From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
Scroll to see replies
I presume your solution is to send dissenters to the gulags?
So your answer is, "Nu-uh, no, they aren't". Cool story bro. A+ debating.
You have writen paragraph after paragraph without citing a single example, yet you expect me to give a well detailed and evidenced counter argument?
If you want to claim that the left are dismissing everyone as "racists" or "bigots", etc, then its your job to prove it. It isn't my job to disprove it, although I have already given a good counter example (the recent election).
No, the solution is to work on the problems that people misattribute to immigration (e.g. weaker public services, the lack of social housing, people struggling to get onto the property ladder, etc) and to make that case that immigration is a good thing and not the cause of these problems.
This is what the left are trying to do.
This is what the left are trying to do.
First, you mention that the Left isn’t dismissing everyone as “racists” or “bigots” and that there’s no reluctance to engage in meaningful debate on sensitive topics. You’re correct that in some instances, the Left does engage in such debates—during election campaigns, for example. However, this engagement is often superficial, framed within pre-approved narratives that don’t truly address the underlying concerns of those who feel disenfranchised.
Let me give you a concrete example. Take the issue of immigration and how it intersects with concerns about public services and housing. Yes, the Left has talked about these issues, but often the discussion is limited to reiterating the benefits of immigration without fully addressing the nuanced and valid concerns of communities that feel the strain on services or face competition in the housing market. When these concerns are raised, they’re frequently brushed aside with broad statements about the overall economic benefits of immigration or worse, dismissed as thinly-veiled xenophobia. This approach fails to engage with the lived experiences of those at the sharp end of these issues.
Now, you argue that the solution is to address the problems that people misattribute to immigration—such as weaker public services or the housing crisis—while making the case that immigration is a positive force. I agree that addressing the root causes of these issues is crucial. But to simply frame the debate in terms of "misattribution" risks alienating those who see their concerns being minimised or ignored. For them, these aren’t abstract policy discussions—they’re realities that affect their daily lives.
If Labour—or any part of the Left—wants to win back trust and defuse populist narratives, it must do more than just assert that immigration is a net positive. It needs to acknowledge the challenges that come with it and engage in a dialogue that doesn’t immediately label concerns as illegitimate. This doesn’t mean adopting right-wing positions, but it does mean taking the concerns seriously enough to discuss them without resorting to moral condemnation or dismissal.
As for the role of experts, I’m not suggesting that expert-led investigations alone will stem the rise of populism. But what they can do is provide a framework for addressing complex issues in a way that is transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive. The public debate on immigration needs to be informed by facts, but it also needs to be sensitive to the concerns of ordinary people—something that an expert-led approach, combined with genuine public engagement, can facilitate.
Let’s address the financial reality we’re facing in the UK. It’s easy to suggest that we should simply inject massive funding into public services and infrastructure to undo the damage of 15 years of austerity, but where exactly is this money supposed to come from? The idea that we can magically solve these deep-rooted problems with a surge of funding is both reductive and unrealistic.
The UK is not swimming in surplus; we’re in a precarious financial situation with a national debt that’s ballooned to alarming levels. We’re talking about a funding shortfall that runs into billions upon billions of pounds. The notion that we can simply “fund our way out” of the problems caused by austerity is a fantasy. There is no magic money tree to shake, and any substantial increase in spending would require either unsustainable borrowing or massive tax increases—neither of which is likely to be politically or economically viable in the current climate.
Moreover, even if we could find the money, we need to recognise that money alone won’t solve these issues. The NHS is a prime example: despite continuous injections of cash, many of its problems remain unresolved because they are systemic, not simply financial. The same applies to housing, education, and other public services. These systems require comprehensive reform, better management, and more efficient use of resources—not just more money.
So, while it’s crucial to address the fallout from austerity, we need to approach this with a realistic understanding of the limitations and challenges involved. Throwing money at the problem without a clear plan for sustainable and systemic change will do little more than paper over the cracks. If we truly want to make a difference, we need to be willing to engage in the hard work of reform and innovation, not just reach for the chequebook.
In addition to the financial challenges we face, there’s another pressing concern that we can no longer afford to ignore: the escalating threat of conflict in Europe. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has shattered the illusion of long-term peace on the continent, reminding us that war in Europe is not some distant memory but a very real possibility. The ongoing conflict, which shows no signs of abating and may even escalate, has made it clear that we must take serious steps to shore up our defences.
Our armed forces, after two decades of continuous funding cuts, are now in dire need of investment. If we are to meet our responsibilities to NATO and ensure our own national security, we must reverse this trend and significantly increase spending on our military. This is not just about fulfilling our obligations to our allies; it’s about ensuring that we are prepared to defend ourselves in an increasingly unstable world.
Furthermore, the security landscape could become even more precarious if the United States, particularly under a potential Trump administration, steps back from its role in NATO. The very foundation of NATO could be at risk, leaving Europe more vulnerable than it has been in decades. With America’s future commitment to NATO in question, it’s imperative that the UK and other European nations step up to fill the potential void.
This means increasing our military spending now, despite how unpopular that may be with some on the Left. The reality is that we cannot afford to be unprepared. The next few decades could see heightened tensions and even direct conflict in Europe, and we must be ready to face these challenges head-on. While social services and domestic issues are undoubtedly important, national security cannot be overlooked. We must ensure that our armed forces are well-funded, well-equipped, and ready to respond to any threat that may emerge.
This is not a call for militarism, but a recognition of the changing realities of our world. Peace and stability cannot be taken for granted, and if we are to protect our way of life and maintain our sovereignty, we must be willing to make the necessary investments in our defence. Now is the time to act, before it’s too late.
If you want to claim that the left are dismissing everyone as "racists" or "bigots", etc, then its your job to prove it. It isn't my job to disprove it, although I have already given a good counter example (the recent election).
Your latest response reeks of intellectual dishonesty, and it’s time to call it out for what it is. You claim I’ve written paragraph after paragraph without citing a single example, yet you conveniently ignore the detailed points I’ve made throughout this discussion. To make it clear for you, let’s break it down and number the points, since you seem to have trouble acknowledging them:
•
1. Cultural Friction and Immigration Concerns: I discussed how legitimate concerns about immigration and its impact on public services and housing are often dismissed or brushed aside by certain segments of the Left as mere xenophobia or bigotry. This isn’t some abstract claim—this is a real, observable trend in how these issues are framed in public discourse.
2. Cancel Culture and Deplatforming: I pointed out the trend of "cancel culture" where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are deplatformed or ostracized. This isn’t a figment of my imagination; it’s a well-documented phenomenon that has seen academics, writers, and public figures lose their platforms or face severe backlash for voicing dissenting opinions.
3. The Problem with Referendums: I outlined why referendums, particularly on complex issues like immigration, are dangerous and can be manipulated by populists. I used the Brexit referendum as a prime example of how this can lead to deeply divisive and harmful outcomes. This point was made to emphasize the need for a more nuanced approach to policy-making that doesn’t resort to binary choices.
4. The Role of Critical Social Justice Ideology: I explained how certain segments of the contemporary Left, influenced by Critical Social Justice theories, reject the very tools of rational debate and discussion. Instead, they view these tools as inherently oppressive, which leads to a refusal to engage with opposing viewpoints. This point directly addresses the root cause of the reluctance to debate or engage with dissenting opinions.
5. The Shift in the Left's Ideology: The post discussed how the Left, traditionally a champion of civil liberties, free speech, and individual rights, has increasingly moved towards an authoritarian stance. It highlighted the shift from being defenders of individual autonomy to becoming enforcers of ideological conformity, where dissent is silenced rather than debated.
6. Comparison to Maoist Thought: A significant part of the argument was the comparison of the current trends within the Left to Maoist thinking. The post drew parallels between the Left's current focus on ideological purity and the tactics used during Mao's Cultural Revolution, where deviation from the party line was met with public denouncement and ostracism.
7. The Role of Academia: The post also critically examined how academia has played a role in this shift, with universities turning into indoctrination centres rather than bastions of free thought and debate. It pointed out that the current generation of students, influenced by social sciences, is more inclined to chant slogans than engage in meaningful discussion, mirroring the dogmatic tendencies seen in authoritarian regimes.
8. Group Identity and Ideological Conformity: The post explored how the Left has increasingly pushed for a monolithic group identity, where individuals are expected to conform to specific beliefs based on their group affiliation. This was highlighted with examples such as "No real gay man should be a conservative" or "No true Irish person would defend Israel," showing how individual agency and critical thinking are being eroded.
9. Comparison to McCarthyism: The post drew a parallel between the Left's current practices and the McCarthy era in the United States, where merely holding certain beliefs could lead to social and professional ruin. It argued that today’s Left employs similar tactics, where questioning the prevailing orthodoxy on issues of identity, gender, race, or international politics risks being branded as a bigot or worse.
10. Consequences of Silencing Dissent: The post also warned of the consequences of this silencing, stating that by refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left cedes ground to populists and demagogues who exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. This, it argued, fuels the very populist movements the Left seeks to oppose.
11. Call for a Return to Open Discourse: Finally, the post called for a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. It emphasized the need to confront uncomfortable truths, engage with the grievances driving people towards populism, and find solutions that are just and inclusive.
You claim I’ve made no points, yet here are several clear, examples that you’ve either ignored or failed to address. Instead of engaging with these arguments, you’ve opted to dismiss them out of hand, offering nothing but empty accusations and a weak attempt to evade the discussion.
You say it’s not your job to disprove my points. Fair enough—but it is your job, if you want to be taken seriously in this debate, to engage with the points I’ve made rather than pretending they don’t exist. You accuse me of failing to provide evidence, yet you’ve provided nothing but a single counterexample—the recent election—which does nothing to refute the broader issues I’ve raised.
If you’re unwilling or unable to engage with the substance of this debate, perhaps it’s time to consider whether you’re actually contributing anything meaningful to the conversation, or if you’re simply deflecting in the hopes that nobody notices your lack of a coherent argument.
The Labour Party's 2024 manifesto itself reflects this ideological shift. For example, the manifesto emphasises fiscal conservatism, with a focus on economic stability, sound money, and tight spending rules. While these may be pragmatic positions, they are far from the traditional leftist focus on expansive public investment and wealth redistribution. Moreover, the manifesto's strong emphasis on a "partnership with business" and its declaration that Labour is "the party of wealth creation" further distances the party from its left-wing roots. These are not the hallmarks of a party committed to socialist or even social-democratic principles, but rather of a party that has embraced neoliberal economic ideas to an extent.
Furthermore, Keir Starmer's own statements and actions reinforce this perception. His positive remarks about Margaret Thatcher, a figure who epitomizes the neoliberal shift in the UK, and his declaration that Labour is the party of "wealth creation" suggest a clear ideological pivot. This is a far cry from the Labour Party under Corbyn, which focused heavily on wealth redistribution, nationalising key industries, and a more robust social safety net.
When referring to "the Left," it's important to acknowledge the broad spectrum of individuals, organizations, and ideas that fall under this umbrella. The Labour Party, as it stands today, under Starmer's leadership, may not fully represent the traditional Left, which has been systematically sidelined. The evidence is clear in both the party's rhetoric and its policy proposals, which align more closely with centrist or centre-right ideals rather than with the core principles traditionally associated with leftist ideology.
•
1. Cultural Friction and Immigration Concerns: I discussed how legitimate concerns about immigration and its impact on public services and housing are often dismissed or brushed aside by certain segments of the Left as mere xenophobia or bigotry. This isn’t some abstract claim—this is a real, observable trend in how these issues are framed in public discourse.
2. Cancel Culture and Deplatforming: I pointed out the trend of "cancel culture" where individuals who express views outside the accepted orthodoxy are deplatformed or ostracized. This isn’t a figment of my imagination; it’s a well-documented phenomenon that has seen academics, writers, and public figures lose their platforms or face severe backlash for voicing dissenting opinions.
3. The Problem with Referendums: I outlined why referendums, particularly on complex issues like immigration, are dangerous and can be manipulated by populists. I used the Brexit referendum as a prime example of how this can lead to deeply divisive and harmful outcomes. This point was made to emphasize the need for a more nuanced approach to policy-making that doesn’t resort to binary choices.
4. The Role of Critical Social Justice Ideology: I explained how certain segments of the contemporary Left, influenced by Critical Social Justice theories, reject the very tools of rational debate and discussion. Instead, they view these tools as inherently oppressive, which leads to a refusal to engage with opposing viewpoints. This point directly addresses the root cause of the reluctance to debate or engage with dissenting opinions.
5. The Shift in the Left's Ideology: The post discussed how the Left, traditionally a champion of civil liberties, free speech, and individual rights, has increasingly moved towards an authoritarian stance. It highlighted the shift from being defenders of individual autonomy to becoming enforcers of ideological conformity, where dissent is silenced rather than debated.
6. Comparison to Maoist Thought: A significant part of the argument was the comparison of the current trends within the Left to Maoist thinking. The post drew parallels between the Left's current focus on ideological purity and the tactics used during Mao's Cultural Revolution, where deviation from the party line was met with public denouncement and ostracism.
7. The Role of Academia: The post also critically examined how academia has played a role in this shift, with universities turning into indoctrination centres rather than bastions of free thought and debate. It pointed out that the current generation of students, influenced by social sciences, is more inclined to chant slogans than engage in meaningful discussion, mirroring the dogmatic tendencies seen in authoritarian regimes.
8. Group Identity and Ideological Conformity: The post explored how the Left has increasingly pushed for a monolithic group identity, where individuals are expected to conform to specific beliefs based on their group affiliation. This was highlighted with examples such as "No real gay man should be a conservative" or "No true Irish person would defend Israel," showing how individual agency and critical thinking are being eroded.
9. Comparison to McCarthyism: The post drew a parallel between the Left's current practices and the McCarthy era in the United States, where merely holding certain beliefs could lead to social and professional ruin. It argued that today’s Left employs similar tactics, where questioning the prevailing orthodoxy on issues of identity, gender, race, or international politics risks being branded as a bigot or worse.
10. Consequences of Silencing Dissent: The post also warned of the consequences of this silencing, stating that by refusing to engage with opposing views, the Left cedes ground to populists and demagogues who exploit the frustrations of those who feel unheard. This, it argued, fuels the very populist movements the Left seeks to oppose.
11. Call for a Return to Open Discourse: Finally, the post called for a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. It emphasized the need to confront uncomfortable truths, engage with the grievances driving people towards populism, and find solutions that are just and inclusive.
You claim I’ve made no points, yet here are several clear, examples that you’ve either ignored or failed to address. Instead of engaging with these arguments, you’ve opted to dismiss them out of hand, offering nothing but empty accusations and a weak attempt to evade the discussion.
You say it’s not your job to disprove my points. Fair enough—but it is your job, if you want to be taken seriously in this debate, to engage with the points I’ve made rather than pretending they don’t exist. You accuse me of failing to provide evidence, yet you’ve provided nothing but a single counterexample—the recent election—which does nothing to refute the broader issues I’ve raised.
If you’re unwilling or unable to engage with the substance of this debate, perhaps it’s time to consider whether you’re actually contributing anything meaningful to the conversation, or if you’re simply deflecting in the hopes that nobody notices your lack of a coherent argument.
You've confused "detailed points" with actual examples. It's all well and good to say something like, 'The left dismiss anyone who is anti-immigration as a racist or bigot', but without even a single example it's a completely empty and meaningless point.
Anyone can claim that something is happening. I don't care to debate what vibes you are getting, I care to debate what is actually going on. You're welcome to debate what you think is happening, just don't accuse others of "intellectual dishonesty" when they want to talk about reality.
Let me give you a concrete example. Take the issue of immigration and how it intersects with concerns about public services and housing. Yes, the Left has talked about these issues, but often the discussion is limited to reiterating the benefits of immigration without fully addressing the nuanced and valid concerns of communities that feel the strain on services or face competition in the housing market. When these concerns are raised, they’re frequently brushed aside with broad statements about the overall economic benefits of immigration or worse, dismissed as thinly-veiled xenophobia. This approach fails to engage with the lived experiences of those at the sharp end of these issues.
Now, you argue that the solution is to address the problems that people misattribute to immigration—such as weaker public services or the housing crisis—while making the case that immigration is a positive force. I agree that addressing the root causes of these issues is crucial. But to simply frame the debate in terms of "misattribution" risks alienating those who see their concerns being minimised or ignored. For them, these aren’t abstract policy discussions—they’re realities that affect their daily lives.
If Labour—or any part of the Left—wants to win back trust and defuse populist narratives, it must do more than just assert that immigration is a net positive. It needs to acknowledge the challenges that come with it and engage in a dialogue that doesn’t immediately label concerns as illegitimate. This doesn’t mean adopting right-wing positions, but it does mean taking the concerns seriously enough to discuss them without resorting to moral condemnation or dismissal.
As for the role of experts, I’m not suggesting that expert-led investigations alone will stem the rise of populism. But what they can do is provide a framework for addressing complex issues in a way that is transparent, evidence-based, and inclusive. The public debate on immigration needs to be informed by facts, but it also needs to be sensitive to the concerns of ordinary people—something that an expert-led approach, combined with genuine public engagement, can facilitate.
Let’s address the financial reality we’re facing in the UK. It’s easy to suggest that we should simply inject massive funding into public services and infrastructure to undo the damage of 15 years of austerity, but where exactly is this money supposed to come from? The idea that we can magically solve these deep-rooted problems with a surge of funding is both reductive and unrealistic.
The UK is not swimming in surplus; we’re in a precarious financial situation with a national debt that’s ballooned to alarming levels. We’re talking about a funding shortfall that runs into billions upon billions of pounds. The notion that we can simply “fund our way out” of the problems caused by austerity is a fantasy. There is no magic money tree to shake, and any substantial increase in spending would require either unsustainable borrowing or massive tax increases—neither of which is likely to be politically or economically viable in the current climate.
Moreover, even if we could find the money, we need to recognise that money alone won’t solve these issues. The NHS is a prime example: despite continuous injections of cash, many of its problems remain unresolved because they are systemic, not simply financial. The same applies to housing, education, and other public services. These systems require comprehensive reform, better management, and more efficient use of resources—not just more money.
So, while it’s crucial to address the fallout from austerity, we need to approach this with a realistic understanding of the limitations and challenges involved. Throwing money at the problem without a clear plan for sustainable and systemic change will do little more than paper over the cracks. If we truly want to make a difference, we need to be willing to engage in the hard work of reform and innovation, not just reach for the chequebook.
In addition to the financial challenges we face, there’s another pressing concern that we can no longer afford to ignore: the escalating threat of conflict in Europe. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has shattered the illusion of long-term peace on the continent, reminding us that war in Europe is not some distant memory but a very real possibility. The ongoing conflict, which shows no signs of abating and may even escalate, has made it clear that we must take serious steps to shore up our defences.
Our armed forces, after two decades of continuous funding cuts, are now in dire need of investment. If we are to meet our responsibilities to NATO and ensure our own national security, we must reverse this trend and significantly increase spending on our military. This is not just about fulfilling our obligations to our allies; it’s about ensuring that we are prepared to defend ourselves in an increasingly unstable world.
Furthermore, the security landscape could become even more precarious if the United States, particularly under a potential Trump administration, steps back from its role in NATO. The very foundation of NATO could be at risk, leaving Europe more vulnerable than it has been in decades. With America’s future commitment to NATO in question, it’s imperative that the UK and other European nations step up to fill the potential void.
This means increasing our military spending now, despite how unpopular that may be with some on the Left. The reality is that we cannot afford to be unprepared. The next few decades could see heightened tensions and even direct conflict in Europe, and we must be ready to face these challenges head-on. While social services and domestic issues are undoubtedly important, national security cannot be overlooked. We must ensure that our armed forces are well-funded, well-equipped, and ready to respond to any threat that may emerge.
This is not a call for militarism, but a recognition of the changing realities of our world. Peace and stability cannot be taken for granted, and if we are to protect our way of life and maintain our sovereignty, we must be willing to make the necessary investments in our defence. Now is the time to act, before it’s too late.
What you're describing is again what the left are doing: recognising why people are against immigration, resolving the issues at the heart of the problem and communicating that with the public. Could you describe, in very clear terms, the exact message(s) that the left should give people in a way that doesn't cosy up to the right and far right? If you were the leader of the Labour Party, for example, what would you say?
If someone misattributes weaker public services and the housing crisis to immigration then the left should not cosy up to them and agree that immigration is the problem, they should point out that these issues are not caused by immigration and also explain how they are going to resolve them.
Anyone can claim that something is happening. I don't care to debate what vibes you are getting, I care to debate what is actually going on. You're welcome to debate what you think is happening, just don't accuse others of "intellectual dishonesty" when they want to talk about reality.
It’s becoming increasingly evident that you're not engaging in this debate with any intention of intellectual honesty. Instead, you seem more focused on deflecting and avoiding the substance of the arguments I’ve presented. This tactic is not only intellectually dishonest but, to be blunt, it's tedious and boring. You’ve repeatedly sidestepped the actual points I’ve made, dismissed them without proper consideration, and then accused me of not providing any concrete examples. Let’s set the record straight: I’m going to break down the specific points I’ve made, complete with examples, so we can address the issue of bad faith in your responses directly.
1. Cultural Friction and Immigration Concerns:
•
Example: In the UK, the 2016 Brexit campaign highlighted concerns over immigration's impact on public services and housing. These concerns were often dismissed by some on the Left as xenophobia, rather than being engaged with as legitimate worries about resources and social cohesion. The Leave campaign's slogan "Take back control" resonated with many who felt that their concerns were being ignored by the political establishment.
•
Example: In Sweden, there has been significant debate over the integration of immigrants, particularly following the large influx of refugees in 2015. Some left-wing commentators dismissed concerns about integration and social cohesion as racist, which has contributed to the rise of populist parties like the Sweden Democrats, who capitalized on these unaddressed anxieties.
•
Example: J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, faced significant backlash and calls for deplatforming after making comments on social media that were perceived as transphobic. Despite her history of progressive views, she was publicly vilified, and some publishers and bookstores distanced themselves from her work.
•
Example: In 2020, Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex faced a campaign of harassment and calls for her to be removed from her position due to her gender-critical views. This is a clear example of how cancel culture can manifest in academia, where differing opinions on sensitive issues can lead to calls for deplatforming rather than debate.
•
Example: The 2016 Brexit referendum is the most direct example of how complex issues can be reduced to a binary choice, leading to deeply divisive outcomes. The Leave campaign successfully used emotional appeals and populist rhetoric to sway public opinion, and the aftermath of the vote has led to years of political instability and economic uncertainty in the UK.
•
Example: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum also demonstrated the potential dangers of referendums. While the vote ultimately resulted in Scotland remaining part of the UK, it exposed deep divisions within the country that have persisted and continue to influence Scottish and UK politics.
•
Example: The rise of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the United States has led to debates over its influence in education and public policy. Critics argue that CRT promotes a worldview that rejects traditional liberal values like individualism and free speech, viewing them instead as tools of systemic oppression. This has led to significant resistance to debate on the topic, as proponents often view opposition as inherently racist or oppressive.
•
Example: At Evergreen State College in 2017, a controversy erupted when biology professor Bret Weinstein objected to a campus event that asked white students to leave campus for a day. Weinstein's objections were framed as racist by some students, and rather than engaging in debate, protests ensued that led to Weinstein's resignation and a significant national debate about free speech and ideological conformity on college campuses.
•
Example: The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was known for its strong stance on civil liberties and free speech. However, under Keir Starmer's leadership, there has been a noticeable shift towards more centrist positions, including support for measures like the Prevent strategy, which some argue infringes on civil liberties by targeting certain groups based on ideology.
•
Example: The Democratic Party in the United States has seen a similar shift, with more moderate figures like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking center stage, often at the expense of the more progressive wing of the party that emphasizes civil liberties and systemic change.
•
Example: The concept of "struggle sessions" during Mao's Cultural Revolution, where individuals were publicly humiliated and forced to confess to ideological crimes, bears a resemblance to modern online "call-outs" and public shamings on social media. While not as extreme, the parallels in the methods of enforcing ideological purity are notable.
•
Example: The rise of identity politics within the Left has sometimes mirrored the factionalism and purges seen during the Cultural Revolution, where adherence to the "correct" ideology was paramount, and deviation could result in ostracism or worse.
•
Example: The concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" in universities, while originally intended to protect vulnerable students, has sometimes been criticized for stifling free speech and debate. For example, several universities in the UK and the US have faced criticism for disinviting speakers or shutting down events that were deemed too controversial.
•
Example: In 2017, Middlebury College in the US saw violent protests against a talk by conservative political scientist Charles Murray. The protests were so intense that a professor was injured, and the event was effectively shut down. This incident is often cited as an example of how academia can sometimes enforce ideological conformity at the expense of free speech and debate.
•
Example: The backlash against black conservative commentator Candace Owens is an example of how individuals who do not conform to the expected political views of their identity group can face severe criticism. Owens has been labeled as a "race traitor" by some on the Left, illustrating the pressure to conform to a particular ideological stance based on identity.
•
Example: The controversy surrounding the Women's March leadership, where Jewish members were pressured to step down due to their refusal to align with certain stances on Israel, shows how group identity can be used to enforce ideological conformity, sometimes at the expense of inclusivity.
•
Example: The case of Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 after it was revealed that he had donated to an anti-gay marriage campaign, is often compared to McCarthy-era tactics. Eich's resignation was seen as a modern-day witch hunt, where holding a particular belief was enough to end his career, regardless of his competence in his professional role.
•
Example: The treatment of individuals who express skepticism about certain aspects of transgender ideology, such as author J.K. Rowling, who has faced significant professional and personal backlash, can be seen as a modern parallel to McCarthyism, where deviation from the accepted ideology results in severe consequences.
•
Example: The rise of populist parties like the Brexit Party in the UK, led by Nigel Farage, can be directly linked to the perception that mainstream political discourse, particularly on the Left, was not addressing the concerns of a significant portion of the population. This failure to engage with dissenting opinions allowed populists to gain traction by positioning themselves as the only ones willing to listen.
•
Example: In France, the rise of Marine Le Pen and the National Rally (formerly National Front) has been fueled by similar dynamics, where concerns about immigration and national identity, often dismissed by the Left, have been co-opted by far-right populists who present themselves as the voice of the "unheard."
•
Example: The Intellectual Dark Web, a group of thinkers including Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and others, has gained prominence by advocating for open discourse and resisting what they see as the stifling of debate on controversial issues. Their popularity indicates a growing demand for spaces where diverse viewpoints can be discussed openly without fear of censorship.
•
Example: The Free Speech Union, founded by British journalist Toby Young, aims to protect individuals from being deplatformed or silenced for their views. The existence and growth of such organizations highlight the perceived need for a return to the principles of open debate and discourse.
If someone misattributes weaker public services and the housing crisis to immigration then the left should not cosy up to them and agree that immigration is the problem, they should point out that these issues are not caused by immigration and also explain how they are going to resolve them.
Your argument seems to overlook a critical aspect of the immigration debate—specifically, the challenges associated with integration and the political bloc issue related to the Islamic community in the UK. It's not just about acknowledging the positive aspects of immigration but also addressing the real and valid concerns that many people have about how well different communities integrate into British society.
One concrete example of this is the way Islamic communities have sometimes been perceived as forming political blocs that can influence local and national policies. This is not merely a matter of cultural difference but raises legitimate questions about how such influences affect social cohesion and political decision-making. As highlighted in Ethan Doyle White's paper, "Christianity, Islam, and the UK Independence Party: Religion and British Identity in the Discourse of Right-Wing Populists," published in the Journal of Church and State in 2019, UKIP capitalized on these concerns by emphasizing the need for Islam to adapt to British cultural norms. The paper argues that certain segments of the British population view Islam as incompatible with British values, a perception that populist movements have successfully exploited.
Moreover, the paper points out that UKIP's rhetoric, while not overtly antagonistic towards Muslim communities, reflects a broader concern about how Islamic values might clash with traditional British values. This sentiment is echoed by many across the political spectrum, yet it remains a sensitive issue that mainstream political discourse often skirts around. By addressing these concerns head-on, rather than dismissing them as mere xenophobia, we can foster a more honest and productive debate about immigration and integration.
The challenges aren't limited to cultural integration but extend to the political influence that tightly-knit communities can wield. This influence can sometimes lead to a sense of alienation among the broader public, who may feel that their concerns are being sidelined in favor of maintaining political correctness or avoiding difficult conversations. If the Left truly wants to regain the trust of these disenfranchised groups, it must do more than simply assert that immigration is a net positive. It must engage with these complex issues openly and honestly, recognizing the genuine concerns about integration and political influence that arise in diverse societies.
To effectively address the challenges of immigration and integration, Labour must go beyond the standard rhetoric and actively engage with the concerns that many in the public hold. These concerns are not just about the economic impact of immigration but also about how well different communities are integrating into British society and the potential political influence they wield as cohesive blocs.
One of the critical issues Labour should tackle is the perception that some Islamic communities form political blocs that can unduly influence local and national policies. This is not merely a question of cultural difference but raises valid concerns about social cohesion and political representation. As discussed in Ethan Doyle White's paper, "Christianity, Islam, and the UK Independence Party: Religion and British Identity in the Discourse of Right-Wing Populists," published in the Journal of Church and State in 2019, these concerns have been exploited by populist movements like UKIP, which argue that certain Islamic values may clash with traditional British values. Labour must not shy away from these concerns; instead, they should address them directly.
To do this, Labour should implement a multi-faceted approach:
1.
Promote Inclusive Dialogue: Labour should spearhead initiatives that encourage open dialogue between different communities. These discussions should focus on how to integrate diverse cultural values within the broader framework of British society. Rather than avoiding difficult conversations about integration, Labour must facilitate them, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.
2.
Strengthen Integration Policies: Labour should develop and enforce policies that promote better integration of immigrant communities. This could include supporting language acquisition programs, fostering community engagement, and encouraging participation in civic life. By helping new immigrants become active and integrated members of society, Labour can address the fears of those who feel that certain communities remain insular and disconnected.
3.
Address Political Bloc Concerns: Labour needs to acknowledge the concerns about political blocs forming within certain communities and the impact this may have on local and national politics. To counteract this, Labour should advocate for greater transparency and fairness in the political process, ensuring that all groups are represented equitably. This could involve reviewing how community leaders influence voting patterns and exploring ways to prevent any single group from disproportionately swaying political outcomes.
4.
Educational Campaigns on Shared Values: Labour should invest in educational campaigns that promote the shared values of all British citizens, regardless of background. These campaigns should highlight the importance of unity, mutual respect, and the rule of law as the foundations of British society. By focusing on what unites rather than divides, Labour can help to alleviate the tensions that arise from cultural differences.
5.
Encourage Civic Participation Across All Communities: Labour should work to ensure that all communities, including those that feel marginalized, have equal opportunities to participate in the political process. This means not just voting but also being involved in community leadership, local government, and national politics. By broadening the scope of civic participation, Labour can help to dilute the influence of any one group and ensure a more balanced representation.
1. Cultural Friction and Immigration Concerns:
•
Example: In the UK, the 2016 Brexit campaign highlighted concerns over immigration's impact on public services and housing. These concerns were often dismissed by some on the Left as xenophobia, rather than being engaged with as legitimate worries about resources and social cohesion. The Leave campaign's slogan "Take back control" resonated with many who felt that their concerns were being ignored by the political establishment.
•
Example: In Sweden, there has been significant debate over the integration of immigrants, particularly following the large influx of refugees in 2015. Some left-wing commentators dismissed concerns about integration and social cohesion as racist, which has contributed to the rise of populist parties like the Sweden Democrats, who capitalized on these unaddressed anxieties.
•
Example: J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, faced significant backlash and calls for deplatforming after making comments on social media that were perceived as transphobic. Despite her history of progressive views, she was publicly vilified, and some publishers and bookstores distanced themselves from her work.
•
Example: In 2020, Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex faced a campaign of harassment and calls for her to be removed from her position due to her gender-critical views. This is a clear example of how cancel culture can manifest in academia, where differing opinions on sensitive issues can lead to calls for deplatforming rather than debate.
•
Example: The 2016 Brexit referendum is the most direct example of how complex issues can be reduced to a binary choice, leading to deeply divisive outcomes. The Leave campaign successfully used emotional appeals and populist rhetoric to sway public opinion, and the aftermath of the vote has led to years of political instability and economic uncertainty in the UK.
•
Example: The 2014 Scottish independence referendum also demonstrated the potential dangers of referendums. While the vote ultimately resulted in Scotland remaining part of the UK, it exposed deep divisions within the country that have persisted and continue to influence Scottish and UK politics.
•
Example: The rise of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the United States has led to debates over its influence in education and public policy. Critics argue that CRT promotes a worldview that rejects traditional liberal values like individualism and free speech, viewing them instead as tools of systemic oppression. This has led to significant resistance to debate on the topic, as proponents often view opposition as inherently racist or oppressive.
•
Example: At Evergreen State College in 2017, a controversy erupted when biology professor Bret Weinstein objected to a campus event that asked white students to leave campus for a day. Weinstein's objections were framed as racist by some students, and rather than engaging in debate, protests ensued that led to Weinstein's resignation and a significant national debate about free speech and ideological conformity on college campuses.
•
Example: The Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn was known for its strong stance on civil liberties and free speech. However, under Keir Starmer's leadership, there has been a noticeable shift towards more centrist positions, including support for measures like the Prevent strategy, which some argue infringes on civil liberties by targeting certain groups based on ideology.
•
Example: The Democratic Party in the United States has seen a similar shift, with more moderate figures like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking center stage, often at the expense of the more progressive wing of the party that emphasizes civil liberties and systemic change.
•
Example: The concept of "struggle sessions" during Mao's Cultural Revolution, where individuals were publicly humiliated and forced to confess to ideological crimes, bears a resemblance to modern online "call-outs" and public shamings on social media. While not as extreme, the parallels in the methods of enforcing ideological purity are notable.
•
Example: The rise of identity politics within the Left has sometimes mirrored the factionalism and purges seen during the Cultural Revolution, where adherence to the "correct" ideology was paramount, and deviation could result in ostracism or worse.
•
Example: The concept of "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" in universities, while originally intended to protect vulnerable students, has sometimes been criticized for stifling free speech and debate. For example, several universities in the UK and the US have faced criticism for disinviting speakers or shutting down events that were deemed too controversial.
•
Example: In 2017, Middlebury College in the US saw violent protests against a talk by conservative political scientist Charles Murray. The protests were so intense that a professor was injured, and the event was effectively shut down. This incident is often cited as an example of how academia can sometimes enforce ideological conformity at the expense of free speech and debate.
•
Example: The backlash against black conservative commentator Candace Owens is an example of how individuals who do not conform to the expected political views of their identity group can face severe criticism. Owens has been labeled as a "race traitor" by some on the Left, illustrating the pressure to conform to a particular ideological stance based on identity.
•
Example: The controversy surrounding the Women's March leadership, where Jewish members were pressured to step down due to their refusal to align with certain stances on Israel, shows how group identity can be used to enforce ideological conformity, sometimes at the expense of inclusivity.
•
Example: The case of Brendan Eich, who was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla in 2014 after it was revealed that he had donated to an anti-gay marriage campaign, is often compared to McCarthy-era tactics. Eich's resignation was seen as a modern-day witch hunt, where holding a particular belief was enough to end his career, regardless of his competence in his professional role.
•
Example: The treatment of individuals who express skepticism about certain aspects of transgender ideology, such as author J.K. Rowling, who has faced significant professional and personal backlash, can be seen as a modern parallel to McCarthyism, where deviation from the accepted ideology results in severe consequences.
•
Example: The rise of populist parties like the Brexit Party in the UK, led by Nigel Farage, can be directly linked to the perception that mainstream political discourse, particularly on the Left, was not addressing the concerns of a significant portion of the population. This failure to engage with dissenting opinions allowed populists to gain traction by positioning themselves as the only ones willing to listen.
•
Example: In France, the rise of Marine Le Pen and the National Rally (formerly National Front) has been fueled by similar dynamics, where concerns about immigration and national identity, often dismissed by the Left, have been co-opted by far-right populists who present themselves as the voice of the "unheard."
•
Example: The Intellectual Dark Web, a group of thinkers including Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and others, has gained prominence by advocating for open discourse and resisting what they see as the stifling of debate on controversial issues. Their popularity indicates a growing demand for spaces where diverse viewpoints can be discussed openly without fear of censorship.
•
Example: The Free Speech Union, founded by British journalist Toby Young, aims to protect individuals from being deplatformed or silenced for their views. The existence and growth of such organizations highlight the perceived need for a return to the principles of open debate and discourse.
I can't engage with someone if their entire argument is dependent on vibes. There's no "substance" to an argument if it isn't backed up by real examples (i.e. evidence). Just because you've written a lengthy post doesn't mean you've actually said anything. It's extremely irony to criticise this as "deflecting and avoiding the substance of the arguments". If you take issue with the concept of needing evidence to justify a belief then debates aren't for you. If all you want to do is tell people what they should believe then a job working for the "thought police" would be far more suitable.
I accused you of not providing any concrete examples because (until now) you hadn't done. The examples you've now given (at long last) are incredibly weak. You're citing things that happened nearly a decade ago, things that haven't happened in the UK and things that aren't related to immigration (the topic you've pivoted towards). For example, you've said that the left dismiss people as racists and bigots just for being anti-immigration but the closest you have done to prove this is reference something that people supposedly said during the 2016 referendum...? That tells us little about anything because A) it happened nearly 10 years ago and you've given no reason to believe the left currently operates in this way and B) you've not told us who said these things or why they are representative of the wider left.
If you want "intellectual honesty" then start with a single claim and work from there, don't rattle off thousands of points and expect other people to accept everything you're saying.
One concrete example of this is the way Islamic communities have sometimes been perceived as forming political blocs that can influence local and national policies. This is not merely a matter of cultural difference but raises legitimate questions about how such influences affect social cohesion and political decision-making. As highlighted in Ethan Doyle White's paper, "Christianity, Islam, and the UK Independence Party: Religion and British Identity in the Discourse of Right-Wing Populists," published in the Journal of Church and State in 2019, UKIP capitalized on these concerns by emphasizing the need for Islam to adapt to British cultural norms. The paper argues that certain segments of the British population view Islam as incompatible with British values, a perception that populist movements have successfully exploited.
Moreover, the paper points out that UKIP's rhetoric, while not overtly antagonistic towards Muslim communities, reflects a broader concern about how Islamic values might clash with traditional British values. This sentiment is echoed by many across the political spectrum, yet it remains a sensitive issue that mainstream political discourse often skirts around. By addressing these concerns head-on, rather than dismissing them as mere xenophobia, we can foster a more honest and productive debate about immigration and integration.
The challenges aren't limited to cultural integration but extend to the political influence that tightly-knit communities can wield. This influence can sometimes lead to a sense of alienation among the broader public, who may feel that their concerns are being sidelined in favor of maintaining political correctness or avoiding difficult conversations. If the Left truly wants to regain the trust of these disenfranchised groups, it must do more than simply assert that immigration is a net positive. It must engage with these complex issues openly and honestly, recognizing the genuine concerns about integration and political influence that arise in diverse societies.
To effectively address the challenges of immigration and integration, Labour must go beyond the standard rhetoric and actively engage with the concerns that many in the public hold. These concerns are not just about the economic impact of immigration but also about how well different communities are integrating into British society and the potential political influence they wield as cohesive blocs.
One of the critical issues Labour should tackle is the perception that some Islamic communities form political blocs that can unduly influence local and national policies. This is not merely a question of cultural difference but raises valid concerns about social cohesion and political representation. As discussed in Ethan Doyle White's paper, "Christianity, Islam, and the UK Independence Party: Religion and British Identity in the Discourse of Right-Wing Populists," published in the Journal of Church and State in 2019, these concerns have been exploited by populist movements like UKIP, which argue that certain Islamic values may clash with traditional British values. Labour must not shy away from these concerns; instead, they should address them directly.
To do this, Labour should implement a multi-faceted approach:
1.
Promote Inclusive Dialogue: Labour should spearhead initiatives that encourage open dialogue between different communities. These discussions should focus on how to integrate diverse cultural values within the broader framework of British society. Rather than avoiding difficult conversations about integration, Labour must facilitate them, ensuring that all voices are heard and respected.
2.
Strengthen Integration Policies: Labour should develop and enforce policies that promote better integration of immigrant communities. This could include supporting language acquisition programs, fostering community engagement, and encouraging participation in civic life. By helping new immigrants become active and integrated members of society, Labour can address the fears of those who feel that certain communities remain insular and disconnected.
3.
Address Political Bloc Concerns: Labour needs to acknowledge the concerns about political blocs forming within certain communities and the impact this may have on local and national politics. To counteract this, Labour should advocate for greater transparency and fairness in the political process, ensuring that all groups are represented equitably. This could involve reviewing how community leaders influence voting patterns and exploring ways to prevent any single group from disproportionately swaying political outcomes.
4.
Educational Campaigns on Shared Values: Labour should invest in educational campaigns that promote the shared values of all British citizens, regardless of background. These campaigns should highlight the importance of unity, mutual respect, and the rule of law as the foundations of British society. By focusing on what unites rather than divides, Labour can help to alleviate the tensions that arise from cultural differences.
5.
Encourage Civic Participation Across All Communities: Labour should work to ensure that all communities, including those that feel marginalized, have equal opportunities to participate in the political process. This means not just voting but also being involved in community leadership, local government, and national politics. By broadening the scope of civic participation, Labour can help to dilute the influence of any one group and ensure a more balanced representation.
Despite everything you've written here you still haven't answered the question. You keep saying things like, 'Labour should actively engage with the concerns that many in public hold', but you have repeatedly failed to tell us what you think Labour should be saying.
Can you do this or not?
Welcome to the world of debating, if you want intellectually honest debates then you should be prepared to have people disagree with you. You should be prepared to focus on specific points, not ramble away thousands of different things and expect people to obey you.
You’re proving exactly what I’ve been saying all along—the Left refuses to engage in genuine debate. You asked for detailed points, and I provided them. You asked for examples, and I gave them. Now, instead of addressing them, you’re just acting like an infant, deflecting rather than engaging with the substance of the argument.
This isn’t about disagreement; it’s about your refusal to confront the points I’ve raised. You’re not debating—you’re avoiding. My patience with your bad-faith argumentation is at its end. If you’re not willing to engage in a serious discussion, then there’s no point in continuing this exchange.
At least China is open about its authoritarianism. As terrifying as that is, it's a known factor. When I was at university, I met some Chinese students who lived in constant fear of saying the wrong thing because they were worried the Confucius Institute might be spying on them and reporting back to their government. The level of fear they carried was unsettling, and it really drove home how oppressive that kind of regime can be.
This isn’t about disagreement; it’s about your refusal to confront the points I’ve raised. You’re not debating—you’re avoiding. My patience with your bad-faith argumentation is at its end. If you’re not willing to engage in a serious discussion, then there’s no point in continuing this exchange.
I have engaged in genuine debate, your problem is that I have the audacity to disagree with you and don't want to talk about thousands of points simultaneously. I confronted the point you made, starting with the claim that people are being called racists and bigots:
"For example, you've said that the left dismiss people as racists and bigots just for being anti-immigration but the closest you have done to prove this is reference something that people supposedly said during the 2016 referendum...? That tells us little about anything because A) it happened nearly 10 years ago and you've given no reason to believe the left currently operates in this way and B) you've not told us who said these things or why they are representative of the wider left."
All you could say in response is "Go away little boy.", "you’re just acting like an infant", etc, alongside several other insults that you have thrown my way. All this talk of me supposedly not 'engaging in genuine debate' seems like a projection.
I'll ask again: do you want to go through these points one by one? Or would you rather ramble about thousands of things and insult other people when they don't do what you say?
China has concentration camps for ethnic minorities, outright bans dissenting opinion and is willing to murder pro-democracy and pro-free speech protesters en masse in the street.
Can you tell me what the UK is doing which is worse than that?
"For example, you've said that the left dismiss people as racists and bigots just for being anti-immigration but the closest you have done to prove this is reference something that people supposedly said during the 2016 referendum...? That tells us little about anything because A) it happened nearly 10 years ago and you've given no reason to believe the left currently operates in this way and B) you've not told us who said these things or why they are representative of the wider left."
All you could say in response is "Go away little boy.", "you’re just acting like an infant", etc, alongside several other insults that you have thrown my way. All this talk of me supposedly not 'engaging in genuine debate' seems like a projection.
I'll ask again: do you want to go through these points one by one? Or would you rather ramble about thousands of things and insult other people when they don't do what you say?
It's telling that you frame your disagreement as "genuine debate" when you’re really just cherry-picking a single point to fixate on while ignoring the broader argument. The fact is, I provided detailed points and examples across multiple issues, and instead of engaging with them in a meaningful way, you chose to nitpick one example and dismiss the rest. That’s not debating—that’s dodging.
You keep harping on about the 2016 referendum as if it's irrelevant, but it’s a clear example of how certain narratives are constructed and weaponized, which is still very much happening today. The fact that you dismiss it out of hand because it happened a few years ago shows a lack of willingness to engage with how these trends have evolved.
And let’s be honest—your insistence on reducing this discussion to one single point at a time is just another tactic to avoid dealing with the complexity of the issues. You want to pretend that by focusing narrowly, you can evade the broader context. But the reality is that these issues are interconnected, and they need to be addressed as such.
As for your claim that you’re engaging in genuine debate, if that were the case, you wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the examples I’ve provided, nor would you constantly shift the goalposts whenever you’re presented with evidence that challenges your perspective. It’s clear you’re more interested in deflecting than in having a serious conversation.
So, if you’re truly interested in an honest, comprehensive debate, then start by acknowledging the validity of the points and examples I’ve raised instead of pretending they don’t exist. Otherwise, this is just another exercise in futility, and frankly, that’s getting tiresome.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Anyone concerned about rising authoritarianism?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- 2024 general election: the aftermath
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- [Official] Riots in streets across the UK, after 3 children die in Southport stabbing
- Muslim grouping OIC says measures needed to prevent Quran desecration
- UK Police
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- What happens if the hospital report domestic violence to police
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Jeremey Corbyn is a G
- Police Now National graduate leadership programme intake 2024
- CIE igcse history predictions?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Is the UK Sleepwalking into Authoritarianism?
- Is Bradford an exciting place to live?
- Relationships as a police officer
- Final year academic appeal
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 1 month ago
[Golden Thread] - Which celebrity would you choose to become Prime Minister?Last reply 1 month ago
Should the UK introduce a mandatory working gap year for 18-year olds?Last reply 1 month ago
What do you consider as the best way for resolving the nationwide housing crisis?
