|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 17, 2019 14:57:33 GMT -5
Sorry but to only compare the murder of Jo Cox to a milkshake being thrown is completely dismissing all the violence of Antifa and the like. The left have shown on many occasions all around the world how violent they get. But it is often dismissed as activism when they do it. Agree with most of your points about the referendum but let's not gloss over the awfulness of the left and their protests. Reminder that literally everyone should be willing to use violence to stop fascism.
|
|
|
Post by fartpanic on Jun 17, 2019 15:10:39 GMT -5
Sorry but to only compare the murder of Jo Cox to a milkshake being thrown is completely dismissing all the violence of Antifa and the like. The left have shown on many occasions all around the world how violent they get. But it is often dismissed as activism when they do it. Agree with most of your points about the referendum but let's not gloss over the awfulness of the left and their protests. Violence on any side of the political divide is unacceptable but if you think in Britain that the left is in anyway comparable to EDL, Britain First etc then i’ll Have some of what your smoking. Those groups you talk of are absolutely disgusting. But that doesn't make everyone who is opposing them is above criticism. Theres been some disgraceful behaviour from the left and it's right to call them out too. Just because the vile behaviour is mainly happening on the right doesnt mean we should be any less tolerant of that.
|
|
|
Post by fartpanic on Jun 17, 2019 15:11:25 GMT -5
Sorry but to only compare the murder of Jo Cox to a milkshake being thrown is completely dismissing all the violence of Antifa and the like. The left have shown on many occasions all around the world how violent they get. But it is often dismissed as activism when they do it. Agree with most of your points about the referendum but let's not gloss over the awfulness of the left and their protests. Reminder that literally everyone should be willing to use violence to stop fascism. So violence against the police is fine?
|
|
|
Post by bogaloo on Jun 17, 2019 15:45:58 GMT -5
Well, my two cents.
I have a bigger problem with him saying that people on the left have become violent, than anything else, honestly. A Labour MP has been murdered during the process, so to equal that with a milkshake is as stupid as can be. I gather that this is an outsider perspective and that people on the verge of being hit by the consequences may have a different outlook on things. I have been following the whole Brexit mess quite closely, as 4 of my best friends are currently working in the NHS, 3 of them working on their PhDs, so you can imagine what the impact in their lives will be.
I have been defending the second referendum route since news of misinformation via social media appeared and given the level of buffoonery and deceitfulness around characters like Johnsons, Farages and Rees Mogg. I have wholeheartedly believed this even after listening to political commentators in my own country saying “it wouldn’t work”. Quite simply how could it not work? After being shown the facts people would surely realize they had been lied to, and change their mind. But I was wrong…
The outcome of the last European Parliament election has shown the needle has hardly moved, even after everything that’s come out. It’s not like a huge part of the population has changed their minds.
What would happen if the result is 52% remain-48% leave? Do you think people on the leave side of the argument will keep quiet? They won’t, you’d be running the risk of unleashing Farage and his racists.
What if you break it down according to the type of deal? Which deal? May’s deal? Another deal (which?)? No Deal? It’s a huge confusion.
More to the point, people must realize that voting or not voting is consequential. Did people vote irresponsibly- Yes. Are they willing to do it again- Apparently so. Did a few remainers that didn’t vote in the first place see the mistake they made? Hopefully (this goes out to you, NG). Are they enough to change the outcome? Going by the European Parliament election result? Apparently not.
Also, how the hell did Cameron and co. not realize the seismic consequences of leaving the EU? How could they accept a single majority as an indication to leave the EU, and not a qualified (2/3) majority? Who decided who was entitled to vote and why, why commonwealth citizens and not EU citizens? Obviously this had to be clarified before the referendum, but I'm not sure you can claim for invalidity due to its consequences for the country.
But if you want to take a step back, this process is also the result of British politician’s ineptitude. The EU offered several models of withdrawal, including models that wouldn’t harm people on the way and would allow the access to the customs union that would essentially solve the NI border problem. May’s will to appease extremists in her own party rendered it impossible. Corbyn’s indecision, the fact that he was waiting for the right moment for power to fall on his lap and the fact that he is, in fact, a leaver, did the rest. So, unfortunately, I think Noel’s opinion on this is not far off the mark. I stress again. UNFORTUNATELY. The result is ugly, it shines a light on very, very problematic issues of British society, but it is real, and not due to some psychotic outburst – The proof: Polls don’t seem to have changed that much ever since, and we even know who the majority leavers are- So I'm really sad for this, but I guess you'll have to wait for a large sway of the baby boomers to die, before there is a change.
You can angue they are uninformed, yes- but unfortunately, it's a one man, one vote system and no-one takes a test regarding "Political Knowledge" for any other election before voting.
Now regarding Corbyn: Noel is behaving as an uninformed, dumb fool, spewing the “communist” word without clearly understanding what it means (or using it as a shield to avoid explain what are his actual views on specific issues).
However, I do, as a someone ideologically to the left of the political spectrum, have no problem with Labour’s memorandum, but I do have issues with him, particularly issues with the partisan way he conducts the party- it’s either with me or against me, and the people he surrounds himself with (not that it is any of my business, mind, not being British and not living in the UK).
So no, he specifically and his views (and not the party views) don’t strike me as being communist, or purely Marxist, but Trotskyst – Far closer to Mélanchon in France, Podemos in Spain and the Left Block in Portugal.
Not that there is any problem with their existence. They can make a useful contribution to the democratic process (as has been shown in Portugal, for instance), but there should be a political spectrum wide enough to allow the expression and articulation of those views, and not a huge lump together in one party. That will only lead to confusion, and contribute to keep left wing political parties away from power, because a share of the traditional voters of that party will not feel represented in their leadership an some point in time. Sorry but to only compare the murder of Jo Cox to a milkshake being thrown is completely dismissing all the violence of Antifa and the like. The left have shown on many occasions all around the world how violent they get. But it is often dismissed as activism when they do it. Agree with most of your points about the referendum but let's not gloss over the awfulness of the left and their protests. I don't know enough about those movements to comment on that. I was commenting solely in regards of the Brexit related problems. I am fully aware that any type extremism can be harmful and I do not condone it either way.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jun 17, 2019 16:18:24 GMT -5
Violence on any side of the political divide is unacceptable but if you think in Britain that the left is in anyway comparable to EDL, Britain First etc then i’ll Have some of what your smoking. Those groups you talk of are absolutely disgusting. But that doesn't make everyone who is opposing them is above criticism.Theres been some disgraceful behaviour from the left and it's right to call them out too. Just because the vile behaviour is mainly happening on the right doesnt mean we should be any less tolerant of that. Of course it doesn't but there isn't an equivalence between them.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 17, 2019 16:19:11 GMT -5
Reminder that literally everyone should be willing to use violence to stop fascism. So violence against the police is fine? Often, yes. I'm actually in favour of it in a lot of cases. The liberal-capitalist glorification of the police force, which is a violent and systemically-racist organisation designed to enforce the rules of an elite, is one of the most bizarre things about being a centrist, in my view. I'm not saying you should go and beat up your local Bobby, but in the words of George Orwell "whenever a working-class man comes into conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I know who's side I am on". Anyway, I’m sorry to everyone clicking on this thread for a bit of juicy Noel-bashing, but I am gonna take some time to deconstruct the view that Antifa is morally comparable to right-wing fascist groups and their violence. Now, I don’t think that all left-wing violence is okay, nor do I think all antifa actions are good, but I think anyone who tries to draw this line between Antifa and right-wing violence are being a lot more morally repulsive than they think. So, let’s learn a few things about Antifa: 1 – It doesn’t exist. Antifa is not an organisation. You cannot join Antifa. It is not a group. There are no members. It is simply a name given to any person or group of people that consciously engage in anti-fascist action. As such, the vast majority of work done by Antifa people (such as my good self) is based around local things like counter-protesting, revealing fascists to their employers, taking down racist propaganda, or going undercover within their groups to gather information about what they are doing. Gathering intelligence is important to most antifa projects, precisely because they do not wish violence to enter the equation unless completely necessary (unlike the police, who use it as first resort). 2 – It only targets practicing fascists. Antifa people do not believe in thought crime, they only act, and indeed only exist, when people actively try and promote the core tenants of fascism, those being the advocation of racial supremacy via military force, the enforcement of an undemocratic state, and the harkening back to some distant past ideal of a racist world. In order to not raise the rile of an antifascist, all you have to do is not actively promote the rise of a totalitarian ethnostate. But if you’re not white, not straight, not capitalist, or not desirable, the only thing you can do to please a fascist is die. 3 – It does not rule out violence. And, sorry liberals, but neither do you. One of the most spectacularly ignorant things centrists say is that “violence has no place in politics”, when violence actually occupies almost every place in politics. If you believe in a police force, as I assume you do, then you believe in legitimised violence. They don’t carry guns for fun. The same thing is true if you believe in borders, or the military, or most other state institutions. It’s an interesting form of propaganda that has led liberals to believe that violence is anything other than an integral part of how these systems operate – look at media headlines such as “Violence Breaks Out After Police Kill Unarmed Man!”. See that word? After. To quote Olly Thorn “We call things violent not because they stand out from a background of peace but because they stand out from what society considers normal".
The truth is that all political positions justify violence, the question is – towards who? Fascism justifies violence towards anyone who is not racially, sexually, or intellectual “desirable” to them. Capitalism justifies it against anyone not following the rules of the upper class, which includes protesting against them, or simply having the bad luck to be born in a country containing profitable oil resources. Antifa legitimises violence only against those who are actively trying to build a society that denies the right of innocent people to exist. 4 - Their violence is in no way comparable to the right's. 98% of extremist domestic terrorism in the US now comes from right-wing extremists. All over the world, they are shooting up mosques, running over protestors, and in Germany the other week 30 neo-nazis made a 200-person death-list, bought 200 body bags, and enough limestone acid to dissolve the bodies. They were stopped at the last minute. Didn't get talked about in the media, much, that. Meanwhile, antifa people knock a fascist on his arse or pour milkshake on a white-supremacist, and "both sides are as bad as each other". 5 – You should be Antifa. I know centrists like to furiously masturbate over the idea that left-wing discourse cheapens the idea of fascism by talking about it so much (“Oh, everyone’s a fascist!”), but these ideas are far from dead. Fascism starts with the idea that “white” people (a very changeable term, usually meaning straight white first-world intellectually capable men) are the victims of an invasion – victims of immigration, of socialist conspiracies, of some sort of insidious cultural genocide. Anyone who follows modern political discourse knows that these seeds are still sown in the ground. The policies of fascists start in a way that liberals might consider outwardly peaceful, if not morally right: the banning of certain religions or races from entering a country, for example. But then there are the people within the country, the Jewish people living in the city, the mixed-race children already here, the homosexuals amongst us. Eventually, the only way the fascist can protect himself in his twisted mind is through extermination of the threat. Genocide. And if that sounds dramatic, then look at the charts of the population of Jewish Europeans in the 1940’s. All fascist ideas, even the seeds of them, are violent. It’s easy to sit back and say that violence has no place in politics and we should condemn all forms of violence equally and everyone has a right to organisation and so on and so on. But that’s a privileged view, and it’s a blissfully ignorant one. I think it’s very important that all of us are anti-fascist, and actively try and stop these ideas from building. I don’t think we should go and kill anyone who votes Trump, I don’t think anyone who dislikes open borders is a fascist, I don't think all left-wing violence is okay, and I don’t defend any immoral action. But I do think that to draw an equivalence that “sure, we have some horrible right-wing violence, but look at the left-wing with Antifa!!” is a deeply ignorant statement, and people should stop making it. Be a good person, stop unjustified violence, be anti-fascist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2019 16:51:19 GMT -5
Reminder that literally everyone should be willing to use violence to stop fascism. So violence against the police is fine? I've seen police (or security guards) being violent in a way that'd get a normal person in trouble. In those moments I wouldn't hesitate giving it back to them at all if it only were possible. Some of those authorities are just bullies who're waiting to get a chance to abuse their power. And that's fucking sick.
|
|
|
Post by fartpanic on Jun 17, 2019 16:54:29 GMT -5
So violence against the police is fine? I've seen police (or security guards) being violent in a way that'd get a normal person in trouble. In those moments I wouldn't hesitate giving it back to them at all if it only were possible. Some of those authorities are just bullies who're waiting to get a chance to abuse their power. And that's fucking sick. I wouldn't disagree with that but I've seen alot of evidence of them being violent unnecessarily. I wouldn't say we need to be violent towards the far right. They can be defeated without playing into their hands with violence.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 17, 2019 17:04:32 GMT -5
Well, my two cents.
I have a bigger problem with him saying that people on the left have become violent, than anything else, honestly. A Labour MP has been murdered during the process, so to equal that with a milkshake is as stupid as can be. I gather that this is an outsider perspective and that people on the verge of being hit by the consequences may have a different outlook on things. I have been following the whole Brexit mess quite closely, as 4 of my best friends are currently working in the NHS, 3 of them working on their PhDs, so you can imagine what the impact in their lives will be.
I have been defending the second referendum route since news of misinformation via social media appeared and given the level of buffoonery and deceitfulness around characters like Johnsons, Farages and Rees Mogg. I have wholeheartedly believed this even after listening to political commentators in my own country saying “it wouldn’t work”. Quite simply how could it not work? After being shown the facts people would surely realize they had been lied to, and change their mind. But I was wrong…
The outcome of the last European Parliament election has shown the needle has hardly moved, even after everything that’s come out. It’s not like a huge part of the population has changed their minds.
What would happen if the result is 52% remain-48% leave? Do you think people on the leave side of the argument will keep quiet? They won’t, you’d be running the risk of unleashing Farage and his racists.
What if you break it down according to the type of deal? Which deal? May’s deal? Another deal (which?)? No Deal? It’s a huge confusion.
More to the point, people must realize that voting or not voting is consequential. Did people vote irresponsibly- Yes. Are they willing to do it again- Apparently so. Did a few remainers that didn’t vote in the first place see the mistake they made? Hopefully (this goes out to you, NG). Are they enough to change the outcome? Going by the European Parliament election result? Apparently not.
Also, how the hell did Cameron and co. not realize the seismic consequences of leaving the EU? How could they accept a single majority as an indication to leave the EU, and not a qualified (2/3) majority? Who decided who was entitled to vote and why, why commonwealth citizens and not EU citizens? Obviously this had to be clarified before the referendum, but I'm not sure you can claim for invalidity due to its consequences for the country.
But if you want to take a step back, this process is also the result of British politician’s ineptitude. The EU offered several models of withdrawal, including models that wouldn’t harm people on the way and would allow the access to the customs union that would essentially solve the NI border problem. May’s will to appease extremists in her own party rendered it impossible. Corbyn’s indecision, the fact that he was waiting for the right moment for power to fall on his lap and the fact that he is, in fact, a leaver, did the rest. So, unfortunately, I think Noel’s opinion on this is not far off the mark. I stress again. UNFORTUNATELY. The result is ugly, it shines a light on very, very problematic issues of British society, but it is real, and not due to some psychotic outburst – The proof: Polls don’t seem to have changed that much ever since, and we even know who the majority leavers are- So I'm really sad for this, but I guess you'll have to wait for a large sway of the baby boomers to die, before there is a change.
You can angue they are uninformed, yes- but unfortunately, it's a one man, one vote system and no-one takes a test regarding "Political Knowledge" for any other election before voting.
Now regarding Corbyn: Noel is behaving as an uninformed, dumb fool, spewing the “communist” word without clearly understanding what it means (or using it as a shield to avoid explain what are his actual views on specific issues).
but I do have issues with him, particularly issues with the partisan way he conducts the party- it’s either with me or against me, and the people he surrounds himself with (not that it is any of my business, mind, not being British and not living in the UK).
So no, he specifically and his views (and not the party views) don’t strike me as being communist, or purely Marxist, but Trotskyst – Far closer to Mélanchon in France, Podemos in Spain and the Left Block in Portugal.
Not that there is any problem with their existence. They can make a useful contribution to the democratic process (as has been shown in Portugal, for instance), but there should be a political spectrum wide enough to allow the expression and articulation of those views, and not a huge lump together in one party. That will only lead to confusion, and contribute to keep left wing political parties away from power, because a share of the traditional voters of that party will not feel represented in their leadership an some point in time. This is the crux for me atm. Honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for Corbyn in the last few months. He's largely an irrelevance now and has lost the momentum he had in say 2017/early 2018. Add into the fact that while a lot like him, a lot of people genuinely don't like him (my dad is one - he doesn't like him one bit, and says similar things that Noel says). Unfortunately, it's not just 'miseducation' anymore - more and more people seem to think it. Part of the whole problem with sections of the left atm is the us against them attitude you quote. I got into a debate on Twitter the other day with someone who called me a Tory because I voted Green in the last election. Because a vote for any other party than Labour is a vote for the Tories. That attitude is going to get Labour nowhere any time soon, and bringing it back to the left as a whole, the smart-arse attitude of anyone with an opposing view (particularly on Brexit) being 'miseducated' doesn't help at all either. When I saw something the other day about a proposed 'garden tax' from his camp, I was honestly baffled, it seems outrageous. But... I haven't looked into it enough to know more and make a fully informed decision (see below) so I'll withhold judgement fully until I stop being lazy and check it out more. Largely agree with your post. Probably agree more with Noel on Brexit than you do, and I think the things he says on Corbyn are mainly for effect (which is nothing new on any subject from him or Liam). The classic 'Noel's a tory' etc shouts on Twitter have come back in force, despite the fact that in the same interview he slags the Tories too - but it's easier for some people to just watch a quick vid or read a headline and one snatch quote (which again, is a wider issue in society anyway).
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 17, 2019 17:07:53 GMT -5
I've seen police (or security guards) being violent in a way that'd get a normal person in trouble. In those moments I wouldn't hesitate giving it back to them at all if it only were possible. Some of those authorities are just bullies who're waiting to get a chance to abuse their power. And that's fucking sick. I wouldn't disagree with that but I've seen alot of evidence of them being violent unnecessarily. I wouldn't say we need to be violent towards the far right. They can be defeated without playing into their hands with violence. People just need to stop being freaks I don't care whether they're left or right, black or white, gay or straight, gender-neutral or whatever. Just wish they'd grow the fuck up, please.
|
|
|
Post by thomaslivesforever on Jun 17, 2019 17:28:03 GMT -5
Well, my two cents.
I have a bigger problem with him saying that people on the left have become violent, than anything else, honestly. A Labour MP has been murdered during the process, so to equal that with a milkshake is as stupid as can be. I gather that this is an outsider perspective and that people on the verge of being hit by the consequences may have a different outlook on things. I have been following the whole Brexit mess quite closely, as 4 of my best friends are currently working in the NHS, 3 of them working on their PhDs, so you can imagine what the impact in their lives will be.
I have been defending the second referendum route since news of misinformation via social media appeared and given the level of buffoonery and deceitfulness around characters like Johnsons, Farages and Rees Mogg. I have wholeheartedly believed this even after listening to political commentators in my own country saying “it wouldn’t work”. Quite simply how could it not work? After being shown the facts people would surely realize they had been lied to, and change their mind. But I was wrong… The outcome of the last European Parliament election has shown the needle has hardly moved, even after everything that’s come out. It’s not like a huge part of the population has changed their minds.
What would happen if the result is 52% remain-48% leave? Do you think people on the leave side of the argument will keep quiet? They won’t, you’d be running the risk of unleashing Farage and his racists. What if you break it down according to the type of deal? Which deal? May’s deal? Another deal (which?)? No Deal? It’s a huge confusion. More to the point, people must realize that voting or not voting is consequential. Did people vote irresponsibly- Yes. Are they willing to do it again- Apparently so. Did a few remainers that didn’t vote in the first place see the mistake they made? Hopefully (this goes out to you, NG). Are they enough to change the outcome? Going by the European Parliament election result? Apparently not. Also, how the hell did Cameron and co. not realize the seismic consequences of leaving the EU? How could they accept a single majority as an indication to leave the EU, and not a qualified (2/3) majority? Who decided who was entitled to vote and why, why commonwealth citizens and not EU citizens? Obviously this had to be clarified before the referendum, but I'm not sure you can claim for invalidity due to its consequences for the country. But if you want to take a step back, this process is also the result of British politician’s ineptitude. The EU offered several models of withdrawal, including models that wouldn’t harm people on the way and would allow the access to the customs union that would essentially solve the NI border problem. May’s will to appease extremists in her own party rendered it impossible. Corbyn’s indecision, the fact that he was waiting for the right moment for power to fall on his lap and the fact that he is, in fact, a leaver, did the rest. So, unfortunately, I think Noel’s opinion on this is not far off the mark. I stress again. UNFORTUNATELY. The result is ugly, it shines a light on very, very problematic issues of British society, but it is real, and not due to some psychotic outburst – The proof: Polls don’t seem to have changed that much ever since, and we even know who the majority leavers are- So I'm really sad for this, but I guess you'll have to wait for a large sway of the baby boomers to die, before there is a change.
You can angue they are uninformed, yes- but unfortunately, it's a one man, one vote system and no-one takes a test regarding "Political Knowledge" for any other election before voting.
Now regarding Corbyn: Noel is behaving as an uninformed, dumb fool, spewing the “communist” word without clearly understanding what it means (or using it as a shield to avoid explain what are his actual views on specific issues).
but I do have issues with him, particularly issues with the partisan way he conducts the party- it’s either with me or against me, and the people he surrounds himself with (not that it is any of my business, mind, not being British and not living in the UK). So no, he specifically and his views (and not the party views) don’t strike me as being communist, or purely Marxist, but Trotskyst – Far closer to Mélanchon in France, Podemos in Spain and the Left Block in Portugal. Not that there is any problem with their existence. They can make a useful contribution to the democratic process (as has been shown in Portugal, for instance), but there should be a political spectrum wide enough to allow the expression and articulation of those views, and not a huge lump together in one party. That will only lead to confusion, and contribute to keep left wing political parties away from power, because a share of the traditional voters of that party will not feel represented in their leadership an some point in time. This is the crux for me atm. Honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for Corbyn in the last few months. He's largely an irrelevance now and has lost the momentum he had in say 2017/early 2018. Add into the fact that while a lot like him, a lot of people genuinely don't like him (my dad is one - he doesn't like him one bit, and says similar things that Noel says). Unfortunately, it's not just 'miseducation' anymore - more and more people seem to think it. Part of the whole problem with sections of the left atm is the us against them attitude you quote. I got into a debate on Twitter the other day with someone who called me a Tory because I voted Green in the last election. Because a vote for any other party than Labour is a vote for the Tories. That attitude is going to get Labour nowhere any time soon, and bringing it back to the left as a whole, the smart-arse attitude of anyone with an opposing view (particularly on Brexit) being 'miseducated' doesn't help at all either. When I saw something the other day about a proposed 'garden tax' from his camp, I was honestly baffled, it seems outrageous. But... I haven't looked into it enough to know more and make a fully informed decision (see below) so I'll withhold judgement fully until I stop being lazy and check it out more. Largely agree with your post. Probably agree more with Noel on Brexit than you do, and I think the things he says on Corbyn are mainly for effect (which is nothing new on any subject from him or Liam). The classic 'Noel's a tory' etc shouts on Twitter have come back in force, despite the fact that in the same interview he slags the Tories too - but it's easier for some people to just watch a quick vid or read a headline and one snatch quote (which again, is a wider issue in society anyway). The vast majority of Labour voters wouldn't think that a vote for anyone else but them is a vote for the Tories, ridiculous. It is however about right and wrong to a degree. www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.htmlThat's what its about, its about policy not personality. And Noel's half baked opinions on it do him a disservice. Or maybe they don't, maybe that's just where he's at.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 17, 2019 18:01:16 GMT -5
I wouldn't disagree with that but I've seen alot of evidence of them being violent unnecessarily. I wouldn't say we need to be violent towards the far right. They can be defeated without playing into their hands with violence. People just need to stop being freaks I don't care whether they're left or right, black or white, gay or straight, gender-neutral or whatever. Just wish they'd grow the fuck up, please. Tempting as it might be to cast yourself as the lone adult voice of reason in a world gone mad, it is at best laughable to compare whatever "freakishness" left-wing, minority, LGBTQ, or inter-sex communities are bringing to society with the organised power of a right-wing that wants to deny women abortion rights, ban people of different religions from entering countries, deregulate companies that are destroying our environment, elect child molesters, and imprison swathes of the population for smoking a plant. Yeah, there's some mentalist woman out there who thinks all hetero-sex is rape, and there's Tankies in leftist spaces, and we've all met an annoying vegan or two, but to compare these outliers with the batshit views that are at the core of the state policies of some of the biggest powers on Earth is harmful to say the least. The truth is that centrism has to die for these things to end. We need to stop sitting above the conflict of ideologies like smug parents at a children's party, acting as if both sides are equally silly and if only they could just shake hands and remember that it's all just opinion. Right does not exist on the side of those who are fighting feminism, or worker's rights, or trans-rights, or environmental care. They have to be condemned in exclusivity if we want to change the things that have every chance of making human life on this planet unsustainable in the long-term.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 8:13:07 GMT -5
This is the crux for me atm. Honestly, I've lost a lot of respect for Corbyn in the last few months. He's largely an irrelevance now and has lost the momentum he had in say 2017/early 2018. Add into the fact that while a lot like him, a lot of people genuinely don't like him (my dad is one - he doesn't like him one bit, and says similar things that Noel says). Unfortunately, it's not just 'miseducation' anymore - more and more people seem to think it. Part of the whole problem with sections of the left atm is the us against them attitude you quote. I got into a debate on Twitter the other day with someone who called me a Tory because I voted Green in the last election. Because a vote for any other party than Labour is a vote for the Tories. That attitude is going to get Labour nowhere any time soon, and bringing it back to the left as a whole, the smart-arse attitude of anyone with an opposing view (particularly on Brexit) being 'miseducated' doesn't help at all either. When I saw something the other day about a proposed 'garden tax' from his camp, I was honestly baffled, it seems outrageous. But... I haven't looked into it enough to know more and make a fully informed decision (see below) so I'll withhold judgement fully until I stop being lazy and check it out more. Largely agree with your post. Probably agree more with Noel on Brexit than you do, and I think the things he says on Corbyn are mainly for effect (which is nothing new on any subject from him or Liam). The classic 'Noel's a tory' etc shouts on Twitter have come back in force, despite the fact that in the same interview he slags the Tories too - but it's easier for some people to just watch a quick vid or read a headline and one snatch quote (which again, is a wider issue in society anyway). The vast majority of Labour voters wouldn't think that a vote for anyone else but them is a vote for the Tories, ridiculous. It is however about right and wrong to a degree. www.independent.co.uk/news/health/tory-austerity-deaths-study-report-people-die-social-care-government-policy-a8057306.htmlThat's what its about, its about policy not personality. And Noel's half baked opinions on it do him a disservice. Or maybe they don't, maybe that's just where he's at. I don't think the vast majority do either. But it's certainly a problem (and a lot depends on where the people are from as well) with it as an attitude. And yes, the above link is disgusting mate. With you 100%. Any normal person would be. So is Noel - he says it in the interview. But there's more than one way to go about getting rid of it and ultimately Labour are more concerned with eating themselves from the inside out at the moment than actually doing anything about sorting themselves out. I don't think that is exclusively (or even mainly) Corbyn's fault, but they're a mess.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 8:18:54 GMT -5
People just need to stop being freaks I don't care whether they're left or right, black or white, gay or straight, gender-neutral or whatever. Just wish they'd grow the fuck up, please. Tempting as it might be to cast yourself as the lone adult voice of reason in a world gone mad, it is at best laughable to compare whatever "freakishness" left-wing, minority, LGBTQ, or inter-sex communities are bringing to society with the organised power of a right-wing that wants to deny women abortion rights, ban people of different religions from entering countries, deregulate companies that are destroying our environment, elect child molesters, and imprison swathes of the population for smoking a plant. Yeah, there's some mentalist woman out there who thinks all hetero-sex is rape, and there's Tankies in leftist spaces, and we've all met an annoying vegan or two, but to compare these outliers with the batshit views that are at the core of the state policies of some of the biggest powers on Earth is harmful to say the least. The truth is that centrism has to die for these things to end. We need to stop sitting above the conflict of ideologies like smug parents at a children's party, acting as if both sides are equally silly and if only they could just shake hands and remember that it's all just opinion. Right does not exist on the side of those who are fighting feminism, or worker's rights, or trans-rights, or environmental care. They have to be condemned in exclusivity if we want to change the things that have every chance of making human life on this planet unsustainable in the long-term. Why does centrism need to die? The middle is always where the truth is. I'm sorry, I really do agree with that. I agree 100% that being pro LGBTQ and very vocal about it is far better than being pro racism and very vocal about it. I hate the Tommy Robinsons of this world. But I hate the fact the left (not everyone!) keep playing into their hands to an extent. You say centrism needs to die? Well I think it's extremely naive to believe that any normal, average person on the street is exclusively one way or the other politically wise. It's nonsense. And another example of 'us against them'. Where i'm from, Labour will never be ousted in terms of a general election. It's a safe seat. Former mining towns decimated by the Tories in the 80s. The majority of those Labour voters voted OUT in the referendum. Does that make those life-long Labour voters right wing? Or does it show that most people just have a mix of political views and you can't say stuff like 'centrism must die'. Also, your last sentence is pretty scary. That's just as much an ideology as the ones you (rightly) oppose. I'm all for trans rights. Again, no normal person would be against it. But should things like pronouns (using that infamous Jordan Peterson example) be forced on others as law? How can you force speech? Sure, anyone who still uses the N word is a horrid person. It's racist. It's abysmal and they'd be called out for it. But should a government be able to tell someone what to call another person as a rule? Or should it be up to the person in question to say 'please call me by [insert pronoun here]'. If then, some weirdo (like Peterson in this instance) refused, then yeh, I'd think they were a complete knob. They're probably not a facist, like.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 8:25:15 GMT -5
The trans rights thing is just an example.
I'm just sick of people on both sides making excuses for weird behaviour.
The left - to me - were meant to be the sensible ones. There's no sense on either side at the moment. Shouting and screaming and kicking and crying that stuff went against them is all I see. And you end up with situations like the one the UK is in now, especially when you throw a useless government and useless opposition into the mix.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 18, 2019 8:30:17 GMT -5
Tempting as it might be to cast yourself as the lone adult voice of reason in a world gone mad, it is at best laughable to compare whatever "freakishness" left-wing, minority, LGBTQ, or inter-sex communities are bringing to society with the organised power of a right-wing that wants to deny women abortion rights, ban people of different religions from entering countries, deregulate companies that are destroying our environment, elect child molesters, and imprison swathes of the population for smoking a plant. Yeah, there's some mentalist woman out there who thinks all hetero-sex is rape, and there's Tankies in leftist spaces, and we've all met an annoying vegan or two, but to compare these outliers with the batshit views that are at the core of the state policies of some of the biggest powers on Earth is harmful to say the least. The truth is that centrism has to die for these things to end. We need to stop sitting above the conflict of ideologies like smug parents at a children's party, acting as if both sides are equally silly and if only they could just shake hands and remember that it's all just opinion. Right does not exist on the side of those who are fighting feminism, or worker's rights, or trans-rights, or environmental care. They have to be condemned in exclusivity if we want to change the things that have every chance of making human life on this planet unsustainable in the long-term. Why does centrism need to die? Because it's wrong. There is no moral middle-ground on racism, or transphobia, or protecting the environment, or abolishing homelessness, that is acceptable. You say it is "far better" to be pro-LGBTQ and not bigoted, but I'll say to be pro-LGBTQ is the only moral position available. There is no alternative. If you want to live in a world where people are not judged on their sexuality, race, or religion, in a world where we have an environment that is under no threat of being made unsustainable, in a world where fascism is non-existent, then we can only start by eliminating the idea that there is some acceptable compromise between right and wrong. There isn't. Scary as it seems to liberal-capitalists, centrism must die.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 8:53:25 GMT -5
Why does centrism need to die? Because it's wrong. There is no moral middle-ground on racism, or transphobia, or protecting the environment, or abolishing homelessness, that is acceptable. The centrist position on almost every economic injustice (Labour, by the way, are centrist) is to maintain the class system that creates it, with violence whenever possible, but to slightly tailor some of the injustice with taxes or such. This doesn't cure diseases, it treats symptoms. You say it is "far better" to be pro-LGBTQ and not bigoted, but I'll say to be pro-LGBTQ is the only moral position available. There is no alternative. If you want to live in a world where people are not judged on their sexuality, race, or religion, in a world where we have an environment that is under no threat of being made unsustainable, in a world where fascism is non-existent, then we can only start by eliminating the idea that there is some acceptable compromise between right and wrong. There isn't. Scary as it seems to liberal-capitalists, centrism must die. My point is most people simply don't care. They just want to get on with their lives. I'd say the normal thing to be is just to be happy and be happy for others if they are happy, as long as it's not encroaching on your life in a dangerous/violent way. I agree that all of those things have no middle ground. But simultaneously, if you go around eating yourself up inside at every injustice then you'll live no life worth living anyway. Fascism must die? Agree entirely. So must communism, which is just as bad, just as dangerous. But fascism isn't some bloke who drops litter, is it? Or someone who for some weird reason doesn't like the fact that two men can be in love? Fascism is being a Nazi. It's literally hating someone so much that you want to kill them just for being who they are. Honestly, the way the term 'fascist' is thrown around, it's a shock that any gay person manages to leave the house without being murdered. So no, centrism mustn't die. There must always be a sensible, reasoned approach somewhere in the middle of any argument (political or otherwise). Is the centrism approach that's around at the moment the right one? No, not for me. It clearly needs adapting and changing and people need to be more open to new ideas. I guess I could be labelled a liberal-capitalist, I dunno. I am left leaning politically, in terms of rights for others etc, but at the same time I want what's best for me as long as I earn my way. Of course I want the government to protect and care for the residents of its state, and there should be proper taxation in place to ensure that those services are run correctly. But also what I earn should be mine after the state has taken the reasonable amount that it needs, and I shouldn't be punished for wanting more if I have the ability to get it. I guess most people are like that? So how is the centre not a good place to be in that instance? Also, it's extremely naive to believe that it will ever, ever be possible to eradicate racism, or homophobia. It's shite, I fully agree, but it's just not going to happen. Doesn't mean we should tolerate it or not call people out for it. But it also doesn't mean it's ever going to go away, it's just a sad reality of life. People will find excuses for their beliefs and behaviour (religion etc) and justify it. So how can you ever make it go away? A load of people shouting at each other in a street isn't the best start, surely?
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 8:57:04 GMT -5
The EscapistI'm glad we can have this discussion anyway. Maybe a lot of things are just semantics. I'm sure we do agree on the broad subject and we just want people to be happy.
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 18, 2019 10:28:23 GMT -5
Because it's wrong. There is no moral middle-ground on racism, or transphobia, or protecting the environment, or abolishing homelessness, that is acceptable. The centrist position on almost every economic injustice (Labour, by the way, are centrist) is to maintain the class system that creates it, with violence whenever possible, but to slightly tailor some of the injustice with taxes or such. This doesn't cure diseases, it treats symptoms. You say it is "far better" to be pro-LGBTQ and not bigoted, but I'll say to be pro-LGBTQ is the only moral position available. There is no alternative. If you want to live in a world where people are not judged on their sexuality, race, or religion, in a world where we have an environment that is under no threat of being made unsustainable, in a world where fascism is non-existent, then we can only start by eliminating the idea that there is some acceptable compromise between right and wrong. There isn't. Scary as it seems to liberal-capitalists, centrism must die. So no, centrism mustn't die. There must always be a sensible, reasoned approach somewhere in the middle of any argument (political or otherwise). Is the centrism approach that's around at the moment the right one? No, not for me. It clearly needs adapting and changing and people need to be more open to new ideas. I think the idea that politics is an abstract difference of opinion that most people don’t care about is a rather sheltered one. For the hundreds of millions of people in third-world countries who can’t eat regularly because of the machinations of capitalism, politics is something that is affecting them in the most violent way imaginable. For the families of the 60+ children who died in Obama’s drone strikes, the idea of politics as mere difference of opinion must seem odd. In the West, we have disgustingly large homeless populations and if you’re trans or black, it isn’t at all unusual to read about someone just like you being killed because they were someone just like you. It would be easy for me, a white western man, to sit back and say “Ah, politics is just opinion, let’s all meet in the middle!”, but for an awful lot of people, that point of view simply isn’t possible. Authoritarian strands of communism are indeed dangerous. However, there are more left-wing ideologies than communism – I'm an anarchist, for example. The reasonable response to having horror under capitalism and horror under state-communism isn’t to find a middle ground between the two, it’s to abandon their hierarchical ideologies altogether and start your thinking from a place of freedom and equality. The difference, though, is that I don’t see many people today saying, as Marx did, that workers should replace politicians and take direct control of the state, use it as revolutionary apparatus, abolish private property, and create a communist society. I do, however, see people saying that walls should be put around countries, that Muslims should be deported, that trans people are mentally ill, and that there is a white-replacement genocide occurring in the West. This is not people leaving litter. These are the clear seeds of fascist ideology being planted in mainstream culture, and it’s happening while centrists are telling us that "Antifa is just as bad!!". To allow this idea to become a standard response is to allow fascism to grow indefinitely. I think your problem is that you’ve learned to associate “reasonable” with “middle”. The reasonable response to the question “Are trans people just mentally ill?” is not somewhere in the middle. It’s on one side, and one side only. There is no sensible answer, middle-ground or otherwise, to the question “Should we allow fascists to organise?” that isn’t “no”. And, no, we can’t stop people being transphobic or fascist, but we can stop them from affecting the way society works on a fundamental level. Considering we have a US President who appoints open white-nationalists, and a prospective UK prime-minister who calls black people “picaninnies with watermelon smiles”, I suggest it’s time we stop tutting at some random kid who threw a milkshake at someone, going “both sides are as bad as each other!”, and recognise that we need to actively stop the threats that are coming from positions of power in our society. No centre-ground is reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 12:31:07 GMT -5
So no, centrism mustn't die. There must always be a sensible, reasoned approach somewhere in the middle of any argument (political or otherwise). Is the centrism approach that's around at the moment the right one? No, not for me. It clearly needs adapting and changing and people need to be more open to new ideas. I think the idea that politics is an abstract difference of opinion that most people don’t care about is a rather sheltered one. For the hundreds of millions of people in third-world countries who can’t eat regularly because of the machinations of capitalism, politics is something that is affecting them in the most violent way imaginable. For the families of the 60+ children who died in Obama’s drone strikes, the idea of politics as mere difference of opinion must seem odd. In the West, we have disgustingly large homeless populations and if you’re trans or black, it isn’t at all unusual to read about someone just like you being killed because they were someone just like you. It would be easy for me, a white western man, to sit back and say “Ah, politics is just opinion, let’s all meet in the middle!”, but for an awful lot of people, that point of view simply isn’t possible. Authoritarian strands of communism are indeed dangerous. However, there are more left-wing ideologies than communism – I'm an anarchist, for example. The reasonable response to having horror under capitalism and horror under state-communism isn’t to find a middle ground between the two, it’s to abandon their hierarchical ideologies altogether and start your thinking from a place of freedom and equality. The difference, though, is that I don’t see many people today saying, as Marx did, that workers should replace politicians and take direct control of the state, use it as revolutionary apparatus, abolish private property, and create a communist society. I do, however, see people saying that walls should be put around countries, that Muslims should be deported, that trans people are mentally ill, and that there is a white-replacement genocide occurring in the West. This is not people leaving litter. These are the clear seeds of fascist ideology being planted in mainstream culture, and it’s happening while centrists are telling us that "Antifa is just as bad!!". To allow this idea to become a standard response is to allow fascism to grow indefinitely. I think your problem is that you’ve learned to associate “reasonable” with “middle”. The reasonable response to the question “Are trans people just mentally ill?” is not somewhere in the middle. It’s on one side, and one side only. There is no sensible answer, middle-ground or otherwise, to the question “Should we allow fascists to organise?” that isn’t “no”. And, no, we can’t stop people being transphobic or fascist, but we can stop them from affecting the way society works on a fundamental level. Considering we have a US President who appoints open white-nationalists, and a prospective UK prime-minister who calls black people “picaninnies with watermelon smiles”, I suggest it’s time we stop tutting at some random kid who threw a milkshake at someone, going “both sides are as bad as each other!”, and recognise that we need to actively stop the threats that are coming from positions of power in our society. No centre-ground is reasonable. I don't disagree with any of that, especially that last part. Btw, I don't give a jot about the milkshakes. It's funny. But in terms of Brexit, there definitely is a middle ground that was ignored and where the vote was won/lost (depending on your view). Same for Trump. Not every Trump voter is a racist, homophobic, gun-touting redneck. If they were, he wouldn't have won. But yes, there's no answer other than 'no' to fascism, or homophobic behaviour etc. I don't disagree. But how do we go about sorting that out? And can you not see that we also have a problem on the far left - or perhaps, the far left becoming more prevalent - too? There are issues on both sides of the argument. Not every right wing person will hate gay people, as well, for example. You can have people on both sides of the aisle who have views that contrast with the general 'think' of their side (which I do think is a thing people find hard to get their head around and is what leads us to maniacs trying to enforce rules on everyone to the extent we are seeing in some cases at the moment).
|
|
|
Post by The Escapist on Jun 18, 2019 13:09:44 GMT -5
But yes, there's no answer other than 'no' to fascism, or homophobic behaviour etc. I don't disagree. But how do we go about sorting that out? And can you not see that we also have a problem on the far left - or perhaps, the far left becoming more prevalent - too? There are issues on both sides of the argument. Not every right wing person will hate gay people, as well, for example. You can have people on both sides of the aisle who have views that contrast with the general 'think' of their side (which I do think is a thing people find hard to get their head around and is what leads us to maniacs trying to enforce rules on everyone to the extent we are seeing in some cases at the moment). Well, I am far-left, and I can assure you that to say we are becoming alarmingly prevalent gives us more credit than we currently deserve. The only space I've noticed radical leftism have a genuine cultural impact recently is on YouTube, with the influx of a few fantastic Marxist, anarchist, and socialist content-creators such as ContraPoints and Philosophy Tube*. Whatever problem me and my far-left friends are posing to society at the minute, I don't see it. We mainly just meet up, talk about old Russian books, and try and feed the local homeless. I have a lot of problems with us, but mainly around the fact that we don't convey our message as well as far-right groups do, and we tend to in-fight and talk about philosophy a hell of a lot more than we should. So, we're sometimes inept, but we're not evil. And there is no one way of stopping racism and fascism, which is why the concept of "antifa" exists. Because we need people who are willing to be active in the fact that they won't let this happen, who are willing to organise against fascist rhetoric whenever it raises its head, whether that be by counter-protesting, gathering information, or even forcibly breaking up their rallies. As you said, the ideas that fascism grows out of (nationalism, racism, an unsettling love of hierarchy) are not things that you can just make disappear, they require conscious changes in our education, our media, and often in ourselves. But the starting point is to acknowledge that these ideas are wrong, that we cannot allow them into our discourse, or treat them as some harmless abstract viewpoint just to be respected like any other. They have to be condemned for the unique and dangerous threats they are. * Here's my favourite left-wing BreadTuber (who I just ever so slightly Stan with all my heart and soul) talking about these things. I highly recommend that you and anyone reading this give it a watch:
|
|
|
Post by mystoryisgory on Jun 18, 2019 14:00:37 GMT -5
The Escapist I'm glad a fellow antifa super-solider is standing up for what's right.
I couldn't agree more with what you've said regarding violence against the police. If you've been following the protests in Hong Kong against their proposed law that'll allow arbitrary extradition to China, then you'll know that protestors threw bricks at police during a demonstration outside the HK Legislative Council building. The centrist may predictably cry foul at such violence against an inherently oppressive tool of the state (the horror!! the lack of civility!!), but when you consider that the HK police fired 150 tear gas bombs in a single day at a single demonstration of protestors, over twice as much as they used over the course of two months against the Umbrella Movement back in 2014, beaten demonstrators as young as 15, shot protestors in the head with rubber bullets, attacked journalists, and arrested protestors in hospitals, then some bricks thrown at police is nothing. It doesn't even begin to even the score. When you're up against a state that is willing to attack its own civilians trying to defend their freedom and future, then of course violence in response is justified.
Also, Contrapoints is mommy. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Bonehead's Barber on Jun 18, 2019 14:05:14 GMT -5
Fucking LOL at people who have a problem with Antifa.
Imagine thinking it was bad to kick fuck out of racists.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 15:15:57 GMT -5
Fucking LOL at people who have a problem with Antifa. Imagine thinking it was bad to kick fuck out of racists. It's not good to kick the fuck out of anyone. Full stop. Yeh, if you're gonna start, then racists are as good a place as any. But violence achieves nothing except more violence. So yeh, I have a problem if an organisation supports violence. I don't care how righteous they think they are.
|
|
|
Post by bt95 on Jun 18, 2019 15:19:22 GMT -5
This is probably all too deep for me and my knowledge, anyway. I don't like fascists, I don't like communist views, I don't like people saying it's right to go round beating people up and I don't like the justification for any of it being 'we are right'. I just want people to be happy and be happy for others if they're happy. Not trying to be a sole voice of reason, it's just my view. The Escapist I'll give that link you sent a watch tonight or tomorrow Peace
|
|