What is wrong with the student left?

Is anyone else genuinely a little concerned about the future of freedom of speech in this country?

Is it not still pretty darn messed up? Actually believing people who disagree with you are evil or deranged is a pretty authoritarian attitude, and students now will be the world leaders of the future--it's surely vitally important they form their worldviews through actual reasoned discussion and reflection rather than mad groupthink.

I find the left to be just as bad as the right. The centre is the middle ground

TW: Opinions you might disagree with.

Unsure about gay marriage? You're a homophobe.

Firstly let's clarify what the term "homophobic" means; despite its root obviously "homo-" meaning "same" and "phobia" got to do with fear, nowadays a homophobe isn't someone who fears homosexuals, but disagrees with them on an irrational basis.

Marriage predates religion, so marriage shouldn't go by the religious definition of a man and women.

You shan't disagree with it from its naturalness; firstly it's natural, as it occurs without human interference, and why appeal to nature?

Thirdly marriage has legal benefits, such as reduced taxes, so by not allowing them, you're treating them as second-class citizens.

Now, disagreeing with them to gain support, or use them as a scapegoat, isn't homophobic, as it's rational; just morally wrong.

Ask a member of an ethnic minority where they're family is from? You're a racist.

No it's not; it's curiosity, and harmless. Those who call that racist are pathetic and childish.

Not sure if re-forming people's genitals is a healthy response to gender dysphoria? You're a transphobe.

No it's not; as long as you have logical reasoning, and have reason to believe it isn't the best treatment, go ahead. If you rationally believe their quality of life is no better after gender reassignment surgery, or the majority end up regretting that decision, it's not transphobic. But if you just say it's wrong to surgically change one's genitals, without even considering the effects afterwards, then fair enough to be honest. If it does (not saying it does) but IF it does massively improve quality of life, that's just being selfish.

Don't think its oppressive that women can't wander around with their nipples out? You're a vile misogynist.

Who says that? It again depends whether you use logical rational reasoning.

It seems to me that student politics has been captured by a truly vile and intolerant tendency. People at my university are actually afraid to admit they voted Conservative. They shouldn't be; as long as its not on a rational basis. And woe betide you if you dare to express socially conservative beliefs. You are, literally, oppressing people with your words. You must be stupid, malicious, or mentally ill. At best you need to be "educated", at worst, silenced. How can you possibly have a civilised debate in such circumstances?

The student left urgently needs to get over itself. Until even the most radical social progressives can accept not only that people can disagree with the details of their ideology, but also that decent human beings can be, and are, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, proud of the Empire, believers that biological sex is more important than gender, and supporters of traditional family values, what hope is their for genuine progress based on critical reflection rather than blind dogmatics?

But if they are actually of the belief that homosexuality is a choice, despite all the evidence to the contrary, homosexuality is disgusting, when it's just a sole sexual attraction to the same sex, homosexuals are unnatural, despite the evidence to the contrary, homosexuals should be condemned to death, which is clearly irrational, don't acknowledge that transgenderism has a biological basis or the mental anguish they go through, enough to cause depression and increase suicide rates,

traditionalness holds no basis as to whether something is good or bad, as it's just upholding the status quo,

then they are clearly stupid, or being stupid, illogical, fallacious etc. etc.

Is anyone else genuinely a little concerned about the future of freedom of speech in this country?

The leaders now are still spouting the ideas of yesteryear--second wave feminism, liberal-style 'liberation' for gay people,

what????

soft multiculturalism in which immigrants are at most 'integrated' but not culturally assimilated, a massive watering down of Britain's Christian heritage,

Since when has Christianity, or religions for that matter, applied any objective morality? I don't hold anything against Christians, but laws should definitely not be based upon that; religion and law should be separate.

The best way to forbid things is how something negatively affects the parties involved.

Unfortunately Christianity doesn't epitomise this principle.

So for example "child molestation hurts children, because we deem that the children can't make consent, which takes precedence over the initiators wants."

Now if people ban incest, it should be on the grounds of any child born as a result of such relationship has a higher chance of birth defects, tendencies of power struggles in relationships and manipulation involved, and weird family dynamics. Not because of it's wrong, because it's wrong because my parents fold me so/of status quo.

Now banning same-sex marriage, when it doesn't hurt anyone at all, and by banning it you hurt homosexuals, you are being selfish and irrational.

and the notion that traditional family structures are just one of many equally valid lifestyle choices, derived in large part from the student radicalism of the '60s and '70s.

traditionalness "the quality of being traditional" holds no value when making judgement

Whether you agree with those ideas or not, part of the reason even the Conservatives now passively accept them and offer no alternative is because of the ideologically screwed up climate among student activist circles in which they form their opinions in an echo chamber devoid of opposition. In the future, we might all be saying the same things about trans politics

There should be NO quota for anything based on gender, sex, sexuality. You should allow someone in on a job on their strengths etc. People who say there should be 30% quota for females in politics, for example, are stupid, because you're not basing it on their attributes. There could be better men.

As long as you're not picking people just because you prefer male associates, or think women shouldn't be in power on the basis that they're women, you're all good.

and gender-neutral parenting,

What do you mean? If it's got to do with same-sex couples, there's no evidence to suggest that for example two men raise worse children, as opposed to a man and a women.

and again the cultural shift will have happened without the prime instigators having ever really listened to people who disagree during the most critical period of their ideological development.

They are entirely self-interested, and full of phony outrage.

Sorry for digressing, but are you bi, considering I know your of the belief that everyone is bi?

Posted from TSR Mobile

The problem with that is, the deluded left think they are the "centre"

People like that guy with the Bennett avatar think that what to most people is leftism is actually the "centre" and "left" means Scandinavia while "right" means Cameron > Obama > Thatcher > Stalin > Hitler

The leaders now are the students of yesteryear. They all tend to become more rational once they actually need to be voted in by the public.

TW: Opinions you might disagree with.

Unsure about gay marriage? You're a homophobe. Ask a member of an ethnic minority where they're family is from? You're a racist. Not sure if re-forming people's genitals is a healthy response to gender dysphoria? You're a transphobe. Don't think its oppressive that women can't wander around with their nipples out? You're a vile misogynist.

It seems to me that student politics has been captured by a truly vile and intolerant tendency. People at my university are actually afraid to admit they voted Conservative. And woe betide you if you dare to express socially conservative beliefs. You are, literally, oppressing people with your words. You must be stupid, malicious, or mentally ill. At best you need to be "educated", at worst, silenced. How can you possibly have a civilised debate in such circumstances?

The student left urgently needs to get over itself. Until even the most radical social progressives can accept not only that people can disagree with the details of their ideology, but also that decent human beings can be, and are, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, proud of the Empire, believers that biological sex is more important than gender, and supporters of traditional family values, what hope is their for genuine progress based on critical reflection rather than blind dogmatics?

Is anyone else genuinely a little concerned about the future of freedom of speech in this country?

Is anyone else genuinely a little concerned about the future of freedom of speech in this country?

Also getting called homophobic for being against gay marriage is not censorship. They are free to call you a bigot as you are free to call them a vile and utlolerant. Did this really need pointing out?

What you want is a version of inverted political correctness that protects your 'conservative' views. You are acting no different to how your perceive the 'student left' from behaving.