one day, and one day soon, vaping looks well set to go precisely the same way as smoking has done.  And it won’t take several decades, this time. Public Health has cut its teeth on smoking – their next target will be much more quickly and efficiently dealt with!

    • I think there was a widespread thought amongst vapers that "we have given up those evil, stinky, dangerous cigarettes and therefore Tobacco Control will be on our side".  They cannot fathom why TC have turned against them.  They persistently cry that they are "saving a billion lives" [which is a load of bollox] and advertising their products as a means to get away from the Foul Weed in a desperate and vain attempt to pander to TC [We are on your side!], and are only now beginning to realise that TC aren't interested in them or even in their health.

      So, vapers – welcome to the smokers corner!  Like it or not, you are joining us as second class citizens, along with the drinkers, the overweight and all the other non-approved sectors of society.

  4. I have another aspect to add to the conversation. Over the years I have noticed a fall-off in people who are self-contained and mentally independent. It coincides with another trend and that is the avoidance of true accountability and responsibility for one's actions. This weakness spawned the blame game and the culture of victimhood. With smoking, we were invited to think it is the addiction that is at fault so the smoker is the victim of big tobacco. The number of weak-willed spineless individuals who've embraced that bullshit is surprising. You see, they need to believe it to free themselves from responsibility.

    But independence springs from free-will and accepting the upsides and downsides of your choices as they happen. "You make your bed and you lie on it." My theory though is that most people today are scared shitless of being free and much prefer Nanny to instruct them how to live. It removes the responsibility of choosing anything for themselves so they are happy for Nanny do that for them, knowing they cannot be blamed for the resultant choices. As Germans might say, "They were only obeying orders."

    So while you, I and your contributors desire the freedom to make our own choices, a sizable and vocal grouping don't want freedom for themselves and also they don't want us to be free because, "Misery loves company."

    • Bravo!  I agree with everything you've said in that post.  Sad to say its not just the younger generation who have been programmed to do what so-called experts sponsored by goodness knows who tell them to.  A few folk I know of my generation  have the same mentality and do what ever they're told unquestioningly.  They think its hip trying to be like their kids and grandkids.   As Grandad points out they're all living virtual lives on farcebook and the like because absolving themselves of responsibility gives them more freedom to act like robots and automatons.  Long live individuality!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *