Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Left is eating itself and becoming the new Tea Party Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    If those of us who are genuinely liberal do not stand up against the bullies in our own camp we will hand the future to some of the most dangerous elements of the right.

    Stephen Fry is not an apologist for paedophiles, Peter Tatchell is not Muslimophobic and Germaine Greer is not a homophobe. Disagree by all means but don't smear and misrepresent.

    http://thesatedire.com/news/world-ne...re-homophobic/
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Liberals are a more dangerous animal than the right, trying to create a Superstate through the use of mass movement of peoples, as well as piling huge amounts of debt on future generations in order to get the moral feels.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The cultural wars have long since been lost - you're only just realising. It was Betty Friedan and second-wave feminism (communists) who declared, in the 60s, that the 'personal was political.' This opened up the floodgates for every identity to have their case heard before the court of public opinion, to determine whether what they were afforded really did amount to 'equality' - of course, with 64 million varying interpretations of what amounts to equality, there really is no such thing outside the context of applying the rule of law universally and affording full equality of opportunity.

    Distributions or outcomes will always be weighed in one direction or another, and no amount of tinkering will ever result in control over the trillions of outcomes and distributions in society, nor should we seek to control the actions and decisions of free-thinking individuals; it's totalitarianism. The notion that taking money from hard-working individuals, and giving it to a centralised bureaucracy of 'elites' to decide on the best distribution for society, amounts to a moral act is the biggest façade ever sold to western civilisation; it's theft, plain and simple.

    Then again, they know that - 'equality' hasn't been about universal rights for a very long time. It's about maintaining the perpetual struggle. When they import more identities into the cultural mix, they create ever more conflict between social groups (identities), all vying for superiority over what they manufacture is the dominant social group: white males (their enemy). All of it - equality, diversity, multiculturalism, feminism, etc - is communism, the only difference is gender, sexuality, ethnicity and religion are the modern proxies for class warfare.

    The time has long since past for you to do anything about it - the Higher Education sector, the MSM, all of our public institutions and even the charity sector are absorbed by it. All have their incentives to push far-left mass immigration on the population of this country, as well as further social conflict between imagined identities, and the socially acceptable religions will prevail until the UK is nothing more than a pile of ash.

    Schroder, Blair and Clinton are predominantly responsible for kicking it into overdrive, as is Obama, but it started long before any of them arrived on the scene. White hate, or whiteness studies, is a product of the 70s and 80s - their shame and guilt narratives, and usurpation of true historical accounts of fascism, slavery and every other event or outcome which defines modern day morality, will deconstruct us from within.

    Any society which would inflict a far-left policy like mass immigration upon itself, with the resulting consequences of importing hundreds of disparate identities, is clearly too weak to resist their subversiveness.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ohgeez)
    Liberals are a more dangerous animal than the right, trying to create a Superstate through the use of mass movement of peoples, as well as piling huge amounts of debt on future generations in order to get the moral feels.
    It is wrong to equate the social justice warriors of 2016 with Liberalism, they are no more the same thing as the Tea Party are Conservatives. Liberalism, although not alone, is central to all Western democracies, self-righteous bullies are not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImmunetoShaming)
    The cultural wars have long since been lost - you're only just realising. It was Betty Friedan and second-wave feminism (communists) who declared, in the 60s, that the 'personal was political.' This opened up the floodgates for every identity to have their case heard before the court of public opinion, to determine whether what they were afforded really did amount to 'equality' - of course, with 64 million varying interpretations of what amounts to equality, there really is no such thing outside the context of applying the rule of law universally and affording full equality of opportunity.

    Distributions or outcomes will always be weighed in one direction or another, and no amount of tinkering will ever result in control over the trillions of outcomes and distributions in society, nor should we seek to control the actions and decisions of free-thinking individuals; it's totalitarianism. The notion that taking money from hard-working individuals, and giving it to a centralised bureaucracy of 'elites' to decide on the best distribution for society, amounts to a moral act is the biggest façade ever sold to western civilisation; it's theft, plain and simple.

    Then again, they know that - 'equality' hasn't been about universal rights for a very long time. It's about maintaining the perpetual struggle. When they import more identities into the cultural mix, they create ever more conflict between social groups (identities), all vying for superiority over what they manufacture is the dominant social group: white males (their enemy). All of it - equality, diversity, multiculturalism, feminism, etc - is communism, the only difference is gender, sexuality, ethnicity and religion are the modern proxies for class warfare.

    The time has long since past for you to do anything about it - the Higher Education sector, the MSM, all of our public institutions and even the charity sector are absorbed by it. All have their incentives to push far-left mass immigration on the population of this country, as well as further social conflict between imagined identities, and the socially acceptable religions will prevail until the UK is nothing more than a pile of ash.

    Schroder, Blair and Clinton are predominantly responsible for kicking it into overdrive, as is Obama, but it started long before any of them arrived on the scene. White hate, or whiteness studies, is a product of the 70s and 80s - their shame and guilt narratives, and usurpation of true historical accounts of fascism, slavery and every other event or outcome which defines modern day morality, will deconstruct us from within.

    Any society which would inflict a far-left policy like mass immigration upon itself, with the resulting consequences of importing hundreds of disparate identities, is clearly too weak to resist their subversiveness.
    Although i agree with a lot of your criticisms, you are taking it from the perspective that there is an end game, the situation is fluid and all ideas can be refined, as long as we don't let the bullies shut down the conversation. Thankfully they are still the minority.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImmunetoShaming)
    The cultural wars have long since been lost - you're only just realising. It was Betty Friedan and second-wave feminism (communists) who declared, in the 60s, that the 'personal was political.' This opened up the floodgates for every identity to have their case heard before the court of public opinion, to determine whether what they were afforded really did amount to 'equality' - of course, with 64 million varying interpretations of what amounts to equality, there really is no such thing outside the context of applying the rule of law universally and affording full equality of opportunity.
    .
    Nevermind what Betty Friedan thinks, what do you think? Why is this woman relevant. She is not.

    Fools will be treated as fools.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    If those of us who are genuinely liberal do not stand up against the bullies in our own camp we will hand the future to some of the most dangerous elements of the right.

    Stephen Fry is not an apologist for paedophiles, Peter Tatchell is not Muslimophobic and Germaine Greer is not a homophobe. Disagree by all means but don't smear and misrepresent.

    http://thesatedire.com/news/world-ne...re-homophobic/
    What is a Tea party? (title)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M14B)
    What is a Tea party? (title)
    They were a movement in the US that came from the right. They were fundamentalist Libertarians that were hijacked by the religious right and the split it caused in the right has led to Trump being the Republican nominee.

    I'm sure others will disagree with that summary but the point I was making the left is eating itself by calling those who should be allies, enemies for not being pure enough. The narcissism of small differences meets the self-righteous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImmunetoShaming)
    The cultural wars have long since been lost - you're only just realising. It was Betty Friedan and second-wave feminism (communists) who declared, in the 60s, that the 'personal was political.' This opened up the floodgates for every identity to have their case heard before the court of public opinion, to determine whether what they were afforded really did amount to 'equality' - of course, with 64 million varying interpretations of what amounts to equality, there really is no such thing outside the context of applying the rule of law universally and affording full equality of opportunity.

    Distributions or outcomes will always be weighed in one direction or another, and no amount of tinkering will ever result in control over the trillions of outcomes and distributions in society, nor should we seek to control the actions and decisions of free-thinking individuals; it's totalitarianism. The notion that taking money from hard-working individuals, and giving it to a centralised bureaucracy of 'elites' to decide on the best distribution for society, amounts to a moral act is the biggest façade ever sold to western civilisation; it's theft, plain and simple.

    Then again, they know that - 'equality' hasn't been about universal rights for a very long time. It's about maintaining the perpetual struggle. When they import more identities into the cultural mix, they create ever more conflict between social groups (identities), all vying for superiority over what they manufacture is the dominant social group: white males (their enemy). All of it - equality, diversity, multiculturalism, feminism, etc - is communism, the only difference is gender, sexuality, ethnicity and religion are the modern proxies for class warfare.

    The time has long since past for you to do anything about it - the Higher Education sector, the MSM, all of our public institutions and even the charity sector are absorbed by it. All have their incentives to push far-left mass immigration on the population of this country, as well as further social conflict between imagined identities, and the socially acceptable religions will prevail until the UK is nothing more than a pile of ash.

    Schroder, Blair and Clinton are predominantly responsible for kicking it into overdrive, as is Obama, but it started long before any of them arrived on the scene. White hate, or whiteness studies, is a product of the 70s and 80s - their shame and guilt narratives, and usurpation of true historical accounts of fascism, slavery and every other event or outcome which defines modern day morality, will deconstruct us from within.

    Any society which would inflict a far-left policy like mass immigration upon itself, with the resulting consequences of importing hundreds of disparate identities, is clearly too weak to resist their subversiveness.
    yes it would e nice to hear your own views on this, there is little point in copying and pasting others, although links are always welcome when relevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    yes it would e nice to hear your own views on this, there is little point in copying and pasting others, although links are always welcome when relevant.
    What are you talking about? These are my own views. I didn't copy and paste anything.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob)
    Nevermind what Betty Friedan thinks, what do you think? Why is this woman relevant. She is not.

    Fools will be treated as fools.
    What are you talking about? Have I walked into some parallel universe, or something? 1. I've already told you what I think 2. Of course she's relevant, she's the Mother of the gender feminist movement, which spawned identity politics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ImmunetoShaming)
    What are you talking about? These are my own views. I didn't copy and paste anything.
    Sorry, I assumed you had copied and pasted that from what was said later in the thread.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Greer isn't, so far as I'm aware, homophobic, but she certainly is transphobic. That isn't a smear, it's a judgement made based on a consistent history of making insulting, inflamatory and derogatory remarks about transgender people. That's not bullying, slandering or misrepresenting, if you can't stand criticism of your beliefs and indeed of your charachter when people find them morally repulsive you need to get out of the public arena. You can't go around mouthing off about everyone else and then cry "Bully!" when they call you out on it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Greer isn't, so far as I'm aware, homophobic, but she certainly is transphobic. That isn't a smear, it's a judgement made based on a consistent history of making insulting, inflamatory and derogatory remarks about transgender people. That's not bullying, slandering or misrepresenting, if you can't stand criticism of your beliefs and indeed of your charachter when people find them morally repulsive you need to get out of the public arena. You can't go around mouthing off about everyone else and then cry "Bully!" when they call you out on it.
    I agree, you can't but to slander someone as a bigot rather than engage them is not criticism, it's just name calling.

    I dont' agree with her on that issue but it doesn't mean she is transphobic. I haven't read all she has said on the subject and will be happy to change my mind if presented with evidence.

    Peter Tachell has been called an Islamophobe, I hate the term as it is meaningless and should be Muslimophobe, for daring to speak out against homophobia in Muslim communities, countries and regimes. That is not engaging in the issue, it is shutting down conversations that make a person feel awkward.

    I can give hundreds of examples of this happening.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    I agree, you can't but to slander someone as a bigot rather than engage them is not criticism, it's just name calling.

    I dont' agree with her on that issue but it doesn't mean she is transphobic. I haven't read all she has said on the subject and will be happy to change my mind if presented with evidence.

    Peter Tachell has been called an Islamophobe, I hate the term as it is meaningless and should be Muslimophobe, for daring to speak out against homophobia in Muslim communities, countries and regimes. That is not engaging in the issue, it is shutting down conversations that make a person feel awkward.

    I can give hundreds of examples of this happening.
    Well, she has described transgender women as "ghastly parodies". Despite plenty of oppourtunities given how much she's talked about it to learn about sex reassignment surgury, she decribes it as "castration", which is not only factually inaccurate but also infers that transgender womens' genitals aren't real. She goes as far as to say "No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight." as part of her campaigning, despite the fact that the first ever transwoman to have surgury did indeed attempt to have a uterus and ovaries transplanted and subsequently died and the only reason it doesn't happen now is because it isn't yet a safe and commonly offerred medical procedure. She makes her entire argument on the basis that transwomen are an attact on women's distinctiveness and difference from men, attempting to erase the existence of transgender men. Transphobia, defined as "prejudice against... transgender people", or "antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transgender or transsexual people or transsexuality" is a succient way to describe her beliefs. It isn't silencing anyone or stopping her from expressing them, merely condemning them as in my opinion baseless, offensive and dangerous.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    Well, she has described transgender women as "ghastly parodies". Despite plenty of oppourtunities given how much she's talked about it to learn about sex reassignment surgury, she decribes it as "castration", which is not only factually inaccurate but also infers that transgender womens' genitals aren't real. She goes as far as to say "No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight." as part of her campaigning, despite the fact that the first ever transwoman to have surgury did indeed attempt to have a uterus and ovaries transplanted and subsequently died and the only reason it doesn't happen now is because it isn't yet a safe and commonly offerred medical procedure. She makes her entire argument on the basis that transwomen are an attact on women's distinctiveness and difference from men, attempting to erase the existence of transgender men. Transphobia, defined as "prejudice against... transgender people", or "antagonistic attitudes and feelings against transgender or transsexual people or transsexuality" is a succient way to describe her beliefs. It isn't silencing anyone or stopping her from expressing them, merely condemning them as in my opinion baseless, offensive and dangerous.
    I wasn't aware of all of that and should not have included her in that list. I would say that some of her opinions on the subject have merit enough to be discussed, even though I do disagree, however. What we consider as gender is an interesting and consequential topic and dissenting voices should not be shut down. Unless he is calling for a ban on the operation or for society to shun individuals, you and I should not engage in vitriolic name calling. I don't see what she has said as hate speech, just incorrect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    I wasn't aware of all of that and should not have included her in that list. I would say that some of her opinions on the subject have merit enough to be discussed, even though I do disagree, however. What we consider as gender is an interesting and consequential topic and dissenting voices should not be shut down. Unless he is calling for a ban on the operation or for society to shun individuals, you and I should not engage in vitriolic name calling. I don't see what she has said as hate speech, just incorrect.
    I don't mind having a debate over the issues, but I do think there's precious little point in doing so with someone who is clearly completely closed-minded to the possibility of being wrong and has no regard for the wellbeing of transgender people. Whatever you call it, I would argue it's worse than incorrect because using her profile to spread these lies (and that's what they are: she must reasonably be aware she's talking nonsense) causes harm to transgender people. It attempts to increase public support for ideas such as not allowing or funding gender reassignment surgury, banning transgender people from using the appropriate public bathrooms, and not giving legal recognition to their gender. She is encouraing discrimination against people based not on facts but on her own prejudices and if we are to have a concept of hate speech at all, that for me would be the very definition of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    I don't mind having a debate over the issues, but I do think there's precious little point in doing so with someone who is clearly completely closed-minded to the possibility of being wrong and has no regard for the wellbeing of transgender people. Whatever you call it, I would argue it's worse than incorrect because using her profile to spread these lies (and that's what they are: she must reasonably be aware she's talking nonsense) causes harm to transgender people. It attempts to increase public support for ideas such as not allowing or funding gender reassignment surgury, banning transgender people from using the appropriate public bathrooms, and not giving legal recognition to their gender. She is encouraing discrimination against people based not on facts but on her own prejudices and if we are to have a concept of hate speech at all, that for me would be the very definition of it.
    As far as I'm aware she isn't calling for any such legislation, she is just questioning the concept. It isn't her responsibility what conclusions others come to. i feel we do ourselves a disservice pandering all consequential conversations to suit the least intelligent of us. She isn't a politician and nor are we.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Damien96)
    As far as I'm aware she isn't calling for any such legislation, she is just questioning the concept. It isn't her responsibility what conclusions others come to. i feel we do ourselves a disservice pandering all consequential conversations to suit the least intelligent of us. She isn't a politician and nor are we.
    In my opinion people with a high public profile do have a responsibility to try not to cause harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society. She has far more power than most to influence opinion, and I believe power comes with responsibility.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saoirse:3)
    In my opinion people with a high public profile do have a responsibility to try not to cause harm to some of the most vulnerable people in society. She has far more power than most to influence opinion, and I believe power comes with responsibility.
    Her responsibility is to offer her opinion without inciting violence, how others react to that is their responsibility.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.