Yes. And that is the exact opposite of classical liberalism. It flips it on its head. As Rubin says, we need to have the hard and deep conversations and keep open to all points, or we leave it open to easy (and wrong) answers, which are abundant on both sides.
-
Features
The Rise of the Regressive Left
- Thread starter Jolly_Penguin
- Start date
Yes. And that is the exact opposite of classical liberalism. It flips it on its head. As Rubin says, we need to have the hard and deep conversations and keep open to all points, or we leave it open to easy (and wrong) answers, which are abundant on both sides.
untermensche
Contributor
What is this "classical liberalism"?
What are you talking about?
Classical liberalism is: Your rights extend to the point your behavior harms others.
untermensche
Contributor
Certainly the British name is responsible for incredible misery in it's history. And we only have to go back to it's attack of the Iraqi people with the US in 2003 to see a glaring example.
Maybe a rebranding is appropriate.
Maybe a rebranding is appropriate.
Elixir
Made in America
They might go after English Muffins next. And they're about the only edible thing (besides fish&chips) on the whole isle!
blastula
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 10,650
- Gender
- Late for dinner
- Basic Beliefs
- Gnostic atheist
Not anymore, thanks to their gutless surrender to globalism. If you can get into one of those Islamist no go zones !@#!#!, there's all the falafel you can eat.
ronburgundy
Contributor
The fact that you think basic human liberty, free speech, and secularism versus theocratic-based government are "non-issues" that therefore the left has no position on shows that you are a glaring example of the problem and so are all those on "the left" who share your disinterest in such issues.
untermensche
Contributor
What I have seen is a massive terrorist attack of a Muslim nation by the US and other western powers in 2003. And a decade long occupation that included random kidnapping and torture.
And now today the aftermath of that insane brutality that many in the West cheered.
What does that have to do with the regressive left?
ronburgundy
Contributor
Thanks for further illustrating the myopic "the west is evil" focus and disregard for general principles of liberalism of the regressive left.
zorq
Veteran Member
How do we know the regressive left has "risen" at all? Is it possible that the rise of the information age and 24hour news media has merely made all the fringes of society more visible? Is it possible there has always been extremists of all sorts but major ideological groups now have the ability to find and distribute examples of their pet demons extremely easily now? Does this "rise" take into consideration population growth over time? Where is the evidence of an actual "rise?"
untermensche
Contributor
What did his comment have to do with this fictional "regressive left"?
What does some equally fictional comment about the BBC have to do with it?
I think I understand what this "regressive left" is.
A collection of Strawmen.
Because that's an example of what the regressive left does.
untermensche
Contributor
So the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people and a decade of occupation that included random kidnapping and torture was not evil?
Thanks for illustrating where you are coming from.
- - - Updated - - -
In your imagination.
laughing dog
Contributor
The regressive left creates moronic fake news?
Mods, I find this speech offensive. Please ban him.
zorq
Veteran Member
Where are the victims illiberally silenced by this "regressive left"? Who are they? How do they suffer?
These are real questions BTW.
The regressive left controls the media and the conversations we have as a society. When they silence someone, you're damn right that you don't hear about those people again. 
OP is obviously pissed over what I said to him here; however, this rant doesn't address the fairly straightforward and comprehensible point I was making.
That's not to say the OP is entirely without merit. There are definitely liberals who are overzealous in labeling people bigots for attacking minorities. But, there are also a lot of people attacking minorities who actually are bigots and loons and don't deserve a place in public discourse. Tommy Robinson is one of them. This doesn't mean they're not entitled to free speech, or that the media should ignore them entirely (impossible in the case of someone like Robinson). But to give them a platform to spread their views as though they were legitimate interlocutors on these issues? Fuck that. I don't know all that much about Rubin, but this doesn't surprise me; he brought on Bill Warner, a fringe pseudoscholarly kook with no credentials whatsoever to "explain" political Islam - fucking silly.
It's easy to spout self-righteous rhetoric about how all ideas need to be heard out and the court of public opinion should prevail, but nobody saying it actually believes that. We don't hear them speaking up on behalf of groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or NAMBLA to have their views heard in a mainstream platform. It's almost always people who they share some sort of common cause with - like the OP does with Tommy Robinson. But the fact is that bigoted and reprehensible views don't suddenly become more acceptable because you're sympathetic to them. The difficulty is in actually separating dangerous views from legitimate criticism, but at least when it comes to the issues that a handful of hobby horse posters here like to dwell on, and the kind of shitty sources they tend to draw upon, it's usually not all that difficult.
That's not to say the OP is entirely without merit. There are definitely liberals who are overzealous in labeling people bigots for attacking minorities. But, there are also a lot of people attacking minorities who actually are bigots and loons and don't deserve a place in public discourse. Tommy Robinson is one of them. This doesn't mean they're not entitled to free speech, or that the media should ignore them entirely (impossible in the case of someone like Robinson). But to give them a platform to spread their views as though they were legitimate interlocutors on these issues? Fuck that. I don't know all that much about Rubin, but this doesn't surprise me; he brought on Bill Warner, a fringe pseudoscholarly kook with no credentials whatsoever to "explain" political Islam - fucking silly.
It's easy to spout self-righteous rhetoric about how all ideas need to be heard out and the court of public opinion should prevail, but nobody saying it actually believes that. We don't hear them speaking up on behalf of groups like the Aryan Brotherhood or NAMBLA to have their views heard in a mainstream platform. It's almost always people who they share some sort of common cause with - like the OP does with Tommy Robinson. But the fact is that bigoted and reprehensible views don't suddenly become more acceptable because you're sympathetic to them. The difficulty is in actually separating dangerous views from legitimate criticism, but at least when it comes to the issues that a handful of hobby horse posters here like to dwell on, and the kind of shitty sources they tend to draw upon, it's usually not all that difficult.
JonA
Senior Member
Respect for Basic Rights is Still Alive and Well in Some of Us...
I do.
Though I don't have a thick posting history here going back several years or more, if I did you would find - as you can find in forums where I do have such a history - me regularly defending the rights to free speech of people with whom I do not agree.
And if you did some research, you'd probably find that I am not alone and that there are a lot of people just like me - that not everyone is the self-involved hypocrite you believe them to be.
I do.
Though I don't have a thick posting history here going back several years or more, if I did you would find - as you can find in forums where I do have such a history - me regularly defending the rights to free speech of people with whom I do not agree.
And if you did some research, you'd probably find that I am not alone and that there are a lot of people just like me - that not everyone is the self-involved hypocrite you believe them to be.