Sympathies to Garron Noone. He can’t have expected when he posted a video last week saying he prefers not to discuss politics on TikTok “because I don’t think it’s f**king useful” that he’d become the pin-up boy of the Conor McGregor fan club.
Noone has charmed the nation with his absurdist clips about all things Irish. But he deactivated his social media accounts in the wake of publishing that immigration-themed video. At the time of writing, it’s unclear why. But let’s hope he is smiling about it now over a nice cup of tea.
There is something ridiculous about posting a video warning about the risk of being “misconstrued” on social media – and then finding supporters of McGregor, whom Noone describes as not a “good person”, claiming the video vindicates the ex-MMA fighter’s stance on immigration.
There is no evidence of a backlash against the video, despite unfounded claims that Noone has been “silenced” for his relatively uncontroversial riff about the danger of people turning “towards more extreme beliefs”.
Garron Noone shows it’s hard to find the words to talk about immigration
Grind schools create an injustice at the heart of Ireland’s education system
Three things we give up when we turn away from Catholicism
The Enlightenment gave rise to a habit of worshipping ‘great men’, but they never had to worry about dying in childbirth
Sure, his claim that “the Government continually does not allow people to express their concerns” is somewhat problematic, but about 75 per cent of what Noone had to say could have come from the Minister for Justice. Noone said “the systems that we have in place are being taken advantage of”. Jim O’Callaghan said last month “there are too many people seeking international protection who are not entitled to it”.
What the brouhaha does show is that we are still struggling to find the right words with which to discuss migration. Using McGregor’s grievances as a starting point is not particularly constructive. So where is a better place to begin?
I suggest – in keeping with the style of the Unthinkable column – going back to the very foundations of our moral judgment. Four particular matters warrant attention:
1. How much favouritism should you show to your own?
The philosopher David Hume pointed out that there’s something unnatural about caring for people whom you don’t know. There is no such thing as “love of mankind as such”, he writes, only love for specific people that you can identify.
A big part of what makes people care for strangers, according to Hume, is the idea that you might need a stranger’s help too. This “generalised reciprocity” allows modern society to function – the idea, as American political scientist Robert Putnam puts it, that “I’ll do this for you now, without expecting anything immediately in return ... confident that down the road you or someone else will return the favour”.
For our society to flourish, we need to show a degree of affection towards strangers somewhere between zero and the degree of love as you’d show a family member.
2. Are we investing enough in social capital?
This year marks the 25th anniversary of Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community – Putnam’s influential book that popularised the term “social capital”. Among its lessons is that diversity is a two-edged sword. It can bring new energy and perspectives to society but also polarisation and distrust.
The US is a highly diverse but also segregated society. Putnam’s core argument was that it will become increasingly divided unless it nurtures two forms of social capital.
The first is bonding capital – this is “exclusive” or inward-looking. Social clubs, church gatherings and drink nights are all examples; they create deep ties between often similarly-minded people. The second is bridging capital – this is “inclusive”. Examples include civil rights activity or outreach work.
At times of uncertainty, it’s tempting to concentrate only on bonding capital. “Social capital is often most easily created in opposition to something or someone else,” Putnam notes. However, we need both types. We need, says Putnam, to “connect with people unlike ourselves”.
3. Should we talk more about kindness than rights?
The language of human rights has come to dominate public discourse despite the fact that many of us don’t use it in moral deliberations. When I have a decision to make – for example, whether to give money to someone begging on the street – my first thought is not to consult some international declaration of duties and entitlements.
Ordinary people make sense of morality through what the Canadian academic Michael Ignatieff calls “ordinary virtues” – things such as “compassion, pity and generosity”. Rights are important – and some day you may need international human rights law to save your skin – but says Ignatieff: “A prudent politician is likely to discover that maintaining public support to assist strangers and refugees is more likely to succeed if the appeal is cast in the language of the gift, rather than the language of rights.”
4. How can we create more meeting points in the real world?
The conclusion to Putnam’s book doesn’t age well: “Let us find ways to ensure that by 2010 Americans will spend less leisure time sitting passively alone in front of glowing screens and more time in active connection with our fellow citizens.” Fifteen years on from that deadline and we’re not just metaphorically “bowling alone” but we’re doing it in virtual alleyways.
Noone has separately proved his own thesis correct: it’s impossible to have a sane political debate on social media, especially in an era of content manipulation by Big Tech.
A great challenge now is to find more opportunities to meet and talk in the real world.
