Always Cursing the Referee
A few years back,
Freddie de Boer called us the “Planet of
Cops”:
“I mean everyone — liberal, conservative, radical and
reactionary. Blogger, activist, pundit, and writer, obviously, but also
teacher, tailor, and candlestick maker. Cops, all of them. Cops everywhere.”
Huh? A few
examples will clarify:
“The self-appointed Twitter police… People
who want to scour test scores to get teachers fired are cops… Conservatives
have always been cops, obviously…”
And this is where
we are currently:
“You search and search for someone Bad
doing Bad Things, finding ways to indict writers and artists and ordinary
people for something, anything.”
And then we have
the inconsistencies in stances. What one side sees as all-too-human
consistencies in their side is seen
as hypocrisy by the other side:
“In real life we’re all guards and
prisoners at the same time. We are all informants on each other. Contemporary
political culture is an autoimmune disorder.”
de Boer wrote all
of that back in 2017. Flash forward to present day and you see a new trend, writes
Alan Jacobs:
“I have come to believe that this is what almost
all of our culture is about now: working the refs (referees). Trying to get the
refs, whoever the refs might be in any given instance, to make calls in our
favor — to rule against our enemies and for us, and therefore justify us before
the whole world.”
Twitter users try
to get other Twitter users banned. Football players dive “hoping that they will
get a penalty called or a yellow card assigned to the opponent”. The UPA
complains to the EC about Modi’s use of the army to gain votes. The NDA asks
for an investigation into Rahul Gandhi’s British citizenship. You get the idea.
As Jacobs writes:
“In each case, it’s an appeal to the refs.
These people are not trying to persuade through reasoned argument or to attract
public opinion to their side through the charm of their personality. They’re
demanding that the designated arbitrators arbitrate in their favor.”
And with great
power comes charges of corruption and bias against the ref. Why did Facebook
ban these users but not those? Why is there fake news on WhatsApp? Why does the
CBI only raid the opposition leaders?
And so we blame
the ref. Whenever Kejriwal loses, EVM’s are hacked:
“If anything that I want to go my way
doesn’t go my way, it’s because the referees didn’t make the right call. It’s
never because I made any dumb mistakes, or indeed had any shortcomings of any
kind. Things didn’t go my way because, whether through incompetence or bias,
the refs suck. I would’ve won if it hadn’t been for the stupid
refs.”
Ironically, as
Michael Lewis said in his podcast, the complaints about the
refs have only increased as the NBA (American basketball league) has given them
“unprecedented levels of training, and unprecedented opportunities to review
and correct bad calls”. EVM’s have eliminated booth capturing, but that hasn’t
stopped the continuous sniping that they have been hacked.
All of which is
why Jacobs ends up with something we should all chew on:
“If refs are doing their job better than
ever and simultaneously catching more grief for their errors, that just might
be a result of our expecting more of them than is reasonable…. In society at
large, we do better when we try to solve problems ourselves rather than try to
manipulate the refs into solving them all for us.”
As usual well presented.
ReplyDeleteThe blog ends with, "In society at large, we do better when we try to solve problems ourselves rather than try to manipulate the refs into solving them all for us".
Will things ever work out that way? Can we set aside law enforcers and law referees? Is it possible anywhere any-time? And, going beyond, can one set of beliefs that went into making the law in one way be valid through and through? That means unease and tussle at any time, it looks like. And, the desire to course-correct...
So, what can we do at any moment in time? There can never be any ultimate bunch of laws, right? So, we cam only deal with continuous flux...and do as best as one can within available choices. There is no panacea in real life anyway.
One may call it pessimism and another may call it pragmatism. How does it matter what label!