The Regressive Left (revisited)

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

Well, once the left is remotely in a position to be eliminating the rights of people, then we can talk. Last time I checked, it was an unchecked right-wing majority on SCOTUS that threatened civil rights.

You seem to care more if college students protest Milo SJW Yannopoulus (can't care enough to double check spelling) than the Supreme Court shredding the Voting Rights Act or endowing corporations with civil rights.

... and here they come. The posts I predicted. What you don't get is that the illiberal left and right and identity politics left and right support one another. Insist on structuring and viewing the world through that framework, and it can go left or right. Authoritarianism is on the rise all around.

What does this have to do with shredding the Voting Rights Act or saying pieces of incorporated paper can find religion?

When does JP start railing on about the War on Christmas?

 

[Jarhyn]

... and here they come. The posts I predicted. What you don't get is that the illiberal left and right and identity politics left and right support one another. Insist on structuring and viewing the world through that framework, and it can go left or right. Authoritarianism is on the rise all around.

What does this have to do with shredding the Voting Rights Act or saying pieces of incorporated paper can find religion?

When does JP start railing on about the War on Christmas?

Not to mention that as someone who fits, ostensibly, into many of the identity groups that the regressive right has "othered", I hate identity politics. We could get rid of it all, and I WANT to get rid of it all, by just cutting to principles which support everyone without calling out or naming identities. I wasn't the one who decided to be singled out as "gay". I'm not someone who decided to be singled out as "weird" for wanting to have a vagina instead of a penis (but while still being, acting, and dressing the way I always have!). I'm not the one who decided that liking animal characters as an adult was something to be pushed away from mainstream society. I didn't want any of that. I just want to be me, whatever that is, and have that be OK, so long as I meet certain entirely reasonable and thus far attainable ethical standards.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Now, we look at universities in the US, and what do we see? 80% of faculty describe themselves as democrats, socialists or on the political left. This ratio isn't so extreme in STEM, but in the Humanities, the social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, arts, psychology, philosophy and essentially all similar faculties, the ratio goes up to about 40 to 1.

That is, 40 left-leaning faculty members for every one conservative one.

This may have something to do with the blatantly non-factual nature of conservative social beliefs. I think it would be difficult to graduate with an advanced degree in any of the social sciences while clinging to a radical conservative position, and it would present a practical dilemma for an artist, whose work by nature implies and requires the ability to reach across the supposed limitations of social categories like race and gender.

I think you are right about a radical conservative, but that isn't what Karen wrote about. She wrote about any sort of conservative, and I would add any sort of centrist. It is becoming more and more the orthodox domain of the radical and illiberal left, almost to the extent that Baptist churches are the orthodox domain of the radical right.

 

[ruby sparks]

What this OP needs is more general data and empirical facts and measurements to back up the overall argument. The problem with the topic generally, as far as I can see, having googled around it online, is that it's often stuck in the realm of anecdote and subjective opinion, with all the potential for murky bias interpretation that that carries with it. The relevant wiki pages for instance, are somewhat insubstantial. It could as easily, it seems to me, be the case that the problems are overstated, relatively trivial by comparison with other social and political threats, or merely used by non-progressives to try to make mud stick to their opponents, as it could be that there is a serious actual issue, in other words, one that is leading to real-world consequences that are marked and undesirable, and more than merely the stuff of abstract political debate or online controversy.

As for the word 'orthodoxy', I'm not sure. Would we say that a minority of for example scientists who depart from scientific orthodoxy are in turn setting up their own orthodoxy? Not so readily I think.

I accept that empirical facts, numbers, data and measurements are not as easily obtained for such things compared to some others, but nonetheless, more is what the topic needs.

In a nutshell, what is the extent of the problem?

 

[ruby sparks]

In principle, one 'far side' may be as bad as the other, but is that true in reality in terms of the extent (numbers of people involved, volume, duration and type of their activities) of actual societal consequences in either or both case?

So, agreeing that on the one hand (a) it is not a case of there being no problem with radical leftism at all, and on the other hand (b) that we (or you in America as the case may be) are not facing a national marxist, socialist or communist revolution, where, in between, should people be concerned and about what and how much?

Take education for example (both campus student politics and academia). I get the impression that this is one area of concern.

In the first instance, even assuming it is true, for the sake of argument let's say, that there has been some sort of increase in what we might call 'comparatively lefty radicalism' (to cover the fact that the USA doesn't actually have much of a proper radical left even if it has some) in such contexts, perhaps involving both students and professors, how much does what happens in colleges impact on the rest of society in tangible terms? Second, isn't it true that further education, for a variety of reasons, is generally lefter than the rest of most countries and has always been? Thirdly, what happens to the young adults who go through that phase of life? Do most or many of them continue to espouse radical and fringe views, or do they gradually, one by one, mostly succumb to the realities of the daily grind and the compromises that that entails and end up drifting towards the mainstream political centre of gravity?

 

[PyramidHead]

Should we close our eyes and plug our ears and sing "lalalalalalala" while the left purporting to be "liberal" is eaten up from within, abandoning the core principles of liberalism like free speech and anti-prejudice? No. We need to push back and fight for liberal values no matter if it is the right or the left threatening and violating them.

The working class eating itself up from within because of internal squabbles over the minutiae of identity politics is not a special problem in need of a new strategy. The approach should always be: establish first the commonality of all parties concerned with respect to being smacked around by rich people like a tennis ball, spread awareness of the ways that the narratives of race and gender have been strategically positioned to distract from what we have in common, explain how the roots of racial and sexual discrimination go all the way down to the economy, and support the oppressed even if they mistakenly blame whites, Jews, or males for their oppression. That's what you do. You don't start threads about the best term to disparage others who have been exploited but lack the tools to direct their frustration productively (which means cooperatively), and you don't frame them as committing some deep violation of sacred principles when they're just reacting to economic realities that are only in our power to change if we work together.

 

[laughing dog]

Take education for example (both campus student politics and academia). I get the impression that this is one area of concern.

A concern for whom? Most campuses understand that young people (students) go through phases. In otherwords, there is a "this too shall past" attitude, based on history. Add in the real costs of enforcement of free speech codes, and most campuses deal with this issue in a practical manner. That upsets alarmist snowflakes on the extremes who fail to recognize that no principle is an absolute.

Add in that most of those expressing concern at this time are conservatives of various hues and their dupes, and the entire situation becomes ideologically charged.

 

[ruby sparks]

Take education for example (both campus student politics and academia). I get the impression that this is one area of concern.

A concern for whom? Most campuses understand that young people (students) go through phases. In otherwords, there is a "this too shall past" attitude, based on history. Add in the real costs of enforcement of free speech codes, and most campuses deal with this issue in a practical manner. That upsets alarmist snowflakes on the extremes who fail to recognize that no principle is an absolute.

Add in that most of those expressing concern at this time are conservatives of various hues and their dupes, and the entire situation becomes ideologically charged.

Well in citing that, I meant that it was an area of concern expressed by those who are concerned about the OP topic. It's not a particular concern of mine, not least because a lot of the time what is talked about here has to do with the USA, and I am not living there. Here we have a 'proper', actual Leftist leading the main Opposition Party (Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party respectively; think Bernie Sanders+). Even then I am not especially worried, because I think more Socialism in the mix would be good for us here too.

But I myself am fine with saying that anything can be taken too far, and I have no problem agreeing that certain things on college campuses, or alternatively not on campuses but done by young people who might be students (or might not) may be examples. Some of the activities of antifascist groups for instance, and as I understand it, several American colleges have chapters of such groups, and that in some cases both students and staff are members.

My present position, as I have implied, is (a) to think that such issues are overblown and as you say that concern appears to arise mainly from conservatives but (b) to have an open mind, which is why I raised that example, so that it can be responded to. And if I hear what I think is a good case (that more concern is warranted because I am not appreciating the extent of the issue) then I will adjust my position accordingly. Because there is no better way to conduct enquiries, into anything.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves.

Of course. Anything can be taken too far, including having an open mind, or indeed being liberal.

But, in discussions especially......it's a great thing to try to aspire to, as much as possible, I believe, for a host of reasons.

I'm not familiar enough with Milo Yannolopoulus to comment on that example specifically.

The most striking examples close to me are/were of how much free speech (and airtime) should be given to the spokespeople or political wings of terrorism and paramilitaries (and it might be fair to say that attempts to silence backfired).

There are also issues in England with for example Islamists for similar reasons. And the far right. Has protest or censure or not inviting speech worked, or helped? I don't know.

If Milo Yannolopoulus is not inciting violence, or hatred that might lead to it..........

That might be where I'd draw a line, I think (off the top of my head). Otherwise, let him speak, anywhere that anyone wants to listen?

 

[untermensche]

Take education for example (both campus student politics and academia). I get the impression that this is one area of concern.

A concern for whom? Most campuses understand that young people (students) go through phases. In otherwords, there is a "this too shall past" attitude, based on history. Add in the real costs of enforcement of free speech codes, and most campuses deal with this issue in a practical manner. That upsets alarmist snowflakes on the extremes who fail to recognize that no principle is an absolute.

Add in that most of those expressing concern at this time are conservatives of various hues and their dupes, and the entire situation becomes ideologically charged.

Not only that but the students many times can teach us things. They are many times ahead of the times.

Against the war in Vietnam when the nation supported it.

Advancing civilization causes conflict in those unwilling to move into the future and those who do not work from a moral framework.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ruby,

I appreciate that you are one of the few here not playing the "illiberal left isn't a problem because illiberal right is worse" game, but please recognize that the OP is not about the radical left. It is about the illiberal left. It isn't the same thing.

You can go to the extreme left, passed Bernie Sanders, to universal income, probably even to communism, and not necessarily be against free speech, free assembly, anti-prejudice etc.

 

[untermensche]

Ruby,

I appreciate that you are one of the few here not playing the "illiberal left isn't a problem because illiberal right is worse" game, but please recognize that the OP is not about the radical left. It is about the illiberal left. It isn't the same thing.

You can go to the extreme left, passed Bernie Sanders, to universal income, probably even to communism, and not necessarily be against free speech, free assembly, anti-prejudice etc.

That would be "past" Bernie.

But equitable distribution of goods within a society is an old old idea.

It is far from extreme.

Moving away from it is the unnatural extreme situation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

They were having him speak because a student group invited him. That's not complicated. The silly protestors (who have every right to speak and protest against his ideas - that's not what the OP is about either) called more attention to him than he deserved and made him a bigger deal than he should be.

- - - Updated - - -

It is far from extreme.

Moving away from it is the unnatural extreme situation.

What do you consider to be extreme to the left?

 

[ruby sparks]

Ruby,

I appreciate that you are one of the few here not playing the "illiberal left isn't a problem because illiberal right is worse" game, but please recognize that the OP is not about the radical left. It is about the illiberal left. It isn't the same thing.

You can go to the extreme left, passed Bernie Sanders, to universal income, probably even to communism, and not necessarily be against free speech, free assembly, anti-prejudice etc.

Ok. What is the Illiberal (or Regressive) Left, and the difference between it and the Radical or Hard Left? Sorry. I'm guessing there's overlap at least and/or that these aren't fixed or self-applied labels?

I admit to being unsure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

They were having him speak because a student group invited him.

About what? About how he has great incites in the world because of his experience as a troll on Twitter?!

The silly protestors (who have every right to speak and protest against his ideas - that's not what the OP is about either) called more attention to him than he deserved and made him a bigger deal than he should be.

Internet trolls shouldn't be speaking at college campuses. The idea that protesting him gives him a larger presence is wrong seeing that Milo isn't so much a person of interest anymore... mainly because he is no one, with no experience. The protests worked.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

They were having him speak because a student group invited him. That's not complicated. The silly protestors (who have every right to speak and protest against his ideas - that's not what the OP is about either) called more attention to him than he deserved and made him a bigger deal than he should be.

By what standard did you make this determination?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

They were having him speak because a student group invited him. That's not complicated. The silly protestors (who have every right to speak and protest against his ideas - that's not what the OP is about either) called more attention to him than he deserved and made him a bigger deal than he should be.

And that's really all it should take. If there's a student group who invites someone, that's a good enough reason, even if other students think that he or she is a waste of time. For instance, if the astronomy club asks Khloe Kardashian to come to campus to give a talk on the spherical geometry of quantum plasma in white dwarf stars and the vegan society doesn't want her there because she was eating some KFC in her latest instagram post and that basically makes her Hitler, then the vegans should feel free to protest her visit but they shouldn't do anything to make her feel unsafe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves.

Of course. Anything can be taken too far, including having an open mind, or indeed being liberal.

But, in discussions especially......it's a great thing to try to aspire to, as much as possible, I believe, for a host of reasons.

I'm not familiar enough with Milo Yannolopoulus to comment on that example specifically.

Well, seeing that this example is one of the ones JP would raise, maybe you should bother to familiarize yourself with him.

The most striking examples close to me are/were of how much free speech (and airtime) should be given to the spokespeople or political wings of terrorism and paramilitaries (and it might be fair to say that attempts to silence backfired).

There are also issues in England with for example Islamists for similar reasons. And the far right. Has protest or censure or not inviting speech worked, or helped? I don't know.

If Milo Yannolopoulus is not inciting violence, or hatred that might lead to it..........

That might be where I'd draw a line, I think (off the top of my head). Otherwise, let him speak, anywhere that anyone wants to listen?

JP whines about people protesting Richard Spencer, Ann Coulter, and Milo Yannopoulus (sp, don't care) (far-right provocateurs), but I don't hear about protests of Bill Kristol or George Will, actual conservatives. Conservatism isn't being protested.

- - - Updated - - -

There is having an "open mind" and then there is just allowing any Tom, Dick, or Harry Provocateur use a campus to promote themselves. People whined about Milo Yannolopoulus (sp, don't care) being protested at a campus... and I'm wondering why in the fuck is anyone having him speak at a campus. He is no one. Tony Randall, James Patterson talked at my campus, not self-promoting assholes who make a living trolling other people.

They were having him speak because a student group invited him. That's not complicated. The silly protestors (who have every right to speak and protest against his ideas - that's not what the OP is about either) called more attention to him than he deserved and made him a bigger deal than he should be.

And that's really all it should take. If there's a student group who invites someone, that's a good enough reason, even if other students think that he or she is a waste of time. For instance, if the astronomy club asks Khloe Kardashian to come to campus to give a talk on the spherical geometry of quantum plasma in white dwarf stars and the vegan society doesn't want her there because she was eating some KFC in her latest instagram post and that basically makes her Hitler, then the vegans should feel free to protest her visit but they shouldn't do anything to make her feel unsafe.

Last time I checked, being a college student didn't give them free reign over the campus.

 

[untermensche]

It is far from extreme.

Moving away from it is the unnatural extreme situation.

What do you consider to be extreme to the left?

Any call for violence is extreme.

Xenophobia is extreme. Racism is extreme.

There should be only non-violent resistance. And there is a lot of it going on.

The left is not scattered kids on campuses.

It is people in the streets working for social justice.

There is an intellectual left. Great works of the left. Principles of the left.