From Freedom Fighters to Thought Police: How the Left Lost Its Way
Scroll to see replies
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.
Concrete Examples:
1.
The Case of J.K. Rowling (2020-2023): J.K. Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series, has faced significant backlash since 2020 for her comments on gender identity and women’s rights. Despite her long history of progressive views and philanthropy, Rowling has been labelled as transphobic by many on the Left. This has led to widespread calls for her to be "cancelled," with some bookstores refusing to stock her books and organisations distancing themselves from her. The ferocity of the reaction to her views, and the attempt to erase her contributions, mirrors the kind of professional and social ostracism seen during the McCarthy era.
2.
Professor Kathleen Stock’s Resignation (2021): Kathleen Stock, a philosophy professor at the University of Sussex, resigned in 2021 after facing intense harassment and calls for her dismissal due to her gender-critical views. The campaign against her was driven by activists who argued that her views on gender were harmful, despite her consistently advocating for respectful debate on these issues. The treatment of Stock, who was effectively forced out of her academic position, is reminiscent of McCarthyism, where holding views contrary to the dominant ideology could lead to professional ruin.
3.
The Case of Nick Buckley (2020): Nick Buckley, the founder of the charity Mancunian Way, was removed from his position in 2020 after he criticised the Black Lives Matter movement in a blog post. Despite his work for disadvantaged communities, Buckley was accused of racism and was swiftly removed from his role. This instance is another example of how questioning the prevailing orthodoxy—whether on race, gender, or other identity-related issues—can lead to severe professional consequences, akin to the blacklisting tactics of the McCarthy era.
4.
Barry Weiss’s Resignation from The New York Times (2020): Barry Weiss, an editor and writer for The New York Times, resigned in 2020, citing a hostile work environment created by colleagues who disagreed with her views on free speech and cancel culture. Weiss described a culture where dissenting views were met with accusations of bigotry, and where the fear of being labelled as such led to self-censorship among staff. Her resignation letter highlighted how the media, like other institutions, has become a battleground where deviation from the accepted ideology is punished, echoing the fear-driven conformity of McCarthyism.
5.
The Treatment of Germaine Greer (2015-2022): Feminist icon Germaine Greer has faced significant backlash, including protests and attempts to deplatform her, due to her views on transgender issues. Despite her long history of advocating for women’s rights, Greer has been labelled transphobic, and her public appearances have been targeted by activists. The attempts to silence Greer, rather than engage with her arguments, demonstrate how ideological purity tests are increasingly being applied, leading to the marginalisation of even those with significant contributions to progressive causes—similar to the ideological purges of the McCarthy era.
The post warned of the consequences of silencing dissent, 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.
Concrete Examples:
1.
Brexit Referendum (2016): The Brexit referendum is a prime example of the consequences of silencing dissenting voices. For years, concerns about the European Union, immigration, and national sovereignty were often dismissed by the political and media establishment as fringe or xenophobic views. This dismissal led to a build-up of resentment among a significant portion of the electorate, who felt their concerns were not being taken seriously. When the opportunity finally arose to express these frustrations through a vote, it resulted in a seismic political shift that few had predicted. The refusal to engage with these concerns earlier allowed populists like Nigel Farage to fill the void, ultimately leading to the UK’s departure from the EU.
2.
The Rise of Donald Trump (2016): In the United States, the election of Donald Trump as President in 2016 was fuelled in part by a similar dynamic. Many of Trump’s supporters felt alienated by a political establishment that they believed had ignored or dismissed their concerns about immigration, economic inequality, and political correctness. The mainstream media and political elites often labelled these concerns as racist or backward, rather than engaging with them meaningfully. This alienation was exploited by Trump, who presented himself as a voice for the ‘forgotten men and women’ of America, leading to his surprise victory. The refusal to engage with these voters’ concerns directly contributed to the rise of a populist leader who capitalised on their frustrations.
3.
Gilets Jaunes Movement in France (2018-2019): The Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement in France began as a protest against rising fuel taxes but quickly expanded to include broader grievances about economic inequality, political elitism, and the high cost of living. The movement was largely composed of working-class citizens who felt ignored by the French political establishment, which they accused of being out of touch with their struggles. The refusal of the French government and mainstream media to engage with these concerns in a meaningful way only served to deepen the sense of alienation, leading to widespread and often violent protests. This movement highlighted the dangers of dismissing dissenting voices, as the failure to address legitimate grievances can lead to widespread unrest and instability.
4.
The Popularity of Marine Le Pen in France (2017-2022): Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally (formerly National Front) in France, has gained significant support by positioning herself as a champion of those who feel ignored by the political mainstream. Many of her supporters are drawn to her populist rhetoric, which often focuses on issues like immigration, national identity, and opposition to the European Union—issues that are frequently dismissed or downplayed by the French political establishment. By refusing to engage with these concerns, the mainstream parties have allowed Le Pen to capitalise on the frustrations of these voters, making her a significant force in French politics. This is another clear example of how silencing dissent can lead to the rise of populist movements that threaten the political status quo.
5.
Support for UKIP in the United Kingdom (2010-2015): The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) saw a surge in support in the years leading up to the Brexit referendum, largely because it tapped into concerns about immigration and sovereignty that were being dismissed by the major political parties. By labelling these concerns as racist or xenophobic, the political establishment failed to engage with a significant portion of the electorate, who then turned to UKIP as a party that was willing to address their issues. This shift in support was instrumental in pushing the Conservative Party to call the Brexit referendum, which ultimately led to the UK’s exit from the EU. The rise of UKIP illustrates how silencing dissent can drive voters towards more extreme parties that promise to give them a voice.
6.
The Rise of the Reform Party in the 2024 UK General Election: In the 2024 general election, the Reform Party, led by Nigel Farage, gained 4.4 million votes, securing four parliamentary seats, including one for Farage himself. The party’s rise can be attributed to a significant portion of the electorate feeling ignored by the mainstream parties, particularly on issues related to immigration, sovereignty, and national identity. These voters turned to the Reform Party as a vehicle for their frustrations, as they felt that their concerns were not being adequately addressed by the traditional parties. The mainstream dismissal of these concerns as xenophobic or nationalist only served to strengthen the Reform Party’s appeal, allowing it to gain substantial support in the election. This outcome underscores the danger of silencing dissenting voices, as it can lead to the rise of populist movements that challenge the political establishment.
The final point in the post called for a return to the principles of open discourse and critical debate that once defined the Left. It emphasised the need to confront uncomfortable truths, engage with the grievances driving people towards populism, and find solutions that are both just and inclusive. The argument here is that the current trend of shutting down debate and silencing dissent only serves to deepen divisions and fuel the very populist movements that the Left opposes.
Concrete Examples:
1.
The Intellectual Dark Web (2018 onwards): The rise of the so-called Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), a group of thinkers, commentators, and academics who advocate for open discourse and freedom of speech, reflects a growing demand for spaces where controversial issues can be discussed without fear of censorship. Members of the IDW, such as Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, have gained significant followings by challenging the prevailing orthodoxy on issues like free speech, identity politics, and political correctness. Their popularity indicates that there is a substantial audience that feels stifled by the current climate of enforced ideological conformity and is seeking a return to open debate and the exchange of ideas.
2.
The Free Speech Union (2020 onwards): Founded by British journalist Toby Young, the Free Speech Union (FSU) is an organisation dedicated to defending the right to free speech and protecting individuals from being deplatformed or silenced for their views. The FSU has been involved in numerous cases where individuals have faced professional or social consequences for expressing opinions that are deemed unacceptable by certain segments of society. The existence and growth of such an organisation highlight the perceived need for a return to the principles of open debate and discourse, where differing viewpoints can be discussed and challenged without fear of retribution.
3.
Keir Starmer’s Labour Party (2020 onwards): Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, the Labour Party has made moves to distance itself from the more radical elements of the party that were prominent under Jeremy Corbyn. Starmer has attempted to present Labour as a party of reasoned debate and evidence-based policy-making, rather than ideological purity. However, this shift has been met with resistance from some within the party who feel that it represents a betrayal of Labour’s core values. The internal conflicts within Labour illustrate the challenges of balancing the need for open discourse with the desire to maintain party unity and ideological consistency.
4.
Controversy Over the Use of Facial Recognition Technology in the UK (2024): The recent controversy surrounding the Labour Party’s support for the use of live facial recognition technology in public spaces has sparked a debate about the balance between security and civil liberties. Critics argue that this technology represents a significant threat to privacy and could lead to a de facto national ID system, undermining individual freedoms. Campaigners have called for a broader public debate on the issue, highlighting the importance of open discourse in shaping policies that have far-reaching implications for civil liberties. This case underscores the need for a political environment where such debates can take place without being stifled by authoritarian tendencies.
5.
Debates on University Campuses (Ongoing): University campuses have traditionally been places where open discourse and the exchange of ideas were encouraged. However, in recent years, there has been growing concern that this tradition is under threat. Incidents of speakers being disinvited, student societies being shut down, and events being cancelled due to protests have raised alarms about the state of free speech in higher education. The debate over the role of universities in fostering open discourse versus protecting students from potentially harmful ideas reflects the broader societal tension between free speech and ideological conformity.
That being said, let's address the rest of your points and examples, and consider whether they do indeed constitute ad hominem attacks, or if they serve a different purpose within our debate.
Firstly, an ad hominem attack is when someone attacks the character or motive of a person rather than addressing the substance of their argument. This tactic is often used to undermine an opponent's credibility without engaging with their actual points. However, calling out someone for using specific tactics in a debate—like misrepresenting arguments or evading key issues—is not necessarily an ad hominem attack. Instead, it can be a legitimate critique of how someone is engaging in the discussion.
When I referred to your arguments as "disingenuous and manipulative," I was criticising the methods you've used throughout this debate—specifically, your tendency to dismiss examples or arguments without fully engaging with them. This was not meant as a personal attack on your character, but rather a critique of the approach you've taken in this conversation. If I didn’t make that clear, then I acknowledge that I could have phrased my critique more precisely.
Now, let's break down your examples to determine whether they truly counter my points or if they miss the mark:
1.
Amber Rudd Incident (2020): You dismissed this as irrelevant by suggesting the criticism of Rudd was justified due to her association with the Windrush scandal. However, my point was about the broader pattern of shutting down debate by disinviting speakers, rather than addressing the issues they were meant to discuss. This example illustrates how "cancel culture" can stifle discussion, even when controversial figures are involved.
2.
Trevor Phillips Suspension from Labour (2020): This example directly supports my claim that the left can label people as racists or bigots for raising concerns about immigration or cultural integration. Phillips was suspended over comments that questioned aspects of multiculturalism and the integration of Muslim communities, which were deemed Islamophobic. This is precisely the kind of overreach that I was highlighting.
3.
David Starkey Controversy (2020): You argue that Starkey's comments were clearly racist and therefore justified his being labeled as such. While Starkey’s comments were indeed controversial and offensive, my point was that the response often extends beyond condemning specific remarks to dismissing the entirety of someone’s work or contributions. This broad-brush approach prevents any nuanced discussion of the underlying issues.
4.
Priti Patel’s Accusations of Racism (2021): You questioned who labeled Patel as racist or xenophobic. The reality is that criticism of her policies, particularly regarding immigration, often includes such accusations. My argument is not that these labels are never warranted, but that they are sometimes used to shut down debate rather than to foster it.
5.
Keir Starmer and Labour Anti-Semitism Scandal (2020): The anti-Semitism scandal within Labour, particularly under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, became a highly charged issue. While it's crucial to address and root out any form of racism, the way this scandal was handled raises significant questions. Despite the intense media scrutiny and internal investigations, the evidence of widespread or institutional anti-Semitism within Labour was far from conclusive. The scandal often appeared less about tackling genuine instances of anti-Semitism and more about undermining Corbyn's leadership.
6.
Nigel Farage’s Departure from LBC (2020): You argue that Farage’s comments were racist and therefore his removal was justified. However, the broader issue here is that dismissing and deplatforming voices like Farage’s without engaging with the concerns they raise only deepens divisions. Farage taps into real, albeit controversial, sentiments that resonate with a significant portion of the electorate. Ignoring or silencing these voices without addressing their concerns can fuel the rise of populism.
While you may not agree with my interpretation of these examples, they were not provided as mere "one-offs" but as part of a broader pattern of behavior. The intent was to illustrate how debate is often stifled, not by engaging with arguments, but by dismissing the individuals who make them. If we're going to have a meaningful conversation, it’s essential to engage with the substance of these examples rather than dismissing them out of hand.
I've not made any ad hominem attacks towards you, my criticisms have been about your argument and the lack of examples to justify the points you're making.
I've engaged with the substance of these examples already. The problem, which you haven't addressed here either, is that they do not relate to your point that the left dismiss people as a racist / bigot solely for being anti-immigration (one of the first points you made). In all your examples, barring perhaps the second, these people are labelled racist because they said / supported racist things (or, rather, specific things they said were labelled as racist). They may / may not relate to a 'bigger picture' but they don't support the point I am asking you about.
First, let’s clarify the point about Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. These figures are known for their piecemeal approach to debates, often focusing on isolated issues rather than considering the broader context. They tend to dissect arguments point by point, sometimes ignoring the larger, interconnected nature of social and political problems. This is a deliberate strategy that allows them to avoid engaging with the more complex and nuanced aspects of the issues they discuss. By tackling each point in isolation, they sidestep the messy reality that issues often overlap, influence one another, and cannot be fully understood in isolation.
In contrast, thinkers on the Left, such as Robin DiAngelo, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Judith Butler, are known for their willingness to engage with the complexities of social issues through frameworks like intersectionality, post-modernism, and critical theory. These frameworks recognise that issues like race, gender, class, and sexuality do not exist in a vacuum but are interrelated and influence one another in significant ways. For example, Crenshaw's concept of intersectionality has been pivotal in understanding how different forms of discrimination and privilege intersect, shaping the experiences of individuals in ways that cannot be fully captured by examining each factor in isolation.
Post-modernism, another intellectual tradition often associated with the Left, challenges the notion of objective truths and highlights the role of power in shaping knowledge and societal structures. It encourages us to question taken-for-granted assumptions and to consider how various discourses intersect and shape our understanding of the world. This is the very opposite of a simplistic, one-issue-at-a-time approach.
Addressing the "big picture" in debates is not a tactic to avoid scrutiny but rather a necessary approach to fully understand the complexities of the issues at hand. The idea that focusing on the broader context is somehow intellectually dishonest or a form of evasion is, frankly, an inversion of reality. It is precisely by considering the broader context that we can uncover the deeper, systemic issues that one-dimensional analyses often overlook.
The reality is that complex problems require complex solutions, and understanding them requires us to look at how various factors intersect and interact. This is not only an intellectually honest approach but also the only way to ensure that we are addressing the root causes of the issues rather than just their symptoms. In contrast, isolating each issue and tackling it as if it exists in a vacuum leads to oversimplified solutions that fail to address the underlying problems.
The assertion that examining the bigger picture is a right-wing tactic is entirely misguided. It is actually a cornerstone of modern left-wing thought, which recognises that the complexities of our social world cannot be adequately understood—or effectively addressed—without taking into account the intersectionality and interconnectedness of the issues at play.
If the individual points making up your 'bigger picture' are wrong then there is no 'bigger picture', just something you think exists because the individual points haven't been held to scrutiny and haven't been validated. That's why it's better to take things one at a time, if the validity of each point isn't going to be checked then you may as well be writing fiction.
I've not framed it as a right-wing tactic, Shapiro and Peterson were just same examples that came to mind. The Gish Gallop technique can be used by anyone, for example I've seen it used plenty by conspiracy theorists (who have no political leaning). The moment people address these points one by one is the moment these 'bigger pictures' fall apart, they've simply got no solid foundation.
There's also a practical element to this. It's far easier for people to have a discussion if they aren't talking about thousands of things at once. It prevents confusion and it also keeps people engaged. You'll find that most people do not want to sit through 10 lengthy posts of examples just to have a debate about something, least not on this forum.
This is what the left are trying to do.
You deny this - but people who live in the very areas affected by excessive immigration (including those immigrants themselves) know how much society is unravelling. The police cannot cope.
Isn't this also the tactic of the major UK broadcasting organisation (funded by tax payer) influenced by the Government, the Establishment and Ofcom? These organisations seem to view the ordinary public as 'stupid'?
This view of the 'stupid' public seems to be used by clever lawyers who cite "not in the public interest" and advocate and present a version of reality that they would wish to portray. Few would recognise that vision? Rather than face the reality of what has been created (after destroying a stable and relatively crime free society) Government policy is such that it now holds the lid on to hide what is happening in real life. Normal people understand that the UK Government are covering up another failed social experiment (called multi-culturalism) and are now struggling to maintain law and order in society.
The ordinary general public (not far right agitators) know when they have been short changed and are reacting with fury. Many people have known this for a long time. When the electorate is lied to and realises there is no hope, then we are no better than many other world authoritarian states. Our democracy is no more. Our politicians have thrown away a wonderful peaceful legacy for their own short term selfish ideology and for greedy financial gain.
We should welcome all who are now in the UK (because we have no choice) No thanks to the Civil Servants, the EU, the Government Lawyers and the ECHR removing any viable border checks or controls
Our only solution is to be robust against every single offender who commits violence toward another citizen, and robust against every other antisocial crime. Justice in UK society should not be created by a lack of prison places. Violent offenders with no affiliation to the UK should be removed from circulation. We need to keep violent offenders away from others, and not just 'wait and see what happens' by policy. Yes, we should be resolute and urgently build far more secure accommodation for such people. If those religious leaders who preach and advocate violence in the name of religion (often with multiple prior offences) are given the same sentences as a middle aged woman with no prior convictions posting a singular offensive comment, then we will all have some kind of common sense and parity in society.
I've engaged with the substance of these examples already. The problem, which you haven't addressed here either, is that they do not relate to your point that the left dismiss people as a racist / bigot solely for being anti-immigration (one of the first points you made). In all your examples, barring perhaps the second, these people are labelled racist because they said / supported racist things (or, rather, specific things they said were labelled as racist). They may / may not relate to a 'bigger picture' but they don't support the point I am asking you about.
And, as if by magic, they reply with a multitude of posts, each with a multitude of points - some of which seem to be the same as points that have already been refuted.
It's clearly a deliberate tactic used to avoid honest debate.
Isn't this also the tactic of the major UK broadcasting organisation (funded by tax payer) influenced by the Government, the Establishment and Ofcom? These organisations seem to view the ordinary public as 'stupid'?
This view of the 'stupid' public seems to be used by clever lawyers who cite "not in the public interest" and advocate and present a version of reality that they would wish to portray. Few would recognise that vision? Rather than face the reality of what has been created (after destroying a stable and relatively crime free society) Government policy is such that it now holds the lid on to hide what is happening in real life. Normal people understand that the UK Government are covering up another failed social experiment (called multi-culturalism) and are now struggling to maintain law and order in society.
The ordinary general public (not far right agitators) know when they have been short changed and are reacting with fury. Many people have known this for a long time. When the electorate is lied to and realises there is no hope, then we are no better than many other world authoritarian states. Our democracy is no more. Our politicians have thrown away a wonderful peaceful legacy for their own short term selfish ideology and for greedy financial gain.
We should welcome all who are now in the UK (because we have no choice) No thanks to the Civil Servants, the EU, the Government Lawyers and the ECHR removing any viable border checks or controls
Our only solution is to be robust against every single offender who commits violence toward another citizen, and robust against every other antisocial crime. Justice in UK society should not be created by a lack of prison places. Violent offenders with no affiliation to the UK should be removed from circulation. We need to keep violent offenders away from others, and not just 'wait and see what happens' by policy. Yes, we should be resolute and urgently build far more secure accommodation for such people. If those religious leaders who preach and advocate violence in the name of religion (often with multiple prior offences) are given the same sentences as a middle aged woman with no prior convictions posting a singular offensive comment, then we will all have some kind of common sense and parity in society.
Stop acting like you represent every "ordinary" and "normal" person. I've spent almost my entire life living in communities with a large number of immigrants, am I not "ordinary" or "normal" just because I don't hold the anti-immigration views you have?
Your complaints about crime are factually false, crime is at a 30-year low despite record levels of immigration. Multiculturalism has not failed either, the vast majority of people from immigrant backgrounds integrate into this country (including very high profile politicians who have actually run the government).
We are not worse than China, pull yourself together and stop being melodramatic. I'll remind you again that China has concentration camps for minorities, bans all dissenting opinions and is willing to massacre pro-democracy and pro-freedom of speech activists in the street. And you think that we're worse than that because, what, you believe multiculturalism hasn't worked? Because you're not getting positive vibes about the state of the country?
The only person waving around the "stupid" label is yourself. Take a step back and consider that for a moment.
It's clearly a deliberate tactic used to avoid honest debate.
I hope for their sake that they wrote it using Gen AI and didn't sit there manually typing out 10-posts worth of text.
It's Chat GPT. One you've used it a bit, you can spot it a mile off.
Your complaints about crime are factually false, crime is at a 30-year low despite record levels of immigration. Multiculturalism has not failed either, the vast majority of people from immigrant backgrounds integrate into this country (including very high profile politicians who have actually run the government).
We are not worse than China, pull yourself together and stop being melodramatic. I'll remind you again that China has concentration camps for minorities, bans all dissenting opinions and is willing to massacre pro-democracy and pro-freedom of speech activists in the street. And you think that we're worse than that because, what, you believe multiculturalism hasn't worked? Because you're not getting positive vibes about the state of the country?
The only person waving around the "stupid" label is yourself. Take a step back and consider that for a moment.
Unbelievable - Your arrogance is breath taking by dismissing my point of view by suggesting 'I haven't any experience of living in areas of high immigration' Absolute rubbish. Is your opinion the only validated opinion? I think they call this 'Gaslighting'
Crime is at an all time low? I presume you close your eyes and just assume the statistics don't lie? Are you so sure violent crime is not at an all time 'low' - it is hard to disguise a crime when a victim has been knifed. The public have given up reporting 'low level' crime to the police because they know the result is a futile waste of time. People prefer to deal with crime in their own way now because of this. The huge increase in online fraud is conveniently shelved by passing it to 'Inaction Fraud' So of course the crime levels are unrecorded and low aren't they?
So "when I pull myself together" - China has a ruthless desire to do what is right for China. It protects its own public interests and it would be good to know we did the same. It has far sighted vision as to what is required for decades ahead. We lurch ahead here in political crisis, from one mess to the next. Short term paralysed thinking feathering the nests of politicians and business leaders, making sure those with the biggest title earn the most. We make policies having a 'victim' label and vote winning policies as an aim.
So yes I will hold your 'stupid' label just because you don't wish to look at the reality of the state of the UK right now. And yes I dare to disagree with your rose tinted view of the world.
Crime is at an all time low? I presume you close your eyes and just assume the statistics don't lie? Are you so sure violent crime is not at an all time 'low' - it is hard to disguise a crime when a victim has been knifed. The public have given up reporting 'low level' crime to the police because they know the result is a futile waste of time. People prefer to deal with crime in their own way now because of this. The huge increase in online fraud is conveniently shelved by passing it to 'Inaction Fraud' So of course the crime levels are unrecorded and low aren't they?
So "when I pull myself together" - China has a ruthless desire to do what is right for China. It protects its own public interests and it would be good to know we did the same. It has far sighted vision as to what is required for decades ahead. We lurch ahead here in political crisis, from one mess to the next. Short term paralysed thinking feathering the nests of politicians and business leaders, making sure those with the biggest title earn the most. We make policies having a 'victim' label and vote winning policies as an aim.
So yes I will hold your 'stupid' label just because you don't wish to look at the reality of the state of the UK right now. And yes I dare to disagree with your rose tinted view of the world.
You were the one to claim that those who hold pro-immigration beliefs are not "ordinary" / "normal" people and haven't lived (or don't live) in an area with high levels of immigration. I said nothing about whether you lived in one of these areas, rather I pointed out your arrogance in assuming everyone who was pro-immigration didn't. There are people who live in high immigration areas that are pro-immigration and anti-immigration, stop pretending that you speak on behalf of everyone else.
The crime reported by the ONS comes from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, not police reported crime (which is biased by by public perception of the police and willingness to report crime). It is one of the best measures, if not the best, of the level of crime in the country. It includes theft, robbery, criminal damage, violent crime, etc, and has shown a consistent decline in crime since the 1990s. Computer misuse and fraud are crimes it has only recently started to record and are not related to the violent crimes you've attributed to high immigration.
You've criticised the authoritarian nature of the UK and claimed it's worse than China, now you're praising the authoritarian nature of China and (presumably) are saying we should be more like it...? Make up your mind. Do you think we should have concentration camps in the UK? Do you think we should ban all dissenting opinion? Do you think we should massacre free speech and pro-democracy protesters?
Nobody here has called you stupid. It's a label you've applied to yourself on the basis of what you think other people feel. I do indeed want to look at the reality of the UK, which is why I've cited real data and not personal experience / vibes like you have.
I've not framed it as a right-wing tactic, Shapiro and Peterson were just same examples that came to mind. The Gish Gallop technique can be used by anyone, for example I've seen it used plenty by conspiracy theorists (who have no political leaning). The moment people address these points one by one is the moment these 'bigger pictures' fall apart, they've simply got no solid foundation.
There's also a practical element to this. It's far easier for people to have a discussion if they aren't talking about thousands of things at once. It prevents confusion and it also keeps people engaged. You'll find that most people do not want to sit through 10 lengthy posts of examples just to have a debate about something, least not on this forum.
SHallowvale, I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in your approach to this debate, and I think it’s important to address it directly. Your concept of what constitutes a debate seems to revolve around a dynamic where one person makes a statement, then provides evidence, and you then assume the role of judge and jury, determining whether the evidence is valid or not. While this might work in a courtroom or a classroom, it doesn’t quite align with how debates typically function between equals.
In a true debate, both parties engage with the substance of the arguments presented. It’s not about one side making demands and the other side scrambling to meet them, only to have their efforts dismissed out of hand. Instead, it’s about a mutual exchange where each side presents their points, challenges the other’s views, and most importantly, both parties are willing to reconsider their positions based on the strength of the arguments and evidence provided.
Your insistence that every single point I make be validated by evidence—followed by your summary dismissal of that evidence without engaging with the underlying argument—creates an unequal dynamic. You’re not participating in a dialogue; you’re positioning yourself as an arbiter who decides what is and isn’t valid without offering any substantive engagement of your own.
Debate requires more than just setting tasks for others to fulfil; it demands that we listen, challenge, and respond thoughtfully. It’s not enough to simply declare that someone’s evidence isn’t good enough—you need to explain why, provide counterarguments, and be open to the possibility that the evidence might challenge your own views.
Despite these concerns, I’ve still provided what you’ve demanded—multiple examples, evidence, and explanations. Yet, rather than engaging with them, you continue to move the goalposts, dismissing them as irrelevant or insufficient without truly grappling with the broader points being made.
If we’re going to have a productive discussion, we must move beyond this one-sided dynamic. Let’s engage in a true exchange of ideas, where we both present arguments, challenge each other’s points, and consider the possibility that we might learn something from this interaction. That’s how meaningful debates work—not by dictating terms, but by meeting each other on equal ground.
In a true debate, both parties engage with the substance of the arguments presented. It’s not about one side making demands and the other side scrambling to meet them, only to have their efforts dismissed out of hand. Instead, it’s about a mutual exchange where each side presents their points, challenges the other’s views, and most importantly, both parties are willing to reconsider their positions based on the strength of the arguments and evidence provided.
Your insistence that every single point I make be validated by evidence—followed by your summary dismissal of that evidence without engaging with the underlying argument—creates an unequal dynamic. You’re not participating in a dialogue; you’re positioning yourself as an arbiter who decides what is and isn’t valid without offering any substantive engagement of your own.
Debate requires more than just setting tasks for others to fulfil; it demands that we listen, challenge, and respond thoughtfully. It’s not enough to simply declare that someone’s evidence isn’t good enough—you need to explain why, provide counterarguments, and be open to the possibility that the evidence might challenge your own views.
Despite these concerns, I’ve still provided what you’ve demanded—multiple examples, evidence, and explanations. Yet, rather than engaging with them, you continue to move the goalposts, dismissing them as irrelevant or insufficient without truly grappling with the broader points being made.
If we’re going to have a productive discussion, we must move beyond this one-sided dynamic. Let’s engage in a true exchange of ideas, where we both present arguments, challenge each other’s points, and consider the possibility that we might learn something from this interaction. That’s how meaningful debates work—not by dictating terms, but by meeting each other on equal ground.
Counter arguments are only necessary in debates if someone first presents a valid argument / claim (e.g. the left dismiss anyone who is anti-immigration as a racist or bigot). If they haven't then it is sufficient to simply point out that the claim is invalid, no counter arguments are necessary. The burden is on you to prove these claims, not on us to disprove them.
You've also completely missed the part where I talked about the practical side of this.
You've also completely missed the part where I talked about the practical side of this.
Honestly, you are the perfect exemplar of the left refusing to debate and using rhetorical trickery to avoid it.
Your approach to this discussion mirrors the techniques of the ancient Sophists, who were notorious for their ability to manipulate language and arguments to their advantage, rather than engaging in genuine pursuit of truth. Sophistry, as you might know, is all about winning an argument through clever but fallacious reasoning, rather than through honest engagement with the issues at hand. And that’s precisely what you’re doing here.
By positioning yourself as the sole arbiter of what constitutes a valid argument, you’ve effectively sidestepped any real debate. You’re not interested in engaging with the points I’m making; instead, you’re setting arbitrary standards that you can conveniently dismiss when it suits you. This is the essence of sophistry—using rhetorical tricks to dodge the real issues and maintain the illusion of intellectual superiority.
Your claim that "counter arguments are only necessary if someone first presents a valid argument" is, in itself, a clever dodge. Who gets to decide what’s a valid argument? By your own rules, you set yourself up as the judge and jury, without any requirement to substantiate your own views. This isn’t debate; it’s sophistry. True debate involves a back-and-forth exchange where both sides challenge each other’s positions and provide reasoning and evidence, not just one side setting tasks for the other.
Furthermore, your dismissal of the burden of proof is a classic example of evasion. You demand evidence, and when it’s provided, you dismiss it without proper engagement. This is not how a productive discussion works. If you truly believed in debate, you would engage with the evidence provided, offer your counterarguments, and be open to the possibility that your own stance might need reconsideration.
In essence, your methods are less about seeking truth and more about maintaining a veneer of intellectual authority. If you’re truly interested in debating these points, then drop the sophistry and engage honestly. Otherwise, this will remain an exercise in rhetorical gamesmanship, rather than the meaningful exchange of ideas that debates are supposed to be.
Your approach to this discussion mirrors the techniques of the ancient Sophists, who were notorious for their ability to manipulate language and arguments to their advantage, rather than engaging in genuine pursuit of truth. Sophistry, as you might know, is all about winning an argument through clever but fallacious reasoning, rather than through honest engagement with the issues at hand. And that’s precisely what you’re doing here.
By positioning yourself as the sole arbiter of what constitutes a valid argument, you’ve effectively sidestepped any real debate. You’re not interested in engaging with the points I’m making; instead, you’re setting arbitrary standards that you can conveniently dismiss when it suits you. This is the essence of sophistry—using rhetorical tricks to dodge the real issues and maintain the illusion of intellectual superiority.
Your claim that "counter arguments are only necessary if someone first presents a valid argument" is, in itself, a clever dodge. Who gets to decide what’s a valid argument? By your own rules, you set yourself up as the judge and jury, without any requirement to substantiate your own views. This isn’t debate; it’s sophistry. True debate involves a back-and-forth exchange where both sides challenge each other’s positions and provide reasoning and evidence, not just one side setting tasks for the other.
Furthermore, your dismissal of the burden of proof is a classic example of evasion. You demand evidence, and when it’s provided, you dismiss it without proper engagement. This is not how a productive discussion works. If you truly believed in debate, you would engage with the evidence provided, offer your counterarguments, and be open to the possibility that your own stance might need reconsideration.
In essence, your methods are less about seeking truth and more about maintaining a veneer of intellectual authority. If you’re truly interested in debating these points, then drop the sophistry and engage honestly. Otherwise, this will remain an exercise in rhetorical gamesmanship, rather than the meaningful exchange of ideas that debates are supposed to be.
Are you using generative AI to write these? It feels like you're rambling about all sorts of things and are not reading what I'm saying.
It's literally anything but debate the points isn't it?
I mean I've tried to debate your points, starting with your claim that the left dismiss people as racist / bigots just for being anti-immigration. I'd still like to do that but you've spent the last 2-3 posts talking at great lengths about other things.
Your posts are (in general) very excessive, that's why I asked if you used generative AI to help you. I've been on the internet for a very long time and I've never come someone who communicates in this way.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Anyone concerned about rising authoritarianism?
- Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Michelle Donelan / Freedom of Speech
- 2024 general election: the aftermath
- [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
- What happens if the hospital report domestic violence to police
- OCR A-level Sociology Paper 3 (H580/03) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- Jeremey Corbyn is a G
- Is the UK Sleepwalking into Authoritarianism?
- CIE igcse history predictions?
- How the radical left turned America's cities into slums.
- Police Now National graduate leadership programme intake 2024
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- Final year academic appeal
- Is Bradford an exciting place to live?
- Relationships as a police officer
Last reply 1 week ago
Can Labour lose the next election over the Winter Fuel allowance?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Rachel Reeves did the right thing in ending winter fuel paymentsLast reply 3 weeks 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?
