In the comments to a post on Aaronovitch Watch Michael Ezra suggested that it would be interesting if one of the Aaro watchers could write a guest post for HP – ‘a post which could potentially lead to a lengthier debate about “decents” vs indecents”’ . There didn’t seem to be any takers, so I thought I’d have a go instead.
I added in a comment on the same post that
‘Decents’ and ‘Indecents’ both sometimes exaggerate the evils of the other side, or perhaps judge the other side by its more extreme or aggressive followers/manifestations. I’ve found that on the odd occasion when I’ve been able to have a sustained, detailed and civil internet exchange with someone who seems in a different camp, as it were, to my own, we’ve sometimes realized that the gap between us is narrower than we’d thought …
As I wrote that, I was certainly placing myself in the ‘Decent’ camp. But I’m not sure quite how decent I am really. I liked What’s Left a lot (Decent), supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq (jolly Decent) but have no idea whether I was right or not to do so (borderline Indecent).
I joined Nick Cohen’s pro-Gita Facebook group (Decent), had a short piece on this issue reposted by Counter-Jihad Alliance (perhaps excessively Decent) and yet thought Sunny Hundal made some fair points too (scandalously Indecent).
Obviously there are extremes within both camps, but once you approach the centre the differences between Decents and Indecents are quite hard to pin down, often resting on arguments which are quite delicate and complex because the principles and aspirations which drive (many of) those on both sides are really quite similar.
I’d like to ask Decents what they think sets them apart from Indecents (bearing in mind that Indecents probably weren’t all that keen on Saddam Hussein and would prefer girls to be free to go to school without fear of attack) and Indecents what sets them apart from Decents (noting that most Decents don’t subscribe to Eurabia theories or actively prefer war over peace).
