And speaking of overreactions, I’ve hear and read people accusing vuvuzela-haters of racism! Like this from the popular sports site, Deadspin

“I wouldn’t say that opposition to the vuvuzela is racist, since complaints are mostly color blind, but it definitely smacks of the condescending imperialism that infects so much of our talk about the problem with Africa.”

Amazing! One may not object to ANYTHING African — even an inane aesthetic complaint about the accompaniment at football matches — without it being construed as “imperialism.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287050/Teenage-gang-members-plead-guilty-killing-retired-care-worker-walked-home-mosque.html

The end of civilization, no, of course not, but read the text from the newspaper at the foot of the article. There are tens of thousands of these ‘kids’ in London now.

Western cities are being destroyed bit by bit.

BTW: I am glad American’s do not like soccer much. It shows that the Hispanic influence has been exaggerated once more.

Sounds like a Rolling Stone’s concert I attended in ’65, I never heard a word.

I am at a loss as to what you mean when you write of my sweeping generalizations. [Re-read your post.] I clearly do not believe that the black South African soccer fans are actual Morlocks who intend to consume us alive. Nor do I think the last sound in the universe will a “great big annihilating hum”. At least not literally. I am sorry to say that the only hysteria I intended to provoke was hysterical laughter. I can see I have failed miserably in your case. [My reader primed me for what he believed was serious comment. This could have colored my reaction. Again, it was a courtesy to a reader; not an interest in a soccer comment that prompted the response.]

You also did not respond to the second leg of my argument, such as it was, which was the pusillanimous refusal to ban the vuvuzela by those with the power to do so. [As did you omit from your “comedy” a comment about European soccer mayhem. Your “comedy” doesn’t hold if you don’t address that specter. I would agree with you on the need for strict rules.]

I admit to being puzzled by your failing to see the humour, or even the point, of a comment.

Jamie, I am aware that Ilana Mercer is now an American, and that Americans don’t give a hoot about soccer. If you read my comment, which was addressed to Lawrence Auster and his readers, not Ilana Mercer, I asked if he could overcome his antipathy, if he had any feelings at all about the game, and watch a game himself to verify my description of the mindless din.

I would join T-Rex in indicating my interest in Ilana Mercer’s reaction to the din, and perhaps even her view of the reasons for the refusal of authorities to do anything about it, except that I am not interested. I apologize as well, because I am not going to read several essays just to get Ilana Mercer’s complete description of every one of the “crucial in-between” steps that lead from “horn-blowing to civilizational demise”. [My response followed the sweep of your “comedy.” The real issues over there worry me more.] My attention span has been destroyed by the vuvuzela-blasts, and besides, I need to have some breakfast. I am even sorrier to say that I will continue to watch the soccer, since I do give a hoot about the game. Despite the horn-blowing.

[Thanks for the clarification; snideness was unnecessary. As endangered species, we can try and get along.]

reasoning from fact and first principles, and not from symbolism

-that’s a good summation of the Western philosophical attitude; but this mode of thinking, founded on the banishment of religious or “symbolic” thinking, has burned itself out because it has shown us that we can’t get far in understanding our choice of first principles absent thinking about the shared symbolism on which they depend. All human thinking begins with signs or symbols, including all forms of reason. Our principles are the ways we have worked out the meaning of shared events and the exchange of symbols that center events. Facts are also created in the course of events, constructed in the exchange of signs or symbols.

You address the hysterics of Auster’s one reader by recognizing that his is a form of “reason” dependent on symbolism, or shared religion. But in invoking your religion of fairness and reason you too are invoking the symbolism of a liberal religion and its principles reflecting its founding events/symbols. It might be a good religion but the question can only be thought by asking if it is still up to the task of assimilating new events producing new symbols we have to somehow accomodate and/or find a superior reason up to the task.

I’m still curious what you really think of this horn-blowing din.

There is no atmosphere at the games. I watch on tv with the sound off. What happened to the chanting and singing?

Ilana is an American now. You know Americans don’t give a rip about soccer.