General / Off-Topic The battle within the left

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Hi CMDRs, those of you who know me from my contributions to political discussion here will be aware that i have in the past divided opinion, some think i'm a bigot, so​me say i'm an extremist, some just laugh at me. Today i want to attempt to open a civil, genuine discussion about the left wing and liberal political divide, here we can touch on topics such as "progressive left" "regressive left", Anti liberals, liberals, labour, democrats, and freedom of speech....all from a left wing perspective.
I'll start this off my explaining how i define myself as a person of the left, and then i'll go on to open up a debate about something related to this topic.

My politics is democratic sociaism (Corbyn, Sanders, TYT, Owen Jones etc) my outlook on life is liberal, secular humanism (Majid Nawaz, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dave Rubin etc). I'm a fan of free speech (including "blasphemy") as long as it does not promote violence, i'm against religious influence in politics and pandering to religion, i'm against faith based education, and i'm against discrimination of individuals based on faith or ethnicity, i am most definitely on the left wing and liberal left of the political spectrum.

My topic to start with is how the "progressive" left, which i'm partly alligned with, has betrayed real liberal left allies such as Majid Nawaz, Sam Harris and Bill Maher, even Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pretty much been forced to the right unfortunately) by accusing them of bigotry and shutting down rational debate on issues such as Islamic and Christian extremism. Is it not shameful that these brave liberals (Nawaz and Ali receive death threats) have next to no support from the "progressive liberals" who behave like Anti liberals afraid to be considered as Islaamophobic ? Look at Salman Rushdie, he also was abandoned by natural allies. My question to those "liberals" who shut down people like Nawaz and Harris, is why ? are you so afraid of being called a bigot yourself that you abandon the principles of liberty and freedom ?

I'm interested to see if i have any support, and if not, i'm hoping to be at least given the respect, and time of day.
I reccomend anyone interested in this to watch Majid Nawaz interviewed on youtube by Dave Rubin on The Rubin report, and on Bill Maher, or indeed anything from Majid Nawaz or Dave rubin, or indeed any debate videos involving such individuals, all easily found on youtube, i'd link videos but i don't know how on Xbox.

o7, and respect to my fellow CMDRs, i look forward to any replies.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Betrayed?

Politics is about what you think can benefit society and life, it isn't about identity or tribalism.

If someone proposes the death penalty I will object because I don't believe in the death penalty, I won't let it slide because I agree with them about something else.

When someone suggests killing people for their beliefs, or preemptively dropping nuclear bombs onto Muslim majority countries, as Sam Harris has, I will object on the grounds that his ideas are utterly despicable.

Identity politics is the same as nationalism and hardline religion. Given your forum handle, ironic.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Betrayed?

Politics is about what you think can benefit society and life, it isn't about identity or tribalism.

If someone proposes the death penalty I will object because I don't believe in the death penalty, I won't let it slide because I agree with them about something else.

When someone suggests killing people for their beliefs, or preemptively dropping nuclear bombs onto Muslim majority countries, as Sam Harris has, I will object on the grounds that his ideas are utterly despicable.

Identity politics is the same as nationalism and hardline religion. Given your forum handle, ironic.

My forum name is supposed to be ironic. I don't agree with Sam Harris about the nukes either, nor do i support the death penalty. You miss my point, the liberal progressive left claims to defend free speech and liberty, yet fails to call out religion (which by the way is anti liberal to it's core).
I think Harris comments about nuking countries were despicable, allthough he did clarify himself in a TYT interview and i don't think he really wants do do that because he is a genuine liberal.

I'm happy that we have disagreement in politics, and on the left, i fully respect that you don't agree with me, you have your own principles, i have mine, my problem comes when i myself get accused of racism, extremism and bigotry, and any attempts at rational debate are shut down, for example i will state: "I oppose Islam", but you only hear "i hate Muslims" so i put it to you that it's you doing the identity politics.

 

[FuzzySpider]

yet fails to call out religion (which by the way is anti liberal to it's core).

People don't have to go calling out anything they don't feel like calling out, that includes religion for being too liberal or too conservative (which by the way it it isn't).

I think Harris comments about nuking countries were despicable, allthough he did clarify himself in a TYT interview and i don't think he really wants do do that because he is a genuine liberal.

Yeah. Ok. I don't think Trump has been up to anything underhanded because he's a genuine American. That's right. A man can say really ignorant and genocidal crap like:

If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own.

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime -- as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day -- but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe.

as long as he's liberal, right? It's fine to want to wipe out alternative beliefs, as long as you're an atheist.

Seriously, can't you hear yourself?

I'm happy that we have disagreement in politics, and on the left, i fully respect that you don't agree with me, you have your own principles, i have mine, my problem comes when i myself get accused of racism, extremism and bigotry, and any attempts at rational debate are shut down, for example i will state: "I oppose Islam", but you only hear "i hate Muslims" so i put it to you that it's you doing the identity politics.

You don't state "I oppose Islam". You state "Religion is illiberal and people should lay off Bill Maher" or "it's ignorance and stupidity" or "fairytales" or whatever. You intentionally attempt to provoke offence, then complain when people tell you that doing so is bigoted.

Most of it is just angry internet atheism. We're all familiar with it, and most people are tired of it. But I find your defense of Bill Maher, a dreadful excuse for a human being, somewhat egregious. There is a genuine debate to be had about vaccination and potential over-vaccination. There is absolutely no connection to autism or Alzheimer's or any similar illness from vaccination. Maher, as the most prominent member and the biggest name in the anti-vaccination lobby, has literally cost lives.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Again, regarding individual issues, i'm not in agreement with Harris on nukes and Maher on Vaccines, but regarding the issue that i have brought up frequently, religion, the fact that i may be or may not be wrong, does not make me a bigot, i will use you as an example of what i'm talking about, you have different views on religion, fine, you may even be right, but why i ask you, am i an extremist ? What is extreme about my stated desire, which is to open a debate about the problem posed by Islam in Europe ?

 

[Arry]

The issue has always been the same across the political spectrum, throughout history.

The focus is always on the personalities and not the policies.

 

[Necronaught]

Majid Nawaz said there is a triple threat in the west. Islamist Sharia society(no thanks), left wing totalitarianism (Communist China, yuck) and the rise of the extreme right (1930's Germany no thanks) which is now recruiting members from the middle who are fed up with terror attacks. We need a society for the people by the people before one of the mentioned movements really takes a foot hold. Albert Pike's letters were spot on at prediciting the future.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

As a relatively "liberal" and agnostic-atheist American (I think that people should be generally free to do as they wish, until the point that they actions infringe on the rights of others. And I think that government should exist as an entity by and for the governed, as a collectively established construct to promote the general welfare of the people - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would think that makes me pretty darn conservative American, but apparently it makes me a super-liberal. /shrug), the main problem I've seen with athiests and left-wing types like Bill Maher (I'll admit I am not familiar with Majid Nawaz, Sam Harris, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is that they're - in the modern SJW parlance - engaged in cultural imperialism.

That is, they generally exist outside of and independent of the cultural groups that they condemn. In the US at least, from what I have seen, they generally don't attempt to really understand the religious groups that they attack (or recognize the differences within them), and they only see them in terms of the possible negative effects on their own culture. It's an entirely reactionary approach, and seeks to impose external change on a poorly-understood "other" in what is, at best, a paternalistic desire to "help" them and at worst culturally genocidal. The white man's burden, v2.0. It's tribalism, it's cultural imperialism, and it doesn't work.

As hippies, addiction support groups, and fortune cookies will tell you - real change comes from within. And it's true.

For any of these "problem" groups that "liberals" sometimes attack, there are people within those groups - who understand it, who believe it, who are a part of it, and whose voices are far more respected within that group than that of an outsider - who see similar problems with their own group (when you're talking about genuine problems, and not just "he believes a thing that I think is silly, but it doesn't actually effect me"), and also want change. If you want to create change within those groups, you don't impose it, you talk to those people and support them. Here's the important bit too, and something people often forget - that doesn't mean you have them do what you want. Those people are not your puppets. It means you shut up and you listen to them. And then you do what they tell you to.

All too often, liberals like Maher are still in that fake alpha-male paternalistic mindset of "I'm so smart and so good, everyone needs to do what I say and everything will be perfect", and refuse to actually shut the heck up and listen to what the people they supposedly want to "help" are actually saying. But real leadership, the type that will bring about positive change, comes from established and trusted voices in that community, not by an externally imposed authority. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you shut up and listen.

Externally imposed change creates conflict and turns people, who would otherwise be allies, against you. Internally promoted growth, which can take in part from external sources, creates cultural renaissance. History shows this time and again.

But you need to listen. You to admit your ignorance. You need to try to learn. And, most importantly, you need empathy.

If someone makes a claim like "I oppose Islam", I, as an agnostic-atheist who used to be a theistic-Christian, can already tell you that that person is entirely ignorant of Islam and its myriad of different interpretations and understandings. Because that's not even a statement that's worth trying to argue over it. It's the kind that's so far off-the-scale-ignorant it's not even wrong. The person clearly doesn't understand what they claim to oppose enough to actually know what they oppose, or they wouldn't have said something so pointlessly nonsensical. At it's core, it's an attempted argument from ignorance. (or it's made by some angry teenage-rebel type who just generally doesn't know any better, I suppose)

As far as the "battle within the left", in the US I see a fight between a "progressive" left, who lean towards (somewhat paradoxically but I think it works) both cultural-and-social-libertarianism and political-and-economic-socialism and a "conservative" left, who tend towards a more capitalistic status-quo and a more authoritarian liberalism. They're basically conservatives, but the conservatives here are kind of rapidly devolving into fascists, yay. :/

I'm pretty solidly on the progressive left, there. And I'm totally happy with the myriad of apparent contradictions that come as a part of that. People should have maximal freedom of action - until that action can be shown to interfere with the rights of another. Tolerance is a virtue - and to keep it we must be stridently intolerant of intolerance. A true justice is an ideal - and sometimes to obtain that we must accept some injustices for ourselves (OURselves, not push them onto others). There's inherent tension and apparent contradiction in all those positions. And that's intentional, because that tension, that uncertainty, and that debate, is what keeps us healthy. As soon as we've decided we "know" what the absolute best way is, we become the oppressors.

/ramble

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

As a relatively "liberal" and agnostic-atheist American (I think that people should be generally free to do as they wish, until the point that they actions infringe on the rights of others. And I think that government should exist as an entity by and for the governed, as a collectively established construct to promote the general welfare of the people - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would think that makes me pretty darn conservative American, but apparently it makes me a super-liberal. /shrug), the main problem I've seen with athiests and left-wing types like Bill Maher (I'll admit I am not familiar with Majid Nawaz, Sam Harris, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali) is that they're - in the modern SJW parlance - engaged in cultural imperialism.

That is, they generally exist outside of and independent of the cultural groups that they condemn. In the US at least, from what I have seen, they generally don't attempt to really understand the religious groups that they attack (or recognize the differences within them), and they only see them in terms of the possible negative effects on their own culture. It's an entirely reactionary approach, and seeks to impose external change on a poorly-understood "other" in what is, at best, a paternalistic desire to "help" them and at worst culturally genocidal. The white man's burden, v2.0. It's tribalism, it's cultural imperialism, and it doesn't work.

Edit: i'm still on the side of the progressives politically, i'm just unsettled by the regressive attitude often shown.

As hippies, addiction support groups, and fortune cookies will tell you - real change comes from within. And it's true.

For any of these "problem" groups that "liberals" sometimes attack, there are people within those groups - who understand it, who believe it, who are a part of it, and whose voices are far more respected within that group than that of an outsider - who see similar problems with their own group (when you're talking about genuine problems, and not just "he believes a thing that I think is silly, but it doesn't actually effect me"), and also want change. If you want to create change within those groups, you don't impose it, you talk to those people and support them. Here's the important bit too, and something people often forget - that doesn't mean you have them do what you want. Those people are not your puppets. It means you shut up and you listen to them. And then you do what they tell you to.

All too often, liberals like Maher are still in that fake alpha-male paternalistic mindset of "I'm so smart and so good, everyone needs to do what I say and everything will be perfect", and refuse to actually shut the heck up and listen to what the people they supposedly want to "help" are actually saying. But real leadership, the type that will bring about positive change, comes from established and trusted voices in that community, not by an externally imposed authority. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you shut up and listen.

Externally imposed change creates conflict and turns people, who would otherwise be allies, against you. Internally promoted growth, which can take in part from external sources, creates cultural renaissance. History shows this time and again.

But you need to listen. You to admit your ignorance. You need to try to learn. And, most importantly, you need empathy.

If someone makes a claim like "I oppose Islam", I, as an agnostic-atheist who used to be a theistic-Christian, can already tell you that that person is entirely ignorant of Islam and its myriad of different interpretations and understandings. Because that's not even a statement that's worth trying to argue over it. It's the kind that's so far off-the-scale-ignorant it's not even wrong. The person clearly doesn't understand what they claim to oppose enough to actually know what they oppose, or they wouldn't have said something so pointlessly nonsensical. At it's core, it's an attempted argument from ignorance. (or it's made by some angry teenage-rebel type who just generally doesn't know any better, I suppose)

As far as the "battle within the left", in the US I see a fight between a "progressive" left, who lean towards (somewhat paradoxically but I think it works) both cultural-and-social-libertarianism and political-and-economic-socialism and a "conservative" left, who tend towards a more capitalistic status-quo and a more authoritarian liberalism. They're basically conservatives, but the conservatives here are kind of rapidly devolving into fascists, yay. :/

I'm pretty solidly on the progressive left, there. And I'm totally happy with the myriad of apparent contradictions that come as a part of that. People should have maximal freedom of action - until that action can be shown to interfere with the rights of another. Tolerance is a virtue - and to keep it we must be stridently intolerant of intolerance. A true justice is an ideal - and sometimes to obtain that we must accept some injustices for ourselves (OURselves, not push them onto others). There's inherent tension and apparent contradiction in all those positions. And that's intentional, because that tension, that uncertainty, and that debate, is what keeps us healthy. As soon as we've decided we "know" what the absolute best way is, we become the oppressors.

/ramble

Thanks for the in depth answer. Yes, let's get to it, just a couple of points.
1. Bill Maher and people like him have been trying to help the voices within those groups that we talk about, let's take Majid Nawaz, he'a a very brave Musllim reformer, works with an anti extremist organisation, you would think that the progressives (again, i'm progressive) would be praising him, not the case. Then there is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a very brave former Muslim who has had death threats for speaking against Islam, she is largely critisised by the left. It's a real tragedy, because if people like this had more support, then the many secretly gay or atheist Muslims would feel able to have a role model, yet they see these brave peope are hit fom three sides, far right, prrogressive left, and religious fundamentalism.
2. Forgive me, but when i say i oppose Islam i mean exactly that, i don't oppose anyone based on their faith whether they are Musliim or Christian etc , but i do oppose the ideas of all organised religion (Islam, Christianity etc) in much the same way that we all oppose the ideas of fascism and communism. I reject racism and bigotry, and i want a truly secular society where Muslims, Christians and anyone else can be who they are, have equal rights, but without being pandered to.
o7, thank you for readng, i look forward to feedback.

Edit: i'm still a progressive politically, but i'm unsettled with some of the regressive attitudes shown when dealing with religion.

 

[starman]

Politics is about power. That political science 101. Power over other humans. Some may just like the sound of there own voice. Recent politics is just embarrassing. Its about passing the blame.

 

[TheAntitheist Crusader]

Politics is about power. That political science 101. Power over other humans. Some may just like the sound of there own voice. Recent politics is just embarrassing. Its about passing the blame.

Yet without political structure there would be anarchy, we need to make the best of politics.

 

[starman]

We seem to live in a media driven society. Power with out responsibility' is worth a read. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Power-without-Responsibility-Broadcasting-Internet/dp/0415466997

 

[verminstar]

Democracy has become aq joke in this day and age...we are witnessing the very thing happen that everyone said would never happen...several elections a year, keep spinning the wheel until they get the result they want. Its happening right here, right now and has been happening since this time last year. Five elections so far with another one rumoured fer the autumn.

My cup floweth over...

All politicians lie...the best politicians are the most convincing liars. Those with a background in legal affairs always go far because they know where all the legal loopholes are, and there are many. Democracy has died and continues to fail...time to change the beat and start considering more extreme and hardline options if democracy continues to fail.

Sick and tired of being told how to live by outsiders...so now Im pushing back and have become a genuine hardliner whereas I was moderate before. As such, my views wont be overly popular here and I know how that story ends...especially with the half dozen regulars here ^

 

[EISENHORN01]

Best part of 20yrs of progressive centre/left liberal govt in the U.K. (Yes you can count the coalition years as centre left).
8yrs under the Obama administration.

what do we have? A world in disarray death and destruction where ever you look.

REAP WHAT YOU SOW and if the result of such a long period of appeasement and liberal leadership is what we have today then we're really screwed if a nutter like Corbyn gets his grubby paws on the steering wheel.

 

[starman]

Sick and tired of being told how to live by outsiders...so now Im pushing back and have become a genuine hardliner whereas I was moderate before. As such, my views wont be overly popular here and I know how that story ends...especially with the half dozen regulars here ^

But you still take the billion

 

[verminstar]

But you still take the billion

No, the DUP takes the billion...all I do is vote for them and thats where my involvement stops. Tactical voting to stop republicans while hating the very party Im voting for...nice try though ^

 

[starman]

No, the DUP takes the billion...all I do is vote for them and thats where my involvement stops. Tactical voting to stop republicans while hating the very party Im voting for...nice try though ^

Are you saying if you were offered a billion you would not take it?

 

[Pyrotiger]

Best part of 20yrs of progressive centre/left liberal govt in the U.K. (Yes you can count the coalition years as centre left).
8yrs under the Obama administration.

what do we have? A world in disarray death and destruction where ever you look.

REAP WHAT YOU SOW and if the result of such a long period of appeasement and liberal leadership is what we have today then we're really screwed if a nutter like Corbyn gets his grubby paws on the steering wheel.

Really.

1997 - 2010 is 13 years. Not the best part of 20 years. You can't count the coalition years unless you're very right-wing. Austerity and attacks on welfare is right-wing ground, not centre-left.

Not responsible for a world in disarray.

Not responsible for the banking collapse.

Look at the records of Thatcher etc. Major. Far from perfect. Recessions, strikes? Forgotten them?

The truth is that, regardless of those in charge, problems will happen in a country with a poor manufacturing base where people think it's still a world power. It's a soggy little island with an identity crisis. People turning right-wing and harping back to a golden age that never happened. And people believing the newspapers and forgetting their biases!

And the Prime Minister never has the steering wheel. He's just the front man who has limited powers. Corbyn seems perfectly sane to me. May seems to be the unhinged one. But all of that doesn't matter, it's just good entertaining drama while the game of power is played by those who do not care for publicity and petty tribalism is used to sucker in an ever divided public.

Divide and conquer.

 

[Ian Skippy]

i don't think he really wants do do that because he is a genuine liberal.

"Oh, my Holy Book said that? Well, you shouldn't take that part literally!"
"Oh, Sam Harris said that? Well, you shouldn't take that part literally!"

When some ISIS member says:"We should wipe out innocent civilians!" you yell "See, I told you!". When your heroes state the exact same thing you say "haha, dont worry, he didn't mean it, and if he did I dont really agree with that little bit!"

Ofcourse, religious people cant pick & chose what they like about their specific Holy Book. "Thats hypocrisy!" you said numerous times in other topics. Yet curiously the same does not go for you. You oppose 'the Islam', as if it is one specific idea shared by all Muslims. But your ideology, the left, is ofcourse super-diverse, with lots of room for independent disagreements between people. Sounds fair.

 

[Pyrotiger]

No, the DUP takes the billion...all I do is vote for them and thats where my involvement stops. Tactical voting to stop republicans while hating the very party Im voting for...nice try though ^

It's all you can do. Unless you don't vote at all or vote for some other party - but that's helping the Shinners. So I can see how you're stuck. And that's what happens when the issue of who 'owns' NI is always number one.