Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Taylor]

I think it's the victim complex. If you're perpetually a victim, you start to react far more easily and then get abusive.

I think it's humorous to watch at times.

There's already a persistent dismissal of alternative opinions on some very fundamental aspects of society and humanity within all media.

If you hold one of those opinions, you might appreciate that you're starting on the back foot in discussion.

The left wing should check their privilege.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

There's already a persistent dismissal of alternative opinions on some very fundamental aspects of society and humanity within all media.

If you hold one of those opinions, you might appreciate that you're starting on the back foot in discussion.

The left wing should check their privilege.

I check my privilege thrice a day.

 

[Gethelred]

There's already a persistent dismissal of alternative opinions on some very fundamental aspects of society and humanity within all media.

If you hold one of those opinions, you might appreciate that you're starting on the back foot in discussion.

The left wing should check their privilege.

How so?

 

[Taylor]

How so?

The majority of the media and social media platforms support their position on things.

Take for example the position that there are two genders, that men and women are different and that you are born into what you are. To broadcast that position on a platform as twitter is considered hateful and warrants suspension.

Now those companies have every right to operate however they wish, but the politics they support will have a privileged position there and we should recognise the potential unhealthy circumstance of approved think being propagated in an echo chamber there.

But I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I said it.

 

[Gethelred]

The majority of the media and social media platforms support their position on things.

Take for example the position that there are two genders, that men and women are different and that you are born into what you are. To broadcast that position on a platform as twitter is considered hateful and warrants suspension.

Now those companies have every right to operate however they wish, but the politics they support will have a privileged position there and we should recognise the potential unhealthy circumstance of approved think being propagated in an echo chamber there.

But I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I said it.

Firstly, those are progressive positions, rather than left wing positions; I get that you (a staunch conservative) would like it to be progressive=left (it allows you to get left wing conservatives to vote for your team) but it blatantly isn't the case; for example, there are modern feminists who (politically speaking) are near fascist in their ideology towards an out group in favour of an in, just as there are right wing progressives. They are different dichotomies, and should be treated as different dichotomies.

Secondly, there's a curious effect in play at the moment when you paint left wing people with progressivism, especially in this country; we're a conservative bunch, but historically speaking we've had a good deal of support for left leaning economic policies. It's only very recently - in fact, when Howard began his primeministership - that they've become unpopular within an Australian context by the working class. Funny, that at that time the Left became getting bludgeoned with accusations that should be leveled at progressives.

After all, what happened here in the 70's after the most progressive Labor government in history, Whitlam's Labor? We got 8 years of Liberal governance, and decades of fuel linking progressive and left wing ideologies, leading to Hawke and Keating discarding the progressive in favour of the economics

 

[Taylor]

Firstly, those are progressive positions, rather than left wing positions; I get that you (a staunch conservative) would like it to be progressive=left (it allows you to get left wing conservatives to vote for your team) but it blatantly isn't the case; for example, there are modern feminists who (politically speaking) are near fascist in their ideology towards an out group in favour of an in, just as there are right wing progressives. They are different dichotomies, and should be treated as different dichotomies.

Secondly, there's a curious effect in play at the moment when you paint left wing people with progressivism, especially in this country; we're a conservative bunch, but historically speaking we've had a good deal of support for left leaning economic policies. It's only very recently - in fact, when Howard began his primeministership - that they've become unpopular within an Australian context by the working class. Funny, that at that time the Left became getting bludgeoned with accusations that should be leveled at progressives.

After all, what happened here in the 70's after the most progressive Labor government in history, Whitlam's Labor? We got 8 years of Liberal governance, and decades of fuel linking progressive and left wing ideologies, leading to Hawke and Keating discarding the progressive in favour of the economics

Are progressives not left wing and conservatives not right wing?

 

[Gethelred]

Are progressives not left wing and conservatives not right wing?

Manifestly not.

Right/left are organisational and economic theories. Progressive/conservative is about position on relation between people, and beliefs about the need for change. They are different dichotomies, with overlap in different ways.

 

[Taylor]

Manifestly not.

Right/left are organisational and economic theories. Progressive/conservative is about position on relation between people, and beliefs about the need for change. They are different dichotomies, with overlap in different ways.

That's a fair point, relating back to the social media they are definitely progressively social and conservatively financial.

In operation they are aligned with progressive ideology and stamp out conservative positions. I have a theory that most people consider themselves quite centrist and their positions to be moderate, the issue as I see it is that progressive movements tend to be about mobility and change resulting in conservative positions that were reasonable and not at all on the border of reasonable public discourse have that border cross them and now we have people being suspended for a scientific position counter to the socially acceptable thoughts of the platform and progressive movement they are attempting to court financially.

 

[Gethelred]

That's a fair point, relating back to the social media they are definitely progressively social and conservatively financial.

In operation they are aligned with progressive ideology and stamp out conservative positions. I have a theory that most people consider themselves quite centrist and their positions to be moderate, the issue as I see it is that progressive movements tend to be about mobility and change resulting in conservative positions that were reasonable and not at all on the border of reasonable public discourse have that border cross them and now we have people being suspended for a scientific position counter to the socially acceptable thoughts of the platform and progressive movement they are attempting to court financially.

I'd argue that people live within their own bubbles, and we're still struggling due to our social and economics evolution failing to keep up with our technological evolution. We're still stuck essentially within a small village/social group mindset; it's why we are obsessed with celebrity culture, why we gossip, why attacking one's character is as effective if not moreso than their arguments.

What I think about social media platforms is that they cannot afford to be risky in either direction, and those of a conservative persuasion tend towards being late adopters of technology; where the discourse has evolved to a certain point among early adapters of online forums (for example) by the time conservative people come along they tend to learn the 'rules' the hard way, regardless of political position.

I mean, be honest; you stated in your earlier post that you found that conservati ve posters don't disguise their ad hominems sufficiently, and so get caught retaliating. How many conservative posters do you, generally speaking, find contravening board rules than progressives? How many get bans over time? It isn't because certain positions are more closely aligned to the board rules (although you could make that argument, given that the early adopters who are around early to make the rules don't tend towards being right wing) but because the people making those observations have yet to be normalised, don't know the written and unwritten rules, and thus break them easier.

 

[CM86]

The right wing posters here don't shroud their ad hom comments well enough, they get riled up to the point of running out of words and then lash out - so they get punished.

Is there any other reasons that right wing posters get 'punished' here?

 

[Taylor]

I apologise in advance if I miss responding to everything in your appreciated and comprehensive post.

We're still stuck essentially within a small village/social group mindset

I think this is a human thing, as in wired into us over thousands of years of living in a small group, relatively speaking. We are either as a result of or coincidentally tribal.

I mean, be honest; you stated in your earlier post that you found that conservati ve posters don't disguise their ad hominems sufficiently, and so get caught retaliating. How many conservative posters do you, generally speaking, find contravening board rules than progressives? How many get bans over time? It isn't because certain positions are more closely aligned to the board rules (although you could make that argument, given that the early adopters who are around early to make the rules don't tend towards being right wing) but because the people making those observations have yet to be normalised, don't know the written and unwritten rules, and thus break them easier.

On the SRP board I'd say most of the moderator actions are against those who would be considered conservative and most of them are because their use of language and themes towards other posters is out of line with the rules.

Your point here describes why I think this happens:

why attacking one's character is as effective if not moreso than their arguments.

People can sometimes wrap up their ideas into what makes them who they are. You could be a gay, short, person of colour and being totally realistic - none of that is actually important about you, none of it speaks to your character or value as a member of society but it's clung to and wrapped up around some people as being an outward part of who they are, a flag of their tribe.

So to argue that point is actually an attack on them.

This is why I think people react. Conservative opinions are very easy to pivot into labels of selfish and cold because they are more inward and locally focused first and foremost rather than the eternally altruistic progressive ideas that are about bringing people together etc are potentially unrealistic but I wouldn't think you'd label them with anti-human or negative character traits.

I agree that the older people here won't have had as much experience in online discourse so they take things to heart, or appear to, and deliver back in return, or at least appear to. Motive is very difficult to know here and easy to assume.

The real worry are the new conservatives who were born in this darkness of the internet, they know the game.

 

[Taylor]

Is there any other reasons that right wing posters get 'punished' here?

Harassment is one of them.

 

[CM86]

Harassment is one of them.

I believe I've seem right wing posters banned for pushing white supremacist ideals and viewpoints.

Can you confirm if that has happened?

Do you believe they should have been banned, or do you think they should be able to share their ideas here, as a form of free speech and as a better way to educate people?

 

[Gethelred]

People can sometimes wrap up their ideas into what makes them who they are. You could be a gay, short, person of colour and being totally realistic - none of that is actually important about you, none of it speaks to your character or value as a member of society but it's clung to and wrapped up around some people as being an outward part of who they are, a flag of their tribe.

So to argue that point is actually an attack on them.

Older people identify themselves by what they've done; the young identify themselves by what they are. An old person isn't going to care so much for being disrespected for being a woman, being black, gay, where a young person is; they're going to see it as completely insubstantial, as they know their own worth. They've been hired and fired half a dozen times; they've married, been valued by their spouse(s), their children and their bosses, and they can point to their achievements.

It's only in dismissing how hard those achievements were that you can rouse their ire in the same way as you can in attacking the identity of the young.

I agree that the older people here won't have had as much experience in online discourse so they take things to heart, or appear to, and deliver back in return, or at least appear to. Motive is very difficult to know here and easy to assume.

The real worry are the new conservatives who were born in this darkness of the internet, they know the game.

I don't know if it's old, so much as it's a willingness to try new things, which is a hallmark of progressivism (although, it's not a clean indicator). My aunt, who is in her late sixties, was an Ebay tutor, and ran seminars on how to use Ebay to its fullest capacity; she picks up on new tech the second she can; isn't solely the province of the young to be progressive. Adaption of technology is something that comes easier to progressives (IMO; I'd be interested to see sociological studies into this) than it does to conservatives, because conservatives are perfectly content with what they have already.

 

[Taylor]

I believe I've seem right wing posters banned for pushing white supremacist ideals and viewpoints.

Can you confirm if that has happened?

Do you believe they should have been banned, or do you think they should be able to share their ideas here, as a form of free speech and as a better way to educate people?

I expect people have, I don't get briefed on everything that has happened or even what's going on day to day from other mods.

I'd rather know who the racists are than have them hidden and I'd rather not hear the opinions, but there is a difference between not hearing things I don't like and those things not existing and I think the journey to the happy ending isn't through isolating those unapproved opinions until they die out - because I don't think they do.

 

[chelseacarlton]

The majority of the media and social media platforms support their position on things.

Take for example the position that there are two genders, that men and women are different and that you are born into what you are. To broadcast that position on a platform as twitter is considered hateful and warrants suspension.

Now those companies have every right to operate however they wish, but the politics they support will have a privileged position there and we should recognise the potential unhealthy circumstance of approved think being propagated in an echo chamber there.

But I had my tongue firmly in my cheek when I said it.

Gender and biological sex are manifestly different.
One is a social science, the other is pure biology.
Why do right wingers not know this yet, your Andrew Bolt is showing on your fluorescent pink nape!

 

[Gethelred]

I'd rather know who the racists are than have them hidden and I'd rather not hear the opinions...

I acknowledge there was more to your post than this, and that provides certainly some complexity to this perspective, but I could not disagree more.

Racist (and other incorrect; that is the important part, at least for me) views need to be aired, and they need to be publicly disproven. Shouting someone down as a racist isn't the same as disproving their perspectives as wrong, and that is a titanic error of my side of politics. You're not going to convince someone else that you're more moral than they are; attempting to do so is fraught beyond belief, and it's only in retrospect that it can be done. The best (indeed, the only way) to defeat racism or any prejudice of any kind is to point out how detrimental it is to us all. It isn't that their views are repugnant or immoral that we need to argue against them, but that they are wrong.

It was only after we started to acknowledge the ideas of brown people and women that we started really to progress as a species. We've had brilliant minds and ideas throughout history, but in general they've been marginalised due to geniuses failing to fit in or meet general standards for behaviour or socialization. By listening to the other, we learn more about ourselves and the more ideas we have contributing the better off the discourse on anything becomes.

 

[Taylor]

I acknowledge there was more to your post than this, and that provides certainly some complexity to this perspective, but I could not disagree more.

Racist (and other incorrect; that is the important part, at least for me) views need to be aired, and they need to be publicly disproven. Shouting someone down as a racist isn't the same as disproving their perspectives as wrong, and that is a titanic error of my side of politics. You're not going to convince someone else that you're more moral than they are; attempting to do so is fraught beyond belief, and it's only in retrospect that it can be done. The best (indeed, the only way) to defeat racism or any prejudice of any kind is to point out how detrimental it is to us all. It isn't that their views are repugnant or immoral that we need to argue against them, but that they are wrong.

It was only after we started to acknowledge the ideas of brown people and women that we started really to progress as a species. We've had brilliant minds and ideas throughout history, but in general they've been marginalised due to geniuses failing to fit in or meet general standards for behaviour or socialization. By listening to the other, we learn more about ourselves and the more ideas we have contributing the better off the discourse on anything becomes.

You and I are at the same place on that, me rather not hearing them is because I'd hope for a reality where they don't exist - but as I mentioned that isn't reality

 

[ShanDog]

I'd argue that people live within their own bubbles, and we're still struggling due to our social and economics evolution failing to keep up with our technological evolution. We're still stuck essentially within a small village/social group mindset; it's why we are obsessed with celebrity culture, why we gossip, why attacking one's character is as effective if not moreso than their arguments.

I subscribe to these behaviours being deeply rooted social behaviours that were always going to scale up with globalisation. There's a lot of theory regarding the significance of reciprocity, gossip and the role of character/social standing. I really doubt that will ever change.

 

[Gethelred]

I subscribe to these behaviours being deeply rooted social behaviours that were always going to scale up with globalisation. There's a lot of theory regarding the significance of reciprocity, gossip and the role of character/social standing. I really doubt that will ever change.

Our behaviour is as subject to evolution as our biology. It can be as simple as a different medium of communication forcing a change of perspective (mobile phones, TV, internet) or it can be as significant as a cultural shift influencing the way we think as well as communicate.

And I see a huge amount of our problems as a species being almost completely down to the fact that we're trying to fit 500 years worth of social evolution into the space of 20-30 years (since the rise of the computer and the beginning of the internet) after we'd only really caught our breath after the industrial revolution increased the size of average settlements a hundredfold, and that's presuming that we actually caught up at all. .

To your point, though, we are all still animals at heart, and we will remain so. There will always be the element of the prey creature we were, lurking in the back of the mind. It's why - IMO - that horror remains such a popular genre, and why we default to small group isolationism in crisis; we are still afraid of what is going on in the shadows, just out of view.

 

[ShanDog]

To your point, though, we are all still animals at heart, and we will remain so.

Agree with your post but this always makes me cringe.

In a strictly scientific (taxonomy related) sense, sure. But really.... nah. And I'll die on this hill.

 

[Gethelred]

Agree with your post but this always makes me cringe.

In a strictly scientific (taxonomy related) sense, sure. But really.... nah. And I'll die on this hill.

We're not just animals, sure. But we're conceited enough to have sufficient delusions of grandeur, we need to acknowledge that without our ability to throw things accurately, our intellect coupled with our lifespan, and our ability to sweat, we would still be just a prey species in Africa.

 

[Lethality]

It's Ramadan I guess, so it's time for a few politicians of the Left to get particularly stupid.

This looks like cultural appropriation .


This one gets extra points for the bacon


I thought America was against religion in the public square.

 

[Gethelred]

It's Ramadan I guess, so it's time for a few politicians of the Left to get particularly stupid.

This looks like cultural appropriation .


This one gets extra points for the bacon


I thought America was against religion in the public square.

On one hand, I don't see how this is hypocritical, or particularly left wing. On the other hand, idiots all.

Why would you celebrate a religious holiday when a) you're not from that religion, and b) they tell you you can't eat bacon?

 

[Taylor]

On one hand, I don't see how this is hypocritical, or particularly left wing. On the other hand, idiots all.

Why would you celebrate a religious holiday when a) you're not from that religion, and b) they tell you you can't eat bacon?

There would be a high correlation between these people and those who give money to homeless when there is an facebook/instagram viral video in it for them.