4 ms·

"I'm as left wing as they come, but being left wing means being able to have open, honest and sometimes uncomfortable debates. Being left wing is not, and never

by nec4b 5y ago

"I'm as left wing as they come, but being left wing means being able to have open, honest and sometimes uncomfortable debates. Being left wing is not, and never has been, about shutting down conversation, de-platforming, dogma, chilling effects. These are the things of the hard right, and the sooner people on the left start realising it and start being empowered to be vocal in defence of the freedom of ideas, the better." That has not been true anywhere in the world where a left wing (the) party dominated the discourse. No socialist or communist party has ever had tolerance to an opposing view.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Problem is that people on the left support de-platforming. Perhaps it is wrong and business leaders are really responsible for this, but combating hate speech is popular in those circles. You can guess how hate gets define by zeitgeist.
- dmje 5y ago
  You're right. And they shouldn't. Being liberal is about being able to take on opposing views.
Tainnor 5y ago
I hope you're aware that "left wing" doesn't mean "socialist" or "communist" and that plenty of liberal democracies have had social democratic parties in power for some period or another without there being any breakdown in tolerance to opposing viewpoints.
- dmje 5y ago
  Came to say just that but you got there first and did it better than I would have
- nec4b 5y ago
  Of course it also means socialists and communists among other leftist parties. They represent the pure leftist ideology from which other leftist parties take ideas from, and the closer to center those parties are the more they tone the communistic ideals down. In essence the tip of the left wing is completely intolerable and illiberal.
  - dmje 5y ago
    Your point doesn't really work, if it is "at the heart of any left wing moderate is a left wing fringe lunatic" because obviously you could just claim the same of the right, and suggest that every moderate right wing has fascism at its core. This sort of reductionism ends up with nothing useful. Both right and left approach a similar looking set of ideologies at their extremes. I'm arguing that the left runs the risk of being overrun by something that moderate liberal lefties like me should be very concerned about.
    - Tainnor 5y ago
      Yes, although that "something" isn't even socialism, it's... I don't know what it is. I'm not a socialist by any stretch but I am told that some hard-core Marxists are quite skeptical of modern "wokeness" which strangely never seems to question power imbalances due to capitalism itself.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      > Your point doesn't really work, if it is "at the heart of any left wing moderate is a left wing fringe lunatic" because obviously you could just claim the same of the right, and suggest that every moderate right wing has fascism at its core. This sort of reductionism ends up with nothing useful. I disagree. Maybe we understand the terminology differently. For me both wings of the left and right spectrum are extremes, while liberals and conservatives are on another axis. Liberals and Conservatives have existed long before there were leftist and rightist ideologies. (the -isms) > Both right and left approach a similar looking set of ideologies at their extremes. I'm arguing that the left runs the risk of being overrun by something that moderate liberal lefties like me should be very concerned about. I agree 100%.
      - Tainnor 5y ago
        The terminology question is confused by the fact that, in the US, "liberal" means "leftist", whereas in much (all?) of Europe or maybe even the rest of the world, "liberal" is more associated with classical liberalism, i.e. closer to what is called "libertarian" in the US (although I do feel that libertarianism is like classical liberalism taken to the extreme). In any case, classical liberalism was only developed in the 19th century, while the usage of "left" and "right" is slightly older: it dates back to the French Revolution where it just happened that opposing factions would sit at opposite ends of the assembly. Given the chaotic nature of the French Revolution, what these opposite ends would represent would change countless times, but in general, the left wing was more associated with progressivism and the will of the Third Estate and the right wing was more conservative. Communism didn't even exist at the time, although arguably the first proto-communist advocate, Gracchus Babeuf, did emerge later in the French Revolution (he was offed by the "left wing" itself, though).
aliasEli 5y ago
Most countries in Western Europe have/had socialist and communist parties, that have been pretty tolerant to opposing views. Most US citizen have very strange ideas about socialism.

by nec4b 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

Problem is that people on the left support de-platforming. Perhaps it is wrong and business leaders are really responsible for this, but combating hate speech is popular in those circles. You can guess how hate gets define by zeitgeist.

dmje 5y ago
You're right. And they shouldn't. Being liberal is about being able to take on opposing views.

Tainnor 5y ago

I hope you're aware that "left wing" doesn't mean "socialist" or "communist" and that plenty of liberal democracies have had social democratic parties in power for some period or another without there being any breakdown in tolerance to opposing viewpoints.

dmje 5y ago
Came to say just that but you got there first and did it better than I would have
nec4b 5y ago
Of course it also means socialists and communists among other leftist parties. They represent the pure leftist ideology from which other leftist parties take ideas from, and the closer to center those parties are the more they tone the communistic ideals down. In essence the tip of the left wing is completely intolerable and illiberal.
- dmje 5y ago
  Your point doesn't really work, if it is "at the heart of any left wing moderate is a left wing fringe lunatic" because obviously you could just claim the same of the right, and suggest that every moderate right wing has fascism at its core. This sort of reductionism ends up with nothing useful. Both right and left approach a similar looking set of ideologies at their extremes. I'm arguing that the left runs the risk of being overrun by something that moderate liberal lefties like me should be very concerned about.
  - Tainnor 5y ago
    Yes, although that "something" isn't even socialism, it's... I don't know what it is. I'm not a socialist by any stretch but I am told that some hard-core Marxists are quite skeptical of modern "wokeness" which strangely never seems to question power imbalances due to capitalism itself.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    > Your point doesn't really work, if it is "at the heart of any left wing moderate is a left wing fringe lunatic" because obviously you could just claim the same of the right, and suggest that every moderate right wing has fascism at its core. This sort of reductionism ends up with nothing useful. I disagree. Maybe we understand the terminology differently. For me both wings of the left and right spectrum are extremes, while liberals and conservatives are on another axis. Liberals and Conservatives have existed long before there were leftist and rightist ideologies. (the -isms) > Both right and left approach a similar looking set of ideologies at their extremes. I'm arguing that the left runs the risk of being overrun by something that moderate liberal lefties like me should be very concerned about. I agree 100%.
    - Tainnor 5y ago
      The terminology question is confused by the fact that, in the US, "liberal" means "leftist", whereas in much (all?) of Europe or maybe even the rest of the world, "liberal" is more associated with classical liberalism, i.e. closer to what is called "libertarian" in the US (although I do feel that libertarianism is like classical liberalism taken to the extreme). In any case, classical liberalism was only developed in the 19th century, while the usage of "left" and "right" is slightly older: it dates back to the French Revolution where it just happened that opposing factions would sit at opposite ends of the assembly. Given the chaotic nature of the French Revolution, what these opposite ends would represent would change countless times, but in general, the left wing was more associated with progressivism and the will of the Third Estate and the right wing was more conservative. Communism didn't even exist at the time, although arguably the first proto-communist advocate, Gracchus Babeuf, did emerge later in the French Revolution (he was offed by the "left wing" itself, though).

aliasEli 5y ago

Most countries in Western Europe have/had socialist and communist parties, that have been pretty tolerant to opposing views. Most US citizen have very strange ideas about socialism.