Ship of Fools: "The Left" cares too much about [insert cause here]

Thread: "The Left" cares too much about [insert cause here] Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020184

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Is there a response to this?

It is an argument I increasingly hear from generally left-leaning people and those on the right.

"What we care about is health, education, jobs, ... Why is all they ever speak about gay marriage and racism?"

And this from (some) people who support same sex marriage and immigration.

I'd say, being Left-ly inclined, they do talk about other things. But others see a focus on, what is to them, peripheral issues.

Do they have a point? How would you respond? I possess a small brain, despite my love of politics, and do not know what to say apart from putting out other ideas raised by our traditonally Left-leaning [somewhat] major party and pointing out equality is rather important. But to them the gays and immigrants get all the attention.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm sorry that they think human rights are a peripheral issue. That says a lot about them, don't you think?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

You may have noticed we're having an election over in the UK. The Labour party has/will have a manifesto premised almost entirely around health, jobs, eduction...

'The Left' online may overlap with Left wing political policy, but it's not its entirety, not by a long chalk.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Definitely, mousethief. What concerns me also is people who support equality are saying it. Maybe I hang around the wrong people.

As DocTor writes they have manifestos covering many areas. But people say the focus is always on gays, or the poor, or refugees: and not them and their needs. I do not see it, but wonder where it comes from. It is hard to get an answer.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

It's pretty simple. People who want to vote for the right, despite knowing the consequences, are trying to deflect blame for their decision onto left wing political parties. It's the sort of self-justification we all engage in when caught doing something we know is wrong but don't want to stop doing.

Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's pretty simple. People who want to vote for the right, despite knowing the consequences, are trying to deflect blame for their decision onto left wing political parties. It's the sort of self-justification we all engage in when caught doing something we know is wrong but don't want to stop doing.

This.

When Labour do have a policy platform based around health, education and jobs, they get accused of being unpatriotic Trotskyites who've deserted the working class. I suppose Tony Blair didn't run that risk as his priorities were "Education, education and education".

I don't know if your acquaintances remember, but it was a Tory-led coalition that legalised gay marriage. David Cameron was very keen on human rights - they are relatively cheap to implement. Lets see where we are on health, education and jobs after five more years of austerity and a cliff-edge Brexit.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

[being left rather than being insistently inclusive, strongly benevolent, compassionate, empathic, friendly, identificatory to, with the right.]

[ 13. May 2017, 10:12: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I am increasingly uncomfortable with the efficacy of argument to influence someone's political position. The proven way to achieve political change in a democracy is to tell people what they want to hear, and then do what you think needs doing.

I am presently experimenting with the use of colors and smells to achieve my desired outcomes at the ballot box. I'm going to spray people with eucalyptus at the polling place and wear bright green.

A similar strategy is to do annoying things to voters as they roll up to vote, wearing a prominent campaign badge put out by the other side.

Serious bit: If someone disagrees with you, just say "Oh, you are so right. You know, I think [insert name of favored candidate] has had some great things to say about those things."

OK, It was going to be a serious bit but then some cynical bastard started typing again.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

"What we care about is health, education, jobs, ... Why is all they ever speak about gay marriage and racism?"

I tell them, as far as gay rights, that it's because this is their moment in history. It is not only a political issue but a consciousness raising time for everyone. Once upon a time, all the left seemed to talk about was voting rights for women. The great thing is that, in time, things like gays getting married will be just like women voting, both left and right will say, "Well, duh."

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

"What we care about is health, education, jobs, ... Why is all they ever speak about gay marriage and racism?"

I tell them, as far as gay rights, that it's because this is their moment in history. It is not only a political issue but a consciousness raising time for everyone. Once upon a time, all the left seemed to talk about was voting rights for women. The great thing is that, in time, things like gays getting married will be just like women voting, both left and right will say, "Well, duh."

The thing is ALL of these things are important and SHOULD be important. But each of us as individuals has only so much time/ energy/ passion to give. Which is why we need to be part of a community where we can focus on one or two important issues while trusting and (this is key!) supporting others who are focusing in different areas. The problem comes when we treat it as a zero-sum game, which to some degree it is-- our time/ energy/ passion is a limited resource. But we need to get past thinking of this as a competition but work more cooperatively and collaboratively-- to see how all these issues are inter-connected in a general respect for human life and flourishing.

In the US in particular this is key right now. The sheer volume & pace of horrendous policies coming out of the white house right now seems intentionally designed to beat us down. And, to the OP, it is all over the map of anti-lefty actions-- immigration, health care, education-- anti- women, LGBT, foreigners, disabled. It seems intended to divide us and overwhelm us. Now more than ever I think it is important for us (lefties) to figure out how to be able to both focus our own time/ energy/ passion while also supporting and encouraging those working in other related areas.

Churches might be a good model for this, as we've always had a similar problem there as the different ministry areas-- music, education, outreach, spiritual care, missions-- compete for budget $$ and for volunteers. Yet all are important, worthy, good things for churches to care about. Churches that manage to do that well in a way that builds up all these ministry areas without getting bogged down into petty in-fighting could be a good model about how to do this in our political engagement as well.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Us lefties are very concerned about health, education, jobs, the environment, all the stuff that others are concerned about.

However, the current pressure points are immigration and gay rights. These are currently areas under attack by authoritarian governments. These are the battlefields that have been chosen (significantly by the right). More importantly, these are the people groups who are most significantly under attack by these policies.

I care passionately about the NHS. About providing health care for people who need it. Maybe these messages aren't heard, because there is so much of what makes us good people that is under attack. Maybe because in the US, the NHS is not the issue as such, although health care is.

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Us lefties are very concerned about health, education, jobs, the environment, all the stuff that others are concerned about.

However, the current pressure points are immigration and gay rights. These are currently areas under attack by authoritarian governments. These are the battlefields that have been chosen (significantly by the right). More importantly, these are the people groups who are most significantly under attack by these policies.

I care passionately about the NHS. About providing health care for people who need it. Maybe these messages aren't heard, because there is so much of what makes us good people that is under attack. Maybe because in the US, the NHS is not the issue as such, although health care is.

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.

The extension of same-sex marriage might have been easier because they do not impinge directly on economic ideology. You really don't need to be a socialist to support same-sex marriage.

When I studied political science, I learned the tension between the "Old Left" and the "New Left", that basically allowed conservatives in the United States and to a lesser extent, Canada, to whisk away substantive amounts of the working class. The "Old Left" arising out of the Fordist era of the Fifties were primarily concerned with economic issues, with job security, with the social safety net. The New Left arose in the wake of the Sixties and were predominately concerned with identity: feminism, minority rights, and LGBT causes.

During the Seventies and Eighties, the welfare state and the Keynesian consensus were being dismantled by rightwing governments, while the New Left were concerned with identity issues. To some who were of the Old Left, the New Left betrayed them and allowed the welfare state to whittle away.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There's also a divide-and-conquer going on, at least in the US and I assume there are analogues in Britain also. The rich want to rape the country of all its wealth, and to do this they need lower-class righties to vote for their candidates. So they find wedge issues. "Look at those lefties they don't care about your job, all they care about is gays." And of course when the righties get elected they don't do squat about jobs or any of the other wedge issues they campaigned on.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's also a divide-and-conquer going on, at least in the US and I assume there are analogues in Britain also. The rich want to rape the country of all its wealth, and to do this they need lower-class righties to vote for their candidates. So they find wedge issues. "Look at those lefties they don't care about your job, all they care about is gays." And of course when the righties get elected they don't do squat about jobs or any of the other wedge issues they campaigned on.

Who are the richies you´re talking about? That´s such non-sense. The elite in USA and Europe is socially liberal. It´s not the poor people who care about feminism or transgender issues.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues. [/QB]

Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?

You are not concerned with people, you are concerned with a cultural agenda.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Who are the richies you´re talking about? That´s such non-sense. The elite in USA and Europe is socially liberal. It´s not the poor people who care about feminism or transgender issues.

Incorrect. There are rich liberals. However, those on the telly decrying them are rich themselves. "Liberal Elite" is a smokescreen used to hide the removal of everyone's rights.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?

You are not concerned with people, you are concerned with a cultural agenda.

Well, since lefties are the ones who have qualms about flogging the Saudis weapons because of their appalling human rights record, and the righties are the ones who don't give a shit about that, I'm on pretty safe ground saying "where have you been for the past three decades?"

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
When I studied political science, I learned the tension between the "Old Left" and the "New Left", that basically allowed conservatives in the United States and to a lesser extent, Canada, to whisk away substantive amounts of the working class. The "Old Left" arising out of the Fordist era of the Fifties were primarily concerned with economic issues, with job security, with the social safety net. The New Left arose in the wake of the Sixties and were predominately concerned with identity: feminism, minority rights, and LGBT causes.

Yeah because the "Old left" wanted to change economical system trough a revolution, and failed. The "New left" wants to undermine the very culture that they believe is what supports this economical system. That includes christianity, which was the heart of our culture. Look at the result in our mainline and state churches all over US and Europe, for example: they are pretty much empty, and whoever is still inside is not hearing anything distinctively christian.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's also a divide-and-conquer going on, at least in the US and I assume there are analogues in Britain also. The rich want to rape the country of all its wealth, and to do this they need lower-class righties to vote for their candidates. So they find wedge issues. "Look at those lefties they don't care about your job, all they care about is gays." And of course when the righties get elected they don't do squat about jobs or any of the other wedge issues they campaigned on.
Who are the richies you´re talking about? That´s such non-sense. The elite in USA and Europe is socially liberal. It´s not the poor people who care about feminism or transgender issues.

I will not speak for Europe but the vast majority of the wealthy in the US are conservative. There are certainly notable exceptions, particularly in the newly wealthy tech industry, but in general, the wealthy are conservative and that's what's driving much of our politics today. From an American pov, I would say mousethief's divide-and-conqueor strategy is spot on, and dovetails with what I was saying in my prior post.

"Liberal elite" as a right-wing pejorative is mostly flung at professional-class people who are "elite" educationally but not all that elite financially: journalists, academics, scientists. They are different enough from non-college educated working-class people, and generally a step above them on the financial ladder (although not that much-- google adjunct faculty pay) so that they make a good scapegoat for working class concerns about wages & jobs. But they are certainly not wealthy and have not been the recipients of the vast transfer of wealth that has taken place in the last decade or so.

[ 13. May 2017, 17:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?. [/QB]

Um, pretty much always.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

quote:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?

You are not concerned with people, you are concerned with a cultural agenda.

Quite often. And if you want to make such stupid statements again, please join me in hell where I will tear you a new one and then kick the shit out of it.

[ 13. May 2017, 17:46: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
they are pretty much empty, and whoever is still inside is not hearing anything distinctively christian.

I'm amazed to discover that when we commemorated the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ 4 weeks ago there was nothing "distinctively Christian" about the salvation he won for us which was preached that day and is preached Sunday by Sunday in churches all over this nation and plenty of others. Please put your broad brush away, you clearly know not of what you speak.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
You are not concerned with people, you are concerned with a cultural agenda.

Taking care of people -- feeding them, housing them, healing them, protecting them from the powerful -- is not a "cultural agenda" -- or if it is, there's nothing wrong with being a cultural agenda. It's Christ's agenda.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Indeed. For those business-types who are so obsessed with ecclesiastical mission statements, here's Jesus':

quote:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” Luke 4:18-21

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?[/QB]

Generally speaking, "lefties" wish to impose their cultural values on the entire human population.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?
Generally speaking, "lefties" wish to impose their cultural values on the entire human population. [/QB]

Wait, don't tell me that was a serious statement

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?

Among the left-leaning? All the time. Usually they are then told to shut up for reasons of real-politick.

OTOH usually you only hear these issues from the right when they are wheeled out to invade the enemy of the month.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Alfalfa

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?
Among the left-leaning? All the time. Usually they are then told to shut up for reasons of real-politick.

OTOH usually you only hear these issues from the right when they are wheeled out to invade the enemy of the month.

Similar to the way after Newtown when we were calling for better gun control the right was very concerned we were missing the point re access to mental health care. But last week when they were hacking away at Obamacare suddenly that wasn't such a priority

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?
Generally speaking, "lefties" wish to impose their cultural values on the entire human population.

Wait, don't tell me that was a serious statement [/QB]

Oh, don't tell me it's not true...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'll cop to it. As a liberal, I'd like everybody to be held to standards of justice and fairness and economic justice too. As opposed to conservatives who want everybody held to the standards of their prejudice against gays, women, people of colour, and so forth.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Generally speaking, "lefties" wish to impose their cultural values on the entire human population.

The word impose is doing a lot of work in this sentence. If you mean by it "impose their values on all others by force majeure" it is so obviously false as to be hardly worth discussing. If you mean that they believe that their values are correct and should be more widely held, then so does everyone else except a few eccentric relativists.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Yes. I wish to impose decent health care on everyone.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
Generally speaking, "lefties" wish to impose their cultural values on the entire human population.

Let's see what those "cultural values" are: That black and brown people as valuable as white ones? That women and children and old people are as valuable as men? That disabled people are as valuable as those full in physical and intellectual capability? I could go on but I'm sure that even you get the drift.

If you mean that lefties want everyone treated with the same privileges that white men with a job possess then yes, I suppose lefties can be accused of imposing cultural values.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

For me, the biggest problem isn't the values that "lefties" wish to impose but that they have failed to achieve any lasting imposition of those values. Some of the best achievements (quality universal health care, quality universal education, quality welfare) are in the process of being dismantled.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For me, the biggest problem isn't the values that "lefties" wish to impose but that they have failed to achieve any lasting imposition of those values. Some of the best achievements (quality universal health care, quality universal education, quality welfare) are in the process of being dismantled.

... by righties.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For me, the biggest problem isn't the values that "lefties" wish to impose but that they have failed to achieve any lasting imposition of those values. Some of the best achievements (quality universal health care, quality universal education, quality welfare) are in the process of being dismantled.

Yes I remember one of the more prescient commentators warning about that during Obama's term-- so much of what he accomplished was done (by necessity) thru executive order it was vulnerable to precisely that. Of course, 6 1/2 months ago we were all so sure of ourselves we didn't imagine someone would come in and undo it all. Idiots, we were.
[Help]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For me, the biggest problem isn't the values that "lefties" wish to impose but that they have failed to achieve any lasting imposition of those values. Some of the best achievements (quality universal health care, quality universal education, quality welfare) are in the process of being dismantled.
... by righties.

...in the interest of profits for the few rather than benefits for all (including the few who would make a profit!)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Yes, I want to "impose" values of caring for other people, looking after them, fighting for their health and education, fighting for decent jobs, fighting for them not to be abused.

I want to "impose" values of each individual human being having value and worth, having importance - because they are all made in the image of God, but because they are human and being human is something worthwhile.

I want to "impose" values of letting people make their own choices - about their sexuality, their expression of this. About who they see themselves as.

I want to do this because "imposing" is the only way of doing this against those in power who would deprive people of their rights, their value, their self-definition, their self-worth.

I do this because a) I am a decent human being who values others and b) because this is the story and message I get from the Bible.

I take it you have a problem with that, holy smoke? So I have started a hell thread just for you. I am sure you will enjoy it.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice. Starting with tax policies. Corporations must pay much more, and it is time to restore public ownership of basic services, utilities, etc. Some things must never be operated with profit as the guiding principle.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice. Starting with tax policies. Corporations must pay much more, and it is time to restore public ownership of basic services, utilities, etc. Some things must never be operated with profit as the guiding principle.

I refer you to the UK Labour Party manifesto, 2017.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice. Starting with tax policies. Corporations must pay much more, and it is time to restore public ownership of basic services, utilities, etc. Some things must never be operated with profit as the guiding principle.

I don't believe it is possible to "care too much" about social issues. otoh, I would agree that economic justice is a vital concern that has, until recently, been overlooked by the left. The rub is that the root of the economic injustice is the way the system has been manipulated by those on the right. I think we're going to have more luck getting lefties to care about economic inequality that we'll have with the right.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

At a church stewardship workshop, the presenter frankly stated, "It's easier to talk about sex than money."

The divide between social issues (particular involving LGBT issues and women rights) and economic issues, might be due to the fact that no one necessarily has to pay higher taxes if gay marriage is legalized.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice.

This confuses me. Economic justice **IS** a social issue.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you mean that they believe that their values are correct and should be more widely held, then so does everyone else except a few eccentric relativists.

Actually, one of the central theoretical issues on the left (ie self-styled progressives) is that of cultural relativism (who are we to pontificate that burqas or FGM are wrong, or that democracy is right?) versus Enlightenemnt universal values.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That's bullshit. I have never seen a conservative source talk about FGM. All of the spleen I have seen about FGM has come from the left. You're believing what you want to believe instead of what the evidence demonstrates.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I rest my case.

Now, anyone want some blue with this scent of kookaburra?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's bullshit. I have never seen a conservative source talk about FGM. All of the spleen I have seen about FGM has come from the left. You're believing what you want to believe instead of what the evidence demonstrates.

Now, now, the right get very interested in FGM when they think it's Muslims doing it. See UKIP recently. They want all "at risk" (by which they mean Muslim) girls to be examined annually for signs of FGM. Nothing like intrusive personal examination by the state from a young age to promote cultural integration, healthy attitudes to sex and positive body image.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

Thanks for all the comments. Food for thought.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice. Starting with tax policies. Corporations must pay much more, and it is time to restore public ownership of basic services, utilities, etc. Some things must never be operated with profit as the guiding principle.
I refer you to the UK Labour Party manifesto, 2017.

But do they talk about it as much as they do other issues? Can they? I like to think I read the news widely, as do these acquanitances and strangers I speak to, or who speak to me on public transport, but they do press the point they hear more on "identity" politics.

Anglican_Brat's Old and New Left comments may come into play here. Did "the Left" make a conscious decision to play to these issues stronger than others? Is it as they have easier fixes?

[and just for context, in this "enlightened" nation in which I reside same-sex marriage is still verboten...pending a plebiscite and free parliamentary vote of which I've heard nothing for quite some time... It may be a "live" issue but I think it is seen as a minority one by most of the populace, despite a majority supporting it; not a big issue for them]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
If you mean that they believe that their values are correct and should be more widely held, then so does everyone else except a few eccentric relativists.
Actually, one of the central theoretical issues on the left (ie self-styled progressives) is that of cultural relativism (who are we to pontificate that burqas or FGM are wrong, or that democracy is right?) versus Enlightenemnt universal values.

Please be so kind as to show me an example of a leftist who accepts FGM on cultural relativist grounds.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

The right wingers on this thread are doing a good job of demonstrating what a bunch of hateful lying tossers they are. Keep it up lads.

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes, I want to "impose" values of caring for other people, looking after them, fighting for their health and education, fighting for decent jobs, fighting for them not to be abused....

We can explain, persuade, cajole, but it is up to the countries involved (including some of our former colonies) to work out their own social values and mores. That's what 'independence' means. To do more than that on our part is just arrogance, IMO. If you don't like their laws and customs, don't go to live there.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Please be so kind as to show me an example of a leftist who accepts FGM on cultural relativist grounds.

Germaine Greer.

Also child marriage.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The left cares too much about social issues and not near enough about economic justice.
This confuses me. Economic justice **IS** a social issue.

My thoughts exactly when I read that comment. Maybe I'm hanging around with the wrong sort of lefties, but the main issues we have are the availability of affordable/social housing (which is social and economic, if you wish to make that division), zero-hour contracts and other exploitative employment practices, lack of investment in education, welfare, health, public transport, etc. About the only issue that has recently been discussed that can genuinely be called a "social issue" without also being about "economic justice" has been corporal punishment of children (and, if we were given a choice between banning the hitting of children and banning zero-hours contracts then the zero hours contracts would go).

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

This thread reminds me of the famous quote (attribution uncertain); "I wish I were as certain of one thing as.... is of everything".

What a combination of egregious virtue-signalling, and intolerance of ambiguity (the signature feature of the authoritarian personality) over the meaning of left and right!

I support progressive taxation and the welfare state (health, education, housing, unemployment relief, etc), which makes me a lefty, but oppose the total abolition of private property and the market, which to 'real' lefties makes me a righty.

I support the legalisation of SSM for those who want it on liberal, pluralist, civil rights grounds (on the analogy of religious freedom) which makes me a lefty, but regard SSM as immoral and meaningless, which makes me a righty.

I resent the vilification of the overwhelming majority of Muslims (including personal friends) as terrorists, which makes me a lefty, but also resent moralistic disapproval of open discussion of possible Islamic elements in Islamism, which makes me a righty.

I support the maximisation of refugee immigration, which makes me a lefty, but also support control of borders and screening of applicants, which makes me a righty.

I abhor racism, which makes me a lefty, but that includes abhorrence of anti-Semitism posturing as anti-Zionism, which makes me a righty.

I support maximisation of free speech, which makes me a lefty, but that includes contempt for attempts to violently silence unpopular speakers on campuses, which makes me a righty.

On how many issues do you have to toe the party line - and what, in each case, does toeing the line involve - before you are unambiguously left or right?

[ 14. May 2017, 10:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

I'd imagine it's the ones that lead the party line that dominate. Karl mentioned that 'not hitting children' was more important for him than 'organizing working hours' (in this case they ar both 'left' ish, but had it been 'the right to hit children to discipline them' is more important than the right to 'organizing working hours', then that would suggest when push turns to shove he tends to the right.

Quite a few of your answers have you not in the extreme right (para 1) and not in the extreme left (clause 2) which still leaves the center. It would be more interesting, if you'd picked ones that were more positive.

On your economy one, I think even the Soviets would be counted as right wing by your 'real leftists'. While traditional conservationism could pass as being left.

Similarly on the SSM, (after all it was Cameroon that brought it in, but that was because he could count on on the centre left and left left to help the centre right).

*depending on the definition of total, abolish,private property.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Wasn't that the rocket scientist?

[ 14. May 2017, 12:12: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Wasn't that the rocket scientist?

Whoops, your pic is on the top of the page when the words are on the bottom.

[just listening to Sat Night Fri, and it's discussing the alleged bias of BBC. FWIW on some of the shows I can see the LW bias, on some of the politics it's the other way]

[ 14. May 2017, 12:28: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I mentioned both hitting children and zero-hour contracts. But, also that ending zero-hour contracts was the more important issue.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I mentioned both hitting children and zero-hour contracts. But, also that ending zero-hour contracts was the more important issue.

Oh.
I read "Zero hour contracts would go" as being that you'd take the proposal to abolish it off your manifesto (as the less important issue), rather than put the proposal in practice to take ZHC's* out of reality (as the more important issue).

Double apologies. I was only using it as a handy (hypothetical) example of two policies in 'competition'.

*zero hour contracts mean zero hour contracts, (not proposals about zero hour contracts)

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Corporate tax breaks, low tax rates for the wealthy and outright tax avoidance can be viewed as welfare. Military contracting which subsidizes R&D so that spin off products cost little to develop before selling to the public is a form of welfare for the already rich.

Is it only here that conservative gov'ts run up deficits which nearly bankrupt provinces and the country, and it takes responsible left of centre gov'ts to fix? Usually taking a decade.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Yes, I want to "impose" values of caring for other people, looking after them, fighting for their health and education, fighting for decent jobs, fighting for them not to be abused....
We can explain, persuade, cajole, but it is up to the countries involved (including some of our former colonies) to work out their own social values and mores. That's what 'independence' means. To do more than that on our part is just arrogance, IMO. If you don't like their laws and customs, don't go to live there.

Auschwitz. Sorry, but you made me do it. This attitude cannot be universalized. It is not arrogant to want another country to stop human rights violations enacted on its own people.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

I support progressive taxation and the welfare state (health, education, housing, unemployment relief, etc), which makes me a lefty, but oppose the total abolition of private property and the market, which to 'real' lefties makes me a righty.

No True Lefty Fallacy. Most Lefties in the UK and US (presumably Canada and Australia as well) also fel this way. Though liekly would disagree as to degree.

quote:

I support the legalisation of SSM for those who want it on liberal, pluralist, civil rights grounds (on the analogy of religious freedom) which makes me a lefty, but regard SSM as immoral and meaningless, which makes me a righty.

Fair play.

quote:

I resent the vilification of the overwhelming majority of Muslims (including personal friends) as terrorists, which makes me a lefty, but also resent moralistic disapproval of open discussion of possible Islamic elements in Islamism, which makes me a righty.

What about the Christian elements in Christianism? (Christism?) The bible has been used to justify acting like shit for centuries, why are Christians not treated the same way?

quote:

I support the maximisation of refugee immigration, which makes me a lefty, but also support control of borders and screening of applicants, which makes me a righty.

Many Lefties also support screening. You know, like the process that already goes on.

quote:

I abhor racism, which makes me a lefty, but that includes abhorrence of anti-Semitism posturing as anti-Zionism, which makes me a righty.

It is a fallacy to say that disapproval of Israel's policies makes one anti-Semetic.

quote:

I support maximisation of free speech, which makes me a lefty, but that includes contempt for attempts to violently silence unpopular speakers on campuses, which makes me a righty.

Free speech =/= hate speech.

quote:

On how many issues do you have to toe the party line - and what, in each case, does toeing the line involve - before you are unambiguously left or right?

You are, by your posting history on this site, firmly to the right of centre.
Being, somewhat, reasonable doesn't change that. In other words, not being Hitler doesn't make you Gandhi.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Please be so kind as to show me an example of a leftist who accepts FGM on cultural relativist grounds.
Germaine Greer.

Also child marriage.

She is also transphobic. Are you accusing the Left entire of being that as well?
All the lefties I know, and most of the righties, oppose FGM. As asked, you found an example, fair play. But what you have not done is proven your initial case.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't really understand some of these equations. Is free speech synonymous with being left-wing? News to me.

Same with abolition of private property, screening of immigrants, and so on.

It sounds like a bad dose of No True Scotsman, and also straw manning.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

But immigration and gay rights are global issues. So maybe they get more global coverage than purely national issues.
Global issues? How many times you hear about the situation of women and gays in Saudi Arabia? How many times do you see lefties concerned about this "global issues"?

You are not concerned with people, you are concerned with a cultural agenda. [/QB]

We hear a lot about them from the left e.g. Jasmin Alibi-Brown, Amnesty international.

Meanwhile, the right sells arms to Saudi Arabia to keep them oppressed.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Please be so kind as to show me an example of a leftist who accepts FGM on cultural relativist grounds.
Germaine Greer.

Also child marriage.

Well OK, I suppose I invited that. But I don't get the impression that the left are particularly interested in Germaine Greer these days.

IME the politics of FGM seem to go:

Left-winger: The government doesn't do anything about FGM because it doesn't affect rich white men in the City.

Right-winger: The government doesn't do anything about FGM because it's too politically correct to risk offending Muslims but of course you're not allowed to say that any more.

quote:
What a combination of egregious virtue-signalling, and intolerance of ambiguity (the signature feature of the authoritarian personality) over the meaning of left and right!

... and yet you are the one making generalisations about left-wingers supporting cultural relativism and FGM? [Confused]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Right-winger: The government doesn't do anything about FGM because it's too politically correct to risk offending Muslims but of course you're not allowed to say that any more.

Or rather "this thing that I keep mentioning on TV is the one thing we aren't allowed to say any more"

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
not being Hitler

You smooth old flatterer, you!

Do you really mean it, or do you toss around compliments like that to all and sundry?

Well, not to be outdone in the social niceties, I'm going to reciprocate: you're not as bad as Pol Pot.

There, I've said it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Right-winger: The government doesn't do anything about FGM because it's too politically correct to risk offending Muslims but of course you're not allowed to say that any more.
Or rather "this thing that I keep mentioning on TV is the one thing we aren't allowed to say any more"

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free speech =/= hate speech.

Yes it does, at times.

Free speech can never be absolute, but if it as any meaning at all it has to include the freedom to disseminate what reasonable people would regard as genuine hate speech, such the copies of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion which I saw for sale in a lunar right bookshop (alongside copies of an "exposure" of Anne Frank's diary), and the copy of Mein Kampf on my bookshelf ("Hmmm", I can hear you thinkng,"Perhaps I spoke too soon, and he IS Hitler after all!")

The other problem is definition.

One of the most common forms of current hate speech in the West is anti-Christian vilification, but it will never be proscribed as such (and I wouldn't want it to be) because it is so fashionable.

On the other hand, merely expressing a belief that God in the Bible disapproves of homosexual practices is condemned as "hate speech", which trivialises genuine homophobia in places such as Uganda and Islamic theocracies.

Nothing represents such a betrayal of historic left-wing core principle as the present left's retreat from support for free speech.

Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free speech =/= hate speech.

Yes it does, at times.

Free speech can never be absolute, but if it as any meaning at all it has to include the freedom to disseminate what reasonable people would regard as genuine hate speech, such the copies of The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion which I saw for sale in a lunar right bookshop (alongside copies of an "exposure" of Anne Frank's diary), and the copy of Mein Kampf on my bookshelf ("Hmmm", I can hear you thinkng,"Perhaps I spoke too soon, and he IS Hitler after all!")

People are free to hate whoever. They should not be free to incite maltreatment.

quote:

One of the most common forms of current hate speech in the West is anti-Christian vilification, but it will never be proscribed as such (and I wouldn't want it to be) because it is so fashionable.

No. Christians as a group are rarely vilified, IME. Those who try to run other people's lives are, but there is not a movement to prevent them from running their own lives.

quote:

On the other hand, merely expressing a belief that God in the Bible disapproves of homosexual practices is condemned as "hate speech",

If it were not backed by efforts to suppress LGBT+, perhaps it wouldn't be.

quote:

which trivialises genuine homophobia in places such as Uganda and Islamic theocracies.

Bullshit. The same actors support homophobia in Africa. They are part of the same force.

quote:

Nothing represents such a betrayal of historic left-wing core principle as the present left's retreat from support for free speech.

Again, were it speech without action, you might have a point. As it is not, you do not.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

No. Christians as a group are rarely vilified

Bullshit.

You need to get out more.

quote:
If it were not backed by efforts to suppress LGBT+, perhaps it wouldn't be.

Again bullshit.

It is condemned and attacked per se even when unaccompanied by any activism.

quote:
The same actors support homophobia in Africa. They are part of the same force.

Third bullshit in a row - give that man a cigar.

No doubt occasionally true, but overwhelmingly not the case.

I know countless people who believe homosexual practice to be wrong, but not a single person who wants to recriminalise it here or anywhere else.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

The double standard of the cultural relativism found in some sections of today's left has historical precedent.

In the West communists were always a minute component of the left, and there was always a healthy and decent anti-communist left, but there remained nonetheless too much rationalisation and ambivalence toward communism amongst the ordinary centre left.

While at university during the late 1960s I participated in a number of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations as part of a contingent who loathed the Hanoi regime, but had decided (rightly or wrongly) that its subjugation of the South was a lesser evil than the continuation of the war and the resultant agony of the Vietnamese people.

Most of the demonstrators, however, were were quite starry-eyed and romantic about Vietnamese communism ("Uncle" Ho was as creepy in kind, if not degree, as the Soviet Union's "Uncle" Joe) despite the fact that its victory would place the Vietnamese people under conditions (regimentation, loss of democracy and civil liberties) which they themselves would find intolerable.

In other words, their implicit attitude was: "We wouldn't want to live under communism, but it's great for Asians".

A similar racist equivocation was exposed by the posters of Mao, history's worst mass murderer, found on the walls of student houses.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I just want to point out that Germaine Greer is 78. She can't be expected to have kept up with every single change in social mores, especially given her grumpy and aggressive persona.

My mother went to school with Germaine, and tells stories about how she used to persecute the nuns, who would let Germaine get away with anything because she was obviously hugely talented. My mother believes that all the nuns at Star of the Sea were feminists, eager for their girls to get ahead and beat the blokes.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

No. Christians as a group are rarely vilified

Bullshit.

You need to get out more.

Perhaps you have a very different definition of "vilified". Because, I agree with lilBuddha. There are parts of the Christian community and individual Christians who are regularly vilified - usually because they call that upon themselves. But, the most common attitude towards Christians, and what most of us have only ever experienced, is to be ignored. I suppose if you think that everyone needs to listen to whatever nonsense you wish to spout just because you're Christian, or maybe just limit that to what the leadership of your church says, then maybe you want to call being ignored as "vilification", personally I would say that's stretching the definition.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
My mother went to school with Germaine, and tells stories about how she used to persecute the nuns, who would let Germaine get away with anything because she was obviously hugely talented. My mother believes that all the nuns at Star of the Sea were feminists, eager for their girls to get ahead and beat the blokes.

She was just a few years ahead of me at uni. She (and the Push generally) were on the wane by then, but her name was still not one to be taken in vain. Of course 16 yr old private school boys, even those who'd played in the 4ths of both cricket and rugby, were basically below their contemplation.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I searched for Greer's views on FGM and found a paper from 1999. In it she makes no judgment for or against, but questions the thinking of those who do oppose it. Why are they silent about male GM, i.e. circumcision, she wonders.

Clearly she is not typical of leftie opinion on this subject, which means the hunt for pro-FGM lefties must continue.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

One of the most common forms of current hate speech in the West is anti-Christian vilification, but it will never be proscribed as such (and I wouldn't want it to be) because it is so fashionable.

There's plenty of ridicule, based on ignorance and, yes, prejudice, but it rarely reaches the level of vilification. Even the level of vilification dished out to "The Left" by certain Christians and Christian groups.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

No. Christians as a group are rarely vilified

Bullshit.

You need to get out more. ...

Perhaps you could give us examples of Christians being regularly profiled by e.g. airport security or law enforcement. Or point to an executive order barring travellers from predominantly Christian countries.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

What it amounts to, IME, is the loss of privileged status. Which somehow works out to oppression in the minds of some.

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

May I suggest that the answer can be found by adding 'itself' in place of the brackets in the thread title. [Biased]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
May I suggest that the answer can be found by adding 'itself' in place of the brackets in the thread title.

Cute. But that is the unhidden cause of the Right.

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The right wingers on this thread are doing a good job of demonstrating what a bunch of hateful lying tossers they are. Keep it up lads.

Karl, they're just aping the Lefties here
[Biased]

Back in the 1970s, in his play 'Destiny', David Edgar pointed out how alike the two political extremes are. He gave these words to one of his Left-wing characters:

"Right is Left and Left is right."

Posted by AndyHB (# 18580) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Perhaps you could give us examples of Christians being regularly profiled by e.g. airport security or law enforcement. Or point to an executive order barring travellers from predominantly Christian countries.

Soror, for as long as I've been alive - and that's over 60 years - Christians have been told by the press, by society in general and even by some politicians (both leftie and rightie) that its all very well for them to practise their religion (note, seldom do they use the more correct term - faith) in private, but under no circumstances are they to talk about it in public or bring it into the public domain. Whilst I believe that we ought to be staying in the EU, many of the attitudes to faith stem from diktats that have been foisted upon us by the EU bureaucracy, especially the unelected Commissioners.

You don't need profiling, or executive orders because they can be found unlawful. Doing so to these diktats is far less easy.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
many of the attitudes to faith stem from diktats that have been foisted upon us by the EU bureaucracy, especially the unelected Commissioners.

I would be interested in knowing whether you have any concrete examples of such dictates, or are you just repeated un-founded Mail-isms of the same level of truthfulness as "immigrants are stealing our jobs"?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The right wingers on this thread are doing a good job of demonstrating what a bunch of hateful lying tossers they are. Keep it up lads.
Karl, they're just aping the Lefties here
Back in the 1970s, in his play 'Destiny', David Edgar pointed out how alike the two political extremes are. He gave these words to one of his Left-wing characters:

"Right is Left and Left is right."

This always seems rather facile to me. I suppose you could say that Trotsky is like Franco, but not to those suffering under them. But then would you say that Macron is like Le Pen?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This always seems rather facile to me. I suppose you could say that Trotsky is like Franco, but not to those suffering under them.

First, this is an odd comparison, because both were arseholes, but Franco was the undisputed dictator of Spain, while Trotsky was never dictator of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, if you are in the process of being imprisoned, enslaved, starved, tortured or facing execution, the ideological nuances of your oppressor are likely to fade into the background.

Seems rather facile to me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, if you are in the process of being imprisoned, enslaved, starved, tortured or facing execution, the ideological nuances of your oppressor are likely to fade into the background.

Then what you are talking about is brutality. Just because at the brutality end of the scale Left and Right fade into relative non-importance doesn't mean that away from those extremes they have no meaning. Context.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, if you are in the process of being imprisoned, enslaved, starved, tortured or facing execution, the ideological nuances of your oppressor are likely to fade into the background.
Then what you are talking about is brutality. Just because at the brutality end of the scale Left and Right fade into relative non-importance doesn't mean that away from those extremes they have no meaning. Context.

By citing Franco and Trotsky, quetzalcoatl was obviously talking about extremes.

Context.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Let's wheel this back to the context of this thread, which is about neither the former Soviet Union or fascist Spain.
In the context of this thread, the absuses of the right and the left are not the same. More people will suffer under the right than under the left. By design.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free speech =/= hate speech.

If you're not free to say what you want regardless of how unpopular or hateful it may be, you don't have free speech.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Free speech =/= hate speech.
If you're not free to say what you want regardless of how unpopular or hateful it may be, you don't have free speech.

Even if you shout "Fire! Fire!" in a crowded theatre?* No you have to ensure people take responsibility for the likely consequences of what they say. Another example is that of wishing someone dead, because the police will not dismiss such a flippant line as "free speech" if the person at the end of the wish subsequently dies suddenly. The "wisher" will definitely be helping Mr Plod with his enquiries for a hour or three.

*It's a cliché, but everyone understands this.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Rights always carry an implicit responsibility, to use those rights in a responsible manner. Sometimes when people start using those rights in an irresponsible manner it is necessary to be more explicit about what those responsibilities are - eg: by defining irresponsible uses. In the case of free speech, one of the effects of irresponsible use of the right to speak freely has been the need to define hate speech and declare it irresponsible and unacceptable. You can add to that list things like libel and slander, which are other examples of irresponsible speech.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

What often gets mistaken as "lefties don't care about the women in Saudi Arabia" is actually "lefties think that the women in Saudi Arabia should be at the forefront of their own liberation". Basically, nobody thinks that the situation is fine as it is. But if we're going to help change happen, we need to listen to those actual Saudi women and what it is that they want, and not just assume that we know and we can impose it. When you listen to activists on the ground, they often feel strongly that they would like to drive, to get an education, and to have more freedom to travel. But they're actually not too fussed about changing the way they dress. When westerners try to get involved, they/we tend to focus on Saudi women's clothing rather than the things they actually want to change. We need to find those Saudi women's voices and amplify and support them rather than impose western culture.

But this gets relayed to the rightwingers as "LEFTIES LOVE THE BURQA!"

Also if anyone thinks that left wingers of 2017 love Germaine Greer, you are very, very mistaken. See also: Julie Burchill, Julie Bindel.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, if you are in the process of being imprisoned, enslaved, starved, tortured or facing execution, the ideological nuances of your oppressor are likely to fade into the background.
Then what you are talking about is brutality. Just because at the brutality end of the scale Left and Right fade into relative non-importance doesn't mean that away from those extremes they have no meaning. Context.
By citing Franco and Trotsky, quetzalcoatl was obviously talking about extremes.

Context.

Yes. That's what I said. Content.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Most of the demonstrators, however, were were quite starry-eyed and romantic about Vietnamese communism ("Uncle" Ho was as creepy in kind, if not degree, as the Soviet Union's "Uncle" Joe) despite the fact that its victory would place the Vietnamese people under conditions (regimentation, loss of democracy and civil liberties) which they themselves would find intolerable.

I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, merely expressing a belief that God in the Bible disapproves of homosexual practices is condemned as "hate speech", which trivialises genuine homophobia in places such as Uganda and Islamic theocracies.

Arguments of the form "The Left cares too much about . . . " generally fall into two categories. The first is a kind of monomania which can't tolerate any discussion of anything other than [pet issue]. "How can you discuss [not pet issue] when [pet issue] is so much more important?"

The other follows the same general format, but seems more oriented towards derailing any kind of discussion of anything. "Y is worse than X, so why are you wasting your time with X?" The interlocutor usually doesn't really care that much about Y, but wants to avoid any close examination of X. The big problem here is that you can usually think of something that's worse than whatever it is that you're currently discussing, so virtually everything is something that gets cared about too much. It's also based on the faulty premise that you can care about more than one thing, sort of a 'walk and chew gum at the same time' premise.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".

You could have included Ky, and yes it would have been "starry-eyed and romantic", except that I never encountered anyone ever doing it.

There was lots of waving of Viet Cong, ie National Liberation(sic) Front flags, but I never saw a South Vietnamese flag.

The South Vietnamese administrations were far from ideal, but they would have been a lesser evil than communism had they been separable form a perpetuation of the war.

There is an analogy here with the Korean War.

South Korea's Syngman Rhee regime was appalling too, but it was preferable to Kim Il Sung's, and without the rigidity of totalitarian communism to freeze it into a Cold War time warp, in time South Korea was able to evolve into a prosperous democracy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

South Korea's Syngman Rhee regime was appalling too, but it was preferable to Kim Il Sung's, and without the rigidity of totalitarian communism to freeze it into a Cold War time warp, in time South Korea was able to evolve into a prosperous democracy.

South Korea didn't have the same economic downfall as North Korea because America was a better provider than China.
South Korea's evolution into a prosperous democracy was do to pressure from the left. Park Chung-hee did improve the country's overall economy whilst being a dictatorial douche. But the gap between rich and poor continued to widen, especially under Chun Doo-hwan.
Stability only really began with the Sixth Republic, (SIXTH!*)with the broadening of democratic, aka Lefty, policies.

*Six different republics since just after WWII. Yeah, Rhee led to such stability.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by AndyHB:
Soror, for as long as I've been alive - and that's over 60 years - Christians have been told by the press, by society in general and even by some politicians (both leftie and rightie) that its all very well for them to practise their religion (note, seldom do they use the more correct term - faith) in private, but under no circumstances are they to talk about it in public or bring it into the public domain. ...

Well, the public domain is full of people who aren't Christians and aren't really interested in Christianity, but Christians keep insisting on getting all up in the most personal and intimate aspects of our lives. Since there are places in the world where Christians are brutally persecuted, being asked to mind your own business seems pretty far down on the persecution scale to me.

You might want to check out politics in the USA, where practically every politician wears their Christianity on their sleeve and atheists rank lower than Muslims. I also note that the House of Lords always includes 26 bishops, but a rabbi or imam or guru would have to win a seat in the Commons or be appointed by the Monarch to get into Parliament.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

South Korea's Syngman Rhee regime was appalling too, but it was preferable to Kim Il Sung's, and without the rigidity of totalitarian communism to freeze it into a Cold War time warp, in time South Korea was able to evolve into a prosperous democracy.
South Korea didn't have the same economic downfall as North Korea because America was a better provider than China.
South Korea's evolution into a prosperous democracy was do to pressure from the left. Park Chung-hee did improve the country's overall economy whilst being a dictatorial douche. But the gap between rich and poor continued to widen, especially under Chun Doo-hwan.
Stability only really began with the Sixth Republic, (SIXTH!*)with the broadening of democratic, aka Lefty, policies.

*Six different republics since just after WWII. Yeah, Rhee led to such stability.

Not sure what point you are trying to make (because nobody is arguing either that post-war South Korean administrations were models of liberal democracy, or that pressures for democracy did not come from the left) but you certainly haven't succeeded in demonstrating that South Koreans were worse off under their less than ideal previous regimes than North Koreans were, and are, under the Kim dynasty.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Y is worse than X

Nope.

In this case, x is acceptable according to the tenets of liberal pluralism, and y is not.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Syngman Rhee may have been a bastard, but he resigned following popular protests amid disputed results of an election.

I don't think that will happen north of the 38th parallel any time soon. Kim-of-the-week would rather trigger Armageddon.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Rights always carry an implicit responsibility, to use those rights in a responsible manner. Sometimes when people start using those rights in an irresponsible manner it is necessary to be more explicit about what those responsibilities are - eg: by defining irresponsible uses.

The problem is that it's the government that defines "responsible" and "irresponsible".

Your current argument is that we should only have free speech so long as we use it in a manner that the government deems responsible. Let's see how that formulation works with some other substantive human rights:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". As soon as a government with theocratic leanings comes in, what's to stop them from defining any religion/beliefs other than their own as an irresponsible use of that freedom?
"Everyone has the right to a fair trial, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". What happens when the government decides that fair trials are irresponsible for certain alleged criminals? (the answer looks a lot like Guantanamo Bay) This also works for the right to freedom from torture.
"Everyone has the right to life, so long as they use it in a manner that the government deems responsible". So if the government thinks you're using your life irresponsibly, should they be able to deprive you of it?

Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".
You could have included Ky, and yes it would have been "starry-eyed and romantic", except that I never encountered anyone ever doing it.

Kaplan Corday, meet Kaplan Corday!

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Most of the [anti-Vietnam War] demonstrators, however, were were quite starry-eyed and romantic about Vietnamese communism ("Uncle" Ho was as creepy in kind, if not degree, as the Soviet Union's "Uncle" Joe) despite the fact that its victory would place the Vietnamese people under conditions (regimentation, loss of democracy and civil liberties) which they themselves would find intolerable.

When you characterize a North Vietnamese victory as something that would result in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" you're claiming that democracy and civil liberties were things enjoyed by the people of Vietnam prior to the end of the war. You can't lose something you never had.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.

No, that's bollocks. Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite simply, you cannot have freedom of speech and at the same time ban the expression of certain opinions or beliefs that you deem "irresponsible". The two are incompatible.
No, that's bollocks. Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

It is simply speech v action. Speech which incites action is not longer simply speech.
The idea that only complete freedom equals freedom is stupid. One person's freedom to do anything will impinge upon another's right to not have something done to them. There are always limitations, whether or not they are codified by law.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Not sure what point you are trying to make (because nobody is arguing either that post-war South Korean administrations were models of liberal democracy, or that pressures for democracy did not come from the left) but you certainly haven't succeeded in demonstrating that South Koreans were worse off under their less than ideal previous regimes than North Koreans were, and are, under the Kim dynasty.

Why would I try to prove that? Your apparent goal is to show that the right isn't so bad. You know, as long as it doesn't go all Hitler and everything. But you immediately push everything to dictatorial left in your comparisons. As if, once a person identifies as left, the slide to becoming Stalin is inevitable.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

If anyone is going get het up about "freedom of expression" they should consider libel and slander, specifically the legal threat and "super injunctions" used by the now exposed rich and famous to prevent the truth getting out.

[ 17. May 2017, 15:12: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.

ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.

Then by your own definition, free speech is an oxymoron, doesn't exist, and I don't know what it is you're advocating.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.

You are certainly not required to read what I write, but I did address the illogic of your position.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.

Yes, free will isn't 'really free', which shows how 'really free' is nonsensical.

By the way, this thread has gone the way of many about 'the Left', since the left is so wide, that it's difficult to generalize about it. The Vietcong wouldn't let me lend money at 15% interest, but Tony Blair would. Wow, isn't that profound?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Freedom of speech has always been qualified, even in those countries where freedom of speech is a constitutional right.
Then it's not truly free. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's call it what it is at least.

The usual things invoked in this context are "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre" which is acceptable at an Electric Six concert or stage play of 'The Gadfly', but not otherwise and publishing troop movements during wartime which is acceptable to Julian Assange, I imagine, but not to anyone sensible. The reason these things are invoked is that they cause actual harm.

The argument over hate speech is that it is quite easy to brand "speech I do not approve of" as hate speech, whereas if legislation is to restrict speech it ought to be based on restricting or stopping actual harm. Arresting someone who makes a speech denouncing the Jews to a howling mob, with pitchforks and torches, outside a Synagogue is, I think, a legitimate restriction of speech. OTOH, the rhetoric of hate speech or the rhetoric of people using their speech in an irresponsible manner ought to be responded to by asking exactly what harm one is trying to prevent and how the ensuing restriction on speech is justified. Broadly speaking, in a free speech environment, the onus is on its enemies to justify its restriction rather than for speakers to justify their responsibility or lack of hate.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your apparent goal is to show that the right isn't so bad. You know, as long as it doesn't go all Hitler and everything.

Bullshit.

You are hopelessly confused.

My "apparent goal" (apparent to anyone who actually read what I wrote) was to make the point that right-wing authoritarian regimes in both Vietnam and Korea were thoroughly unpleasant, but neither as repressive, nor as resistant to improvement, as the communist alternatives.

Since you have this Godwinian obsession with dragging Hitler's name into the discussion, let me spell it out for you: neither North Korean nor Vietnamese communism, while both being on the murderous dictatorship spectrum, are remotely as bad as the Third Reich.

Happy?

quote:
But you immediately push everything to dictatorial left in your comparisons. As if, once a person identifies as left, the slide to becoming Stalin is inevitable.

Golly, you're right!

I identify as left-wing in some areas, such as the welfare state, and every time I think about progressive taxation, I get all overcome with a well-nigh irresistible urge to go all the way and carry out a Yezhovian or Berian purge!

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
When you characterize a North Vietnamese victory as something that would result in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" you're claiming that democracy and civil liberties were things enjoyed by the people of Vietnam prior to the end of the war.

Nice try.

Restricted democracy (1967 elections) and civil liberties did exist in South Vietnam.

They were inadequate by Western standards, which is why no-one was enthusiastic about the South's successive regimes.

But such as they were, they were not only superior to anything under the Hanoi regime, but they disappeared completely with the communist victory, along with any realistic prospect of their evolving and improving over time.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.

There's a difference between constraints that exist because the universe doesn't work that way and constraints that only exist because the government says so. Or to put it another way, there's a difference between something being completely impossible and something being possible but prohibited.

Saying "you're not free to become a purple porcupine so therefore you shouldn't be free to say anything you want" is a total nonsense argument.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

So do you think freedom of speech should protect shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a mob to kill?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So do you think freedom of speech should protect shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre and inciting a mob to kill?

True and full freedom of speech would protect them. We do not have true and full freedom of speech.

The question then becomes how far we go in banning speech we don't like. I'm starting from the ideal that all speech should be free but some should be prohibited - with regret - where it causes or would reasonably be expected to cause direct harm* to someone else, which means I wouldn't go very far at all. Others, especially on the left, would go much further.

.

*= of course, ones definition of "harm" matters here as well. I don't count being offended as being harmed, for instance.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

So all we're arguing about is the matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'freedom of speech' against us hideous lefties. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So all we're arguing about is the matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'freedom of speech' against us hideous lefties.

Sure. In the same way that when we argue about welfare spending it's just a matter of degree, yet you get to claim the mantle of 'caring about the poor'.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There's a common strand there in 'not throwing people under the bus' in order to get what you want.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a common strand there in 'not throwing people under the bus' in order to get what you want.

Criminalising people who say things that you find offensive definitely counts as "throwing them under the bus to get what you want". And yet somehow I have a feeling that's not what you meant...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Criminalising people who say things that you find offensive definitely counts as "throwing them under the bus to get what you want". And yet somehow I have a feeling that's not what you meant...

Criminalising people who'd throw other people under the bus while demanding their right to free speech?

Fuck 'em. They're dicks. We're not talking about 'freedom of speech' here. What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.

Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :

Are people "criminalised" for saying things which others find offensive but which do no harm?

When Katie Hopkins reportedly called migrants 'cockroaches' in a column headed "Rescue boats? I'd use gunships to stop migrants", many people were offended. A UN human rights official said that articles like hers can affect how countries repond to migrants and that this "could sadly result in further massive loss of life.”

She was interviewed by the police, but was she charged with an offence? Apparently not. Did the Independent Press Standards Organisation uphold readers' complaints because it offended people (as opposed to simple inaccuracy)? Apparently not.

There was a petition for her to lose her job, but did she lose her job? Apparently she left the Sun to join the Daily Mail. Is being "criminalised" the same thing as 'being criticised and moving from one newspaper to another'?

It seems that some people claim that harmless and offensive speech is criminalised. However this example seems to suggest that potentially harmful and offensive speech is not criminalised.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.

Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Are people "criminalised" for saying things which others find offensive but which do no harm?

That depends on your view of "hate speech". As you point out, in the UK there is currently no criminal penalty for saying things that others find offensive (notwithstanding that being interviewed under caution by the police might look like a penalty in itself). But even a brief perusal of the commentary on that case would show you that there are a lot of people who would very much like to see one in place.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.

How about responding to the rest of that paragraph: "We're not talking about 'freedom of speech' here. What you want is 'freedom from consequences'."?

Are you willing to take the rap if your 'freedom' causes a breach of the peace? Rights don't exist without responsibilities after all.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
How about responding to the rest of that paragraph

It's perfectly clear what I'm talking about, and thanks to the bit I did quote it's now perfectly clear what Doc is as well.

It's not about fairness or rights, it's about fucking the dicks.

quote:
Are you willing to take the rap if your 'freedom' causes a breach of the peace? Rights don't exist without responsibilities after all.

Apparently you missed this post.

Or maybe this one. You say that rights don't exist without responsibilities, but nobody seems to talk about the responsibilities that can restrict someone's right to life.

Of course, it's hard not to conclude that all this talk of responsibilities basically boils down to a Ford-esque "you can say whatever you want as long as it's something I like". What comes next - political freedom for all, but those who choose to be right-wing will be lined up against the wall and shot?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.

You missed this bit.

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.

And it is exactly why your approach should never be implemented. Yes, freedom of speech should be protected and simply being offended shouldn't be the limit to that freedom. But the effects of speech should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

But such as they were, they were not only superior to anything under the Hanoi regime, but they disappeared completely with the communist victory, along with any realistic prospect of their evolving and improving over time.

This is an example of you doing what I accuse you of. A right wing, but not full on extreme as it could be, compared to a much more extreme left wing. You are not comparing the same things.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Fuck 'em. They're dicks.
Well, that just sums it up. I'm not sure which is more disappointing: the fact that you think human rights don't apply to people you think are dicks, or the fact that you don't seem to understand the consequences of such an approach should people who think you're a dick get into power.

And inevitably, you try and evade the consequences of your notion of free speech. All you're doing here is being more concerned that your stated beliefs fall into the category of 'being a dick' than you are about the actual consequences for other people.

What would you call a person who prioritises their own rights over the rights of others, while prioritising others' responsibilities to them over their responsibilities to others? I think 'dick' is putting it quite mildly.

[ 18. May 2017, 16:14: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.

What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like. Every time an extra "responsibility" (read: restriction) is added to the right to free speech, that desire becomes less of a reality.

Don't ignore the erosion of free speech just because it's being done for reasons you agree with, because you never know when the political mood will change and you end up needing the protections you're happy to withdraw from "dicks".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
ALL freedoms exist within constraints-- whether imposed by others or by the laws of nature. I am free to be whatever I want to be-- unless I want to be a purple spotted porcupine with two heads. So, sure we can call that "not really free" but since it applies to ALL freedom it's really easier just to understand that freedom always comes with some constraints.
There's a difference between constraints that exist because the universe doesn't work that way and constraints that only exist because the government says so. Or to put it another way, there's a difference between something being completely impossible and something being possible but prohibited.

Saying "you're not free to become a purple porcupine so therefore you shouldn't be free to say anything you want" is a total nonsense argument.

Yes, if you'll reread the very first sentence of the very post you quoted, you'll see I made that exact same distinction-- the government being "imposed by others" and my hyperbolic purple porcupine example being the "Laws of nature" side.

But my point was that there are ALWAYS constraints to freedom-- of both types. So pedantically insisting that ANY constraint = "not truly free" is, well, pedantic. Technically true but not really helpful, given that it is true of ALL freedom. So to insist on making that distinction each and every time the word freedom is used, especially as an argument against a particular constraint, is meaningless and unhelpful. Rather, we should debate whether a particular constraint (eg don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) is necessary or reasonable.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like.

Okay, can you come up with any actual examples of things you want to say here in the UK, but can't? Or are you constructing a whole field of scarecrows?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'd say that portraying the Diệm or Thiệu governments as democratic and great respecters of civil liberties is kind of "starry-eyed and romantic".
You could have included Ky, and yes it would have been "starry-eyed and romantic", except that I never encountered anyone ever doing it.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Restricted democracy (1967 elections) and civil liberties did exist in South Vietnam.

They were inadequate by Western standards, which is why no-one was enthusiastic about the South's successive regimes.

Can you make up your mind on this? It's a little disorienting to go from claiming that you've never encountered anyone claiming South Vietnam was a democracy that respected civil liberties to advocating the position that South Vietnam was a democracy that respected the civil liberties of its citizens. You can't say it's a claim no one would make and then make exactly that claim.

Well, I guess you can, since you have. It just kind of undercuts whatever point it is you think you're making.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you want is 'freedom from consequences'.
What I want is for the government not to be able to lock me up because I said something they didn't like. Every time an extra "responsibility" (read: restriction) is added to the right to free speech, that desire becomes less of a reality.

Don't ignore the erosion of free speech just because it's being done for reasons you agree with, because you never know when the political mood will change and you end up needing the protections you're happy to withdraw from "dicks".

It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.

As a confirmed leftie my bottom line is that restrictions on exercising free speech should be defined to exclude speech that deliberately (that words there just because sometimes harm will be accidental) sets out to harm someone else. And, though government has a role in identifying forms of speech that any reasonable person should know would endanger or harm others, the ultimate arbiter of whether a particular example does or does not warrant sanction would be the courts (including international courts covering human rights). I admit that I struggle to see any logical alternative that would balance the rights of someone to speak freely and the rights of others not to suffer harm.

As for the specifics of what sort of things any reasonable person should be expected to know would cause harm to others, my list would include:

Slander and libel that damages someone's reputation, especially when that results in a loss of income or other quantifiable detriment
Propogation of falsehoods with the intent of influencing the actions of others to their own harm - that would, for example, include acts of deception to con people out of money. It could also cover things like claiming "£350m per week for the NHS".
Incitement of others to act in a way harmful to others - whether that's encouraging others to physically harm someone, or to restrict their movement, opportunities for employment etc
The shouting "fire" type of act
Language that is intimidating, that creates fears in others
And, I would include some forms of offensive language - though where the boundary is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is hard to define

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Don't ignore the erosion of free speech

No one is doing this. We are just pointing out that your concept of freedom of speech is ridiculous. A truly free society must have guidelines. This isn't a contradiction. The result of your definition of freedom is that only the strong/majority have freedom.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.

And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.

quote:
I admit that I struggle to see any logical alternative that would balance the rights of someone to speak freely and the rights of others not to suffer harm.

The problem is the definition of "harm". I'd agre with some items on your list, but emphatically not with others (especially the last one). And I'm sure there are some things that others might put on their list that you would emphatically not agree with. Who should decide? For that matter, who should decide the basis on which they will decide - the underlying assumptions are probably more important that the specifics.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But that last one

quote:
And, I would include some forms of offensive language - though where the boundary is between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is hard to define

is highly variable in impact, depending on who you are.
You, a white, middle-class* male of Christian extraction will not be practically affected by people saying anything about your group.
However, other groups are different. Given the current climate, the bar for speech becoming harm is much lower for Muslims.
As Alan says, it is a difficult line to define. But it is less about what someone "agrees" with and more about the harm it does.

*Or close enough.

[ 18. May 2017, 18:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I'm thinking of the parallel legal concept of "negligence". For example, here in LA if you invite small children to your home for a party around an unfenced pool and fail to provide adequate adult supervision, you can be considered negligent if a child falls in and drowns, even though you probably had no intend to harm anyone. DUI is another example where the intent is not to harm, but the negligence is clear and brings criminal penalties. Similarly, hate speech could rise to the level of negligence if there is a reasonable expectation of harm even w/o intent.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Here in the US, hate speech is usually legal unless it makes explicit threats or directs people to commit harm against others. It is often against the rules of educational institutions, workplaces, etc., though. I think that, barring situations where tensions are so high that provisional restrictions on free speech are needed to prevent violence from breaking out all the time (and I can't think of anywhere in North America, Western Europe, or Australia/NZ where this is the case), saying hateful things should not in and of itself be illegal.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.

I agree, and I think this is probably the default among most college educated Americans.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It seems to me that we're all agreed that there are restrictions on the extent to which free speech can be exercised. It's just the details over exactly what those restrictions should be, and who should be allowed to define them.
And on what basis. My stance is that freedom of speech should be the abiding principle, and any restrictions should be considered a necessary evil only to be used when absolutely necessary.
I agree, and I think this is probably the default among most college educated Americans.

It isn't different from what anyone else here is saying. Though I do doubt the cases which meet MtM's standards would necessarily match to ours.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.

It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.

It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.

ISTM, America's isolation might be a key to understanding this.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.

It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.

I like the American approach to this matter far more than the European one.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In other words we all agree "freedom of speech good, restriction of free speech bad, with certain exceptions," and then our disagreement comes in the size and extent and exact contents of the exception bucket. So tell me something I don't know.

It has been my experience that Americans tend to have much, much smaller exceptions buckets than most Europeans. And one of the main points of distinction is hate speech.
I like the American approach to this matter far more than the European one.

As a lefty American I'm prone to agree-- but am also obligated to point out that having an "exception bucket" so small as to not disallow false facts spouted by politicians and some journalists is what got us into our current predicament.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

There's currently a free speech/hate speech case rumbling on in Scotland. YouTuber 'Count Dankula' created a video teaching his girlfriend's pug to be a Nazi (probably NSFW). I'd say it was tasteless but clearly a joke with no evidence of malice.

The video went viral: Dankula was arrested and is
being tried in the next few days. There's no jury, just a judge, and if found guilty the blogger faces up to 12 months in prison.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd agre with some items on [Alan Cresswell's] list, but emphatically not with others (especially the last one).

The one I'd be most concerned about is "Propagation of falsehoods with the intent of influencing the actions of others to their own harm - that would, for example, include acts of deception to con people out of money. It could also cover things like claiming "£350m per week for the NHS"."

While I understand people's frustration with bullshit, giving the government the role of Official Factchecker strikes me as as dangerous as hell.

Suppose it's 2027 and there have been a major string of Islamic suicide attacks. Scotland's devolved and the UK's governed by a new Conservative-Far Right/Fascist coalition. How much control over speech do you want to hand them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

While I understand people's frustration with bullshit, giving the government the role of Official Factchecker strikes me as as dangerous as hell.

But it really isn't. Whilst they do set the basic standard, it is in the hands of the legal system to be the official arbiter. Whislt that can be problematic as well, it isn't quite the same thing.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
This is an example of you doing what I accuse you of.

No it's not.

It is specific to Vietnam, where the left-wing communist North was worse than the right-wing authoritarian South.

There are other cases in which the questionable right is worse than the questionable left.

In the Spanish Civil War, for example, a strong case can be made that the left-wing Republican side, despite its susceptibility to takeover by the Stalinists in its International Brigades (read Orwell's Homage To Catalonia) was preferable to Franco's right-wing fascist Nationalists.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's a little disorienting to go from claiming that you've never encountered anyone claiming South Vietnam was a democracy that respected civil liberties to advocating the position that South Vietnam was a democracy that respected the civil liberties of its citizens.

You are trying to pretend that "a regime with occasional elections, and an arbitrary administration of civil liberties, which made it preferable to little except outright dictatorship" is synonymous with "a democracy that respected civil liberties".

You are kidding no-one except yourself.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

While I understand people's frustration with bullshit, giving the government the role of Official Factchecker strikes me as as dangerous as hell.
But it really isn't. Whilst they do set the basic standard, it is in the hands of the legal system to be the official arbiter. Whislt that can be problematic as well, it isn't quite the same thing.

The original definition of harm being disputed here was "Propogation of falsehoods with the intent of influencing the actions of others to their own harm - that would, for example, include acts of deception to con people out of money. It could also cover things like claiming "£350m per week for the NHS"".

If we ignore conning people out of money, where an objective harm can be demonstrated, that's a very problematic standard for anyone to be judging others on. For one thing, it depends on rating campaign promises, claims, buzzwords and slogans against a somewhat subjective and politically-influenced standard of truth (not to mention the thorny issue of what constitutes a factual claim). Of course, it goes without saying that very few political campaigns indeed would be guaranteed to pass this kind of test, as they all contain exaggerations, spin, half-truths and promises they don't intend to keep, and whether you judge them to be honest or dishonest (and to what extent) will generally come down to whether you agree with their ideology or not. Hardly a sound basis on which to restrict a fundamental human right!

The second problem with it is that it assumes a definition of "harm" that many would not agree with. For example, even if the Brexit campaign bus slogan was unequivocally judged to be a lie, there is a significant disagreement across the country about whether leaving the EU is better or worse for people - it's a matter of political and ideological opinion. And if we allow such ideological opinions to define harm - and thus which speech is allowed and which isn't - then we're just one step away from a ruling party (with a friendly judiciary) deciding that campaigning for their opponents is irresponsible speech that will cause harm to people by changing the government to one that (they think) is worse.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's a little disorienting to go from claiming that you've never encountered anyone claiming South Vietnam was a democracy that respected civil liberties to advocating the position that South Vietnam was a democracy that respected the civil liberties of its citizens.
You are trying to pretend that "a regime with occasional elections, and an arbitrary administration of civil liberties, which made it preferable to little except outright dictatorship" is synonymous with "a democracy that respected civil liberties".

You are kidding no-one except yourself.

Nope, those are claims you made. You're the one who characterized South Vietnam as a democracy whose citizens enjoyed civil liberties. Then you argued that you'd never encountered anyone making the claim you just made. Now you're trying to pass off "occasional elections" as "democracy" and "arbitrary administration of civil liberties" as "civil liberties". If "occasional elections" are sufficient to be a democracy, then both North and South Vietnam were "democracies"*, and if administration of civil liberties is "arbitrary", then people don't really enjoy civil liberties. (Civil liberties were pretty "arbitrary" in North Vietnam as well.) I can understand why you'd like to move the goalposts from your original claim of "democracy and civil liberties" to the more defensible "at least not as bad as those guys", but that wasn't what you were arguing.

--------------------
*In 1971 North Vietnam's Vietnamese Fatherland Front won 100% of the vote in their legislative elections, which coincidentally is the percentage by which South Vietnam's Thiệu won re-election to the presidency that year. Not sure how you can claim "no-one was enthusiastic about the South's successive regimes" when the Thiệu was so unbelievably (literally) popular at the polls. [Big Grin]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're the one who characterized South Vietnam as a democracy whose citizens enjoyed civil liberties.

I never wrote that South Vietnam "enjoyed" democracy or civil rights.

You just made that up.

You are still trying to equate recognition of the historical facts of occasional elections and minimal civil rights which existed in South Vietnam (and which conceivably could have been built on and improved in time, as happened in South Korea, had the communists not taken over), with full-blown liberal democracy.

You can wriggle and temporise all you like, but you can't do it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In 1971 North Vietnam's Vietnamese Fatherland Front won 100% of the vote in their legislative elections, which coincidentally is the percentage by which South Vietnam's Thiệu won re-election to the presidency that year.

Congratulations on kicking an own goal.

Thieu's miraculous result illustrates precisely what I have been saying - that such democracy as existed in South Vietnam was inadequate.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're the one who characterized South Vietnam as a democracy whose citizens enjoyed civil liberties.
I never wrote that South Vietnam "enjoyed" democracy or civil rights.

You just made that up.

You claimed (as the linked post shows) that the conquest of South Vietnam by the North resulted in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" and as I already pointed out "you can't lose something you never had". Saying that something results in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" is not the same as saying the result was "the loss of sham elections and civil liberties which existed only on paper". I'm not sure why you keep insisting that these are the same thing (followed by repeated denials that these are the same thing [Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In 1971 North Vietnam's Vietnamese Fatherland Front won 100% of the vote in their legislative elections, which coincidentally is the percentage by which South Vietnam's Thiệu won re-election to the presidency that year.
Thieu's miraculous result illustrates precisely what I have been saying - that such democracy as existed in South Vietnam was inadequate.

I'm not getting that at all. It certainly seems to be "adequate" enough to be considered "democracy" by you. That's the term you chose to describe the South Vietnamese government. You didn't even bother with a modifier.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are still trying to equate recognition of the historical facts of occasional elections and minimal civil rights which existed in South Vietnam (and which conceivably could have been built on and improved in time, as happened in South Korea, had the communists not taken over), with full-blown liberal democracy.

I'm not the one doing the equating here. You're the one who originally described South Vietnam as a democracy with civil liberties. (See repeated links to your original post.) Then all of a sudden you're piling on all these modifiers ("inadequate", "arbitrary") and pretending that there's an equivalence with your original post about "democracy and civil liberties". If you want to disavow your point go ahead, but don't pretend like you never made the claim.

Of course, given that Vietnam still stages (word choice deliberate) elections with results very similar to Thiệu's unbelievable (still deliberate) victory, it would seem that the country still qualifies as an "inadequate democracy" by the standards you've outlined. Civil liberties are also quite minimal in Vietnam, and "arbitrary" to use one of your other modifiers. It would seem to meet with all of the conditions you seem to require to be described as a democracy, or at least a "democracy" in the first post and an "inadequate democracy" in subsequent posts.

[ 20. May 2017, 18:36: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Saying that something results in the "loss of democracy and civil liberties" is not the same as saying the result was "the loss of sham elections and civil liberties which existed only on paper".

1. Sorry, but in the case of South Vietnam, saying that it lost democracy and civil liberties in fact means precisely that it lost inadequate (by Western standards) elections and rights.

2. The expression "existed only on paper" is one I neither used nor implied.

You just made that up.

The fact that they were far less than ideal does not mean that they were non-existent in practice, which is what "only existed on paper" indicates.

quote:
I'm not getting that at all.

Obviously there is a lot you are not getting.

The interesting question is whether the incomprehension is inadvertent or deliberate.

quote:
It certainly seems to be "adequate" enough to be considered "democracy" by you.

Nope.

Minimal and occasional democracy can be democracy without being adequate and acceptable democracy.

quote:
I'm not the one doing the equating here.

Oh yes you are.

You are trying to insist that full-blown liberal democracy in the West, rudimentary liberal democracy in South Vietnam, and pseudo-democracy in communist "elections" are all the same thing.

They are all democracy in one sense, but they are certainly not indistinguishable.

If you can't grasp the distinctions, ask someone to explain them - they would not need to be very old.

quote:
Thiệu's unbelievable (still deliberate) victory

Not sure which election you are referring to here and in previous post, but it was certainly not the the only type of election involving Thieu held in South Vietnam.

You can look up the results of the 1967 presidential election, and get all the candidates and their voting figures (Thieu won eventually with a first round percentage of 35%, not 100% as in communist elections).

So it is certainly not true that all elections held in South Vietnam, whatever their faults and infrequency, were no different to those held under communism.

[ 21. May 2017, 04:23: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0