[Technology] Are some leftwingers unthinking automatons?

[Hampden Park]

all this from some badly drawn pictures - amazing

 

[dingodan]

On what basis can you be against abortion other than that you consider it to be murder, or at least effectively murder?

That isn't the point. The point is how do you frame the motivations of those you don't agree with. Where is someone who defends abortion coming from? They say they are coming from the perspective that they want to defend the rights of women. Those who disagree with them on the issue do not claim that their motivations are anything other than what they say they are, they take that stance at face value and they deal with the arguments on that basis. Where is someone who opposes abortion coming from? They say they are coming from the perspective that an unborn child is a human life and deserving of protection. Those who disagree with them on the issue claim that they don't actually care about protecting life and are infact motivated by a desire to control or subvert women's rights.

This format runs through pretty much all political discussion. Oppose immigration numbers? Racist. Oppose high public spending and public debt? Hate the poor.

It's toxic and it's destroying any chance of sincere discussion and debate, and in doing so is reducing the chances of us being able to resolve differences and find common ground. It simply ends the conversation before it's begun, because after all, who needs to talk to a racist sexist who hates poor people. It doesn't help the left either, they just end up existing in a bubble of their own making.

Why else do you think the left has basically no chance politically in this country at the moment? Because most people in this country are racist sexists who hate the poor? Not likely is it. It's because the group think bubble is obvious (and ugly) to everyone who doesn't inhabit it.

 

[tinycowboy]

That isn't the point. The point is how do you frame the motivations of those you don't agree with. Where is someone who defends abortion coming from? They say they are coming from the perspective that they want to defend the rights of women. Those who disagree with them on the issue do not claim that their motivations are anything other than what they say they are, they take that stance at face value and they deal with the arguments on that basis. Where is someone who opposes abortion coming from? They say they are coming from the perspective that an unborn child is a human life and deserving of protection. Those who disagree with them on the issue claim that they don't actually care about protecting life and are infact motivated by a desire to control or subvert women's rights.

This format runs through pretty much all political discussion. Oppose immigration numbers? Racist. Oppose high public spending and public debt? Hate the poor.

It's toxic and it's destroying any chance of sincere discussion and debate, and in doing so is reducing the chances of us being able to resolve differences and find common ground. It simply ends the conversation before it's begun, because after all, who needs to talk to a racist sexist who hates poor people. It doesn't help the left either, they just end up existing in a bubble of their own making.

Why else do you think the left has basically no chance politically in this country at the moment? Because most people in this country are racist sexists who hate the poor? Not likely is it. It's because the group think bubble is obvious (and ugly) to everyone who doesn't inhabit it.

I agree with you on the general point of intolerance of the opinions of others and the assumption of offensive or simplistic motivations, but I think you're being a bit generous to those you're defining as not being on the left if you think that they are also not contributing to a large extent to the toxic state of debate in this country (and elsewhere).

 

[looney]

Ah. Silly me. The dream team of Looney and Pastafarian (shared interests : dank memes beloved of alt-righters, neo-nazis and incels, masturbating far too much) have played me. And I didn't even realise it.

 

[Stato]

Generally speaking the right draw a line at attacking the character of those on the left and instead attack their ideas.

In truth we are all hyper-sensitive to the sins of our opponents and wilfully blind to the sins of those with which we agree, but....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Gu7D6AHyc

 

[BadFish]

I agree with you on the general point of intolerance of the opinions of others and the assumption of offensive or simplistic motivations, but I think you're being a bit generous to those you're defining as not being on the left if you think that they are also not contributing to a large extent to the toxic state of debate in this country (and elsewhere).

Quite, from where I sit here in the middle it looks to me like a number of individuals from across the spectrum are adding to the toxic state of debate. Blaming one side or the other isn't going to solve that problem. Looking for common ground is the only answer, surely?

 

[pb21]

That isn't the point.

Yes it is.

You said

n the context of mainstream political debate the right do not make that claim [i.e. that abortion is murder] (i.e. it is not considered acceptable in the mainstream). In the context of mainstream political debate the left do [make the claim anti abortion is anti women], without anyone batting an eyelid, claim that the reason for the opposition on the right is an anti-women's rights agenda.

In whatever debate, including mainstream political, any argument against abortion, either against it as a matter of course or from a certain point, ARE making that claim, i.e. that abortion is murder (rightly or wrongly). In doing so you are necessarily taking the moral high ground; which apparently the right don't do.

Further on you say:

Those who disagree with them on the issue claim that they don't actually care about protecting life and are infact motivated by a desire to control or subvert women's rights.

I'm sure SOME will claim that, but to bucket everyone highlights your bias. I suspect that most people would agree that they are against abortion as they consider it murder (not an attack on women's rights) but just don't agree with them on the basis that what they are aborting isn't a person yet (rightly or wrongly).

I go back to one of my earlier points where it seems that your are basing your judgement of the left on a very specific, albeit shouty section, and applying it to everyone you consider to not be of the right. Which is ironic considering your comment of:

It's toxic and it's destroying any chance of sincere discussion and debate, and in doing so is reducing the chances of us being able to resolve differences and find common ground. It simply ends the conversation before it's begun, because after all, who needs to talk to a racist sexist who hates poor people. It doesn't help the left either, they just end up existing in a bubble of their own making.

Which very much seems to be placing the whole of the right generally on a pedestal above the whole of the left!

 

[The Clamp]

No, of course not. But the left act as if a person is racist, sexist and homophobic by virtue of, and as evidenced by, the fact that they are on the right.



Where? In our society as defined by our legal and political systems and their policies? No, we do not live in a racist, sexist or homophobic country. The left and right have different ideas and values, but niether are based on prejudice. But at the same time the primary argument against the right, used by the left, is that they are racist, sexist homophobes, and it's unjustified and dishonest.

You’re just plain wrong. Don’t waste another day typing gibberish.

 

[dingodan]

I agree with you on the general point of intolerance of the opinions of others and the assumption of offensive or simplistic motivations, but I think you're being a bit generous to those you're defining as not being on the left if you think that they are also not contributing to a large extent to the toxic state of debate in this country (and elsewhere).

Well I gave my examples. If you are on the left, say you want to maintain high immigration numbers, or say you want to increase public spending. What do you get accused of by the other side which is remotely equivalent of being called a racist sexist hater or the poor?

It seems to me that the worst thing levelled at those ideas is that they are irresponsible, unsustainable and wrong headed. Not only are they not nasty and offensive accusations but they also have as their basis the issue at hand, they relate to the policy, not the person and their character or motivations.

There are people on the right who are dismissive and disrespectful towards the left, but again, it's not what is bought into by the mainstream, and it's not how public discourse is conducted. The way I see it, in the public discource one side fights a fair fight, and one side doesn't. For one side a line is drawn, there is an understanding of when a statement goes to far or isn't reasonable or isn't dealing with the issue at hand, but for the other side, nobody draws that line, there is no line, there is no "too far" when it comes to attacking people on the right.

 

[dingodan]

Yes it is.

You said



In whatever debate, including mainstream political, any argument against abortion, either against it as a matter of course or from a certain point, ARE making that claim, i.e. that abortion is murder (rightly or wrongly). In doing so you are necessarily taking the moral high ground; which apparently the right don't do.

Further on you say:



I'm sure SOME will claim that, but to bucket everyone highlights your bias. I suspect that most people would agree that they are against abortion as they consider it murder (not an attack on women's rights) but just don't agree with them on the basis that what they are aborting isn't a person yet (rightly or wrongly).

I go back to one of my earlier points where it seems that your are basing your judgement of the left on a very specific, albeit shouty section, and applying it to everyone you consider to not be of the right. Which is ironic considering your comment of:



Which very much seems to be placing the whole of the right generally on a pedestal above the whole of the left!

I'm looking at what is considered an acceptable argument to make, in public, by people in the public eye, on both sides.

It is considered acceptable on the left to call someone who is pro-life "anit-women".

It is not considered acceptable on the right to call someone who is pro-choice "anti-life" or "anti-baby".

One side respects the others motivations but argues they are wrong, the other side doesn't respect the others motivations and argues that they are bad people.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

 

[BadFish]

Well I gave my examples. If you are on the left, say you want to maintain high immigration numbers, or say you want to increase public spending. What do you get accused of by the other side which is remotely equivalent of being called a racist sexist hater or the poor?

It seems to me that the worst thing levelled at those ideas is that they are irresponsible, unsustainable and wrong headed. Not only are they not nasty and offensive accusations but they also have as their basis the issue at hand, they relate to the policy, not the person and their character or motivations.

There are people on the right who are dismissive and disrespectful towards the left, but again, it's not what is bought into by the mainstream, and it's not how public discourse is conducted. The way I see it, in the public discource one side fights a fair fight, and one side doesn't. For one side a line is drawn, there is an understanding of when a statement goes to far or isn't reasonable or isn't dealing with the issue at hand, but for the other side, nobody draws that line, there is no line, there is no "too far" when it comes to attacking people on the right.

It appears to me that you are not comparing mainstream left with mainstream right. To really get to grips with what you are saying, can you define who you are talking about when you say 'mainstream' left and right? Or perhaps provide some quotes or examples of the people you are suggesting are calling those on the right racists, sexist etc?

 

[tinycowboy]

Well I gave my examples. If you are on the left, say you want to maintain high immigration numbers, or say you want to increase public spending. What do you get accused of by the other side which is remotely equivalent of being called a racist sexist hater or the poor?

It seems to me that the worst thing levelled at those ideas is that they are irresponsible, unsustainable and wrong headed. Not only are they not nasty and offensive accusations but they also have as their basis the issue at hand, they relate to the policy, not the person and their character or motivations.

There are people on the right who are dismissive and disrespectful towards the left, but again, it's not what is bought into by the mainstream, and it's not how public discourse is conducted. The way I see it, in the public discource one side fights a fair fight, and one side doesn't. For one side a line is drawn, there is an understanding of when a statement goes to far or isn't reasonable or isn't dealing with the issue at hand, but for the other side, nobody draws that line, there is no line, there is no "too far" when it comes to attacking people on the right.

Again, I agree partly - calling someone racist, sexist or a Nazi has more heft than calling someone "libtard", "snowflake" or "cuck", but I don't think that there are any sides who are exclusively fighting a "fair fight". You don't have to dig very deep on either side to find endless arguments and propositions being shut down by insults rather than engagement and consideration of viewpoints.

 

[dingodan]

It appears to me that you are not comparing mainstream left with mainstream right. To really get to grips with what you are saying, can you define who you are talking about when you say 'mainstream' left and right? Or perhaps provide some quotes or examples of the people you are suggesting are calling those on the right racists, sexist etc?

"The Conservative Party is a blatent racist party" - Owen Jones.

"Yet after 10 years of watching the Tories behave like lying pig-f***ing scumbags who hate the poor there are some of us who are genuinely surprised to find out they are, in fact, lying pig-f***ing scumbags who hate the poor." Susie Boniface writing for the Mirror.

"[the Conservatives] have tried to take away the dreams, the hope and optimism of our people" - John McDonnell.


Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and he sums things up better than I can, and can't be accused of an anti-left bias.:

Tory. Is there a more toxic word in the English language? It sits neatly alongside “paedo” and “war criminal” and “yellow peril”. I used to spit it out with venom, and with relish. When I was working for the Labour Party, it was my stimulus. There were people like me – compassionate, humble, virtuous. And there were the Tories – callous, arrogant, obnoxious. I hated them with a vengeance. And my hatred made me pure.

I wish I still viewed the world like that. If only I could see my old enemy through the eyes of those protestors who stood outside Tory conference last week. Those people could punch and spit and threaten female delegates with rape and shout “Tory whore” and “Tory scum” secure in the knowledge their actions were just because their targets were so foul and cruel. Life would be much simpler if I could do the same.

But I can’t. In fact, I have a confession to make – one so shocking, that my hands are shaking as I type. Last week, I had dinner with Iain Duncan Smith. Yes, that Iain Duncan Smith. The one who keeps a voodoo doll of a poverty-stricken single mother on his desk.

But it all went disastrously wrong. He was intelligent. He was articulate. He was humane. He was passionately committed to social justice. He was – brace yourself – compassionate. Or that was my impression. But I knew, of course, it was a false one. He couldn’t be any of those things. Because Iain Duncan Smith is a Tory. A Right-wing Tory to boot. It must have been the wine. So when I got back to my desk I started to do a little research. Just to reassure myself. [I won't paste this part here, he found that his assumptions didn't stand up to scrutiny, you can read the article for details on that if you want]

When David Cameron delivered his “New Conservatism” speech last week, the response from many on the Left was “don’t listen to his words, judge him on his actions”. That’s the last thing the Left can afford to do. Because if they do, people might start to realise Duncan Smith hasn’t actually been offering up human sacrifices to Adam Smith in the basement of the Department for Work and Pensions.

And then where would the Left be? Watson and Abbott and Goodman are good people. The caricatures being painted of them are no more accurate than those painted of Iain Duncan Smith et al. They too are humane, compassionate and committed to social justice. But they are members of the Labour Party. And the party is bankrupt. Morally, politically, doctrinally. It has nothing to offer now except taunts and vitriol and abuse.

The Left should cling to its hatred of the Tories with all its strength. Because when it loses that, it will have lost everything.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...mith-and-I-cant-bring-myself-to-hate-him.html

This was in 2015, and I would say things have gotten worse since he wrote this.

 

[dingodan]

Again, I agree partly - calling someone racist, sexist or a Nazi has more heft than calling someone "libtard", "snowflake" or "cuck", but I don't think that there are any sides who are exclusively fighting a "fair fight". You don't have to dig very deep on either side to find endless arguments and propositions being shut down by insults rather than engagement and consideration of viewpoints.

I can show you accusations of racism and sexism and hatred of the poor being made in the public debate by public figures. Can you show me the same where "libtard", "snowflake" or "cuck" have been used in the public debate by public figures?

The left has a problem which the right doesn't have. That's not to say that the right is perfect by any means. But the right doesn't dish out the same kinds of abuse it gets from the left. If we want civilized and honest debate, if we want to bridge the gap and find common ground, then as far as I can tell the ball is firmly in the left's court. It's the left who need to change.

 

[schmunk]

Unthinking? Often. Automaton? Maybe.

 

[dingodan]

I should also point out, I say what I say as a former Lefty myself.

 

[looney]

I should also point out, I say what I say as a former Lefty myself.

Makes a change from listening to you bang on about Chem Trails.

This is good, Black Pidgeon on NPCs...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEpUUU0e-Q0

 

[McTavish]

Double post

 

[McTavish]

How did you find yourself there?

I was having lunch.

 

[symyjym]

It was a leftwinging unthinking automaton mod who banned me for 4 months for calling this site North Snowflake Chat. Probably the same mod who just banned me from the "Twenty Members of a Grooming Gang Convicted " thread on my return. If anyone else found my return post offensive I am all ears.