U.S. Politics

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Mantis said:

It's amazing how similar the alt-right and the regressive, campus left are. Both crying out for their "safe spaces".

It's basically a human nature thing. There are people, drawn to extreme, or strong positions who simply do not accept that the other view is right or legitimate or should be held or permitted. It's basically a consequence of lack of reasoning, of inability and unwillingness to engage their brains. It's intolerance.

[OutByEaster?]

15 minutes ago, Mantis said:

It's amazing how similar the alt-right and the regressive, campus left are. Both crying out for their "safe spaces".

Is this buzzword bingo?

The alt-right I kinda get, it's those people that used to get labelled neoliberal racist hawks, they believe in a world without social provision or tax where the purpose of 'society' is to serve a corporate structure and that trickle down economics and global control will result in a lifting of standards of living for those that participate hard enough and that those that don't should not be included - where you get what you can afford.

The regressive, campus left - i think I get - regressive as in moving to a political time prior to Reagan and Thatcher and prior to an economy lead society of neoliberal values - regressive in this case meaning in both in time and policy to socialism, campus I'm not sure on, I guess it's an allusion to  leftist thinking coming from Universities and college campus's in the US and is meant as a dismissive gesture in terms of wishful thinking and dreamers that don't have an experience of the world.

Safe spaces I guess in this case means places where their views aren't challenged - so social media largely, or in the case of the alt-right, most all the UK's formal press. 

Where I'm really struggling is in how you think these standpoints are similar - is that they're both talking about the world? The nearest I can come to a answer is that the alt-right feel that there is still a way things are today that has too much of a leaning toward socialism - there's still an NHS, there are still people that get to use roads for nothing, that get free water, that sort of thing and the regressive, campus left feel that there's a way things are today that has too much of a leaning toward corporate control, that has income inequality, no social provision for care of the weak in any format, no central structure in health, transport and so on. So it's possible they could be similar in that they don't like the way things are - in much the same way that Villa fans and those of small heath don't like being in the championship and that makes us similar I suppose.

Or maybe it's in the way that the alt-right have adopted some of the anti-establishment rhetoric of the regressive, campus left in order to persuade enough Turkeys to join them in the yuletide festivities that's making things seems similar. I'm really not sure. Whichever, I'd like to know a bit more so I can understand what you're saying.

 

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, blandy said:

It's basically a human nature thing. There are people, drawn to extreme, or strong positions who simply do not accept that the other view is right or legitimate or should be held or permitted. It's basically a consequence of lack of reasoning, of inability and unwillingness to engage their brains. It's intolerance.

There's nothing wrong with intolerance of views that are inherently bad. The modern malaise isn't intolerance, it's the idea that everybody must be okay all of the time.

 

[blandy]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

There's nothing wrong with intolerance of views that are inherently bad. The modern malaise isn't intolerance, it's the idea that everybody must be okay all of the time.

Of course there's not. The problem, the malaise, is that views that are perfectly legitimate are being declared "bad" by these numbskulls and then the people who hold those views are derided, pounced upon, barred from voicing them or from entering "safe spaces" to "protect" "other people" from hearing such views. 

[OutByEaster?]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Of course there's not. The problem, the malaise, is that views that are perfectly legitimate are being declared "bad" by these numbskulls and then the people who hold those views are derided, pounced upon, barred from voicing them or from entering "safe spaces" to "protect" "other people" from hearing such views. 

Views that are perfectly legitimate can be defended surely?

People will always be angry about opinions that are different to theirs - in days gone by that anger used to produce debate, occasionally even change - now we have generation wuss protesting their right to never be criticised.

In my opinion, attempting to make every space safe is attempting to make every view acceptable, it's removing right and wrong, it's preventing any real debate or change.

 

 

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Is this buzzword bingo?

The alt-right I kinda get, it's those people that used to get labelled neoliberal racist hawks, they believe in a world without social provision or tax where the purpose of 'society' is to serve a corporate structure and that trickle down economics and global control will result in a lifting of standards of living for those that participate hard enough and that those that don't should not be included - where you get what you can afford.

The regressive, campus left - i think I get - regressive as in moving to a political time prior to Reagan and Thatcher and prior to an economy lead society of neoliberal values - regressive in this case meaning in both in time and policy to socialism, campus I'm not sure on, I guess it's an allusion to  leftist thinking coming from Universities and college campus's in the US and is meant as a dismissive gesture in terms of wishful thinking and dreamers that don't have an experience of the world.

Safe spaces I guess in this case means places where their views aren't challenged - so social media largely, or in the case of the alt-right, most all the UK's formal press. 

Where I'm really struggling is in how you think these standpoints are similar - is that they're both talking about the world? The nearest I can come to a answer is that the alt-right feel that there is still a way things are today that has too much of a leaning toward socialism - there's still an NHS, there are still people that get to use roads for nothing, that get free water, that sort of thing and the regressive, campus left feel that there's a way things are today that has too much of a leaning toward corporate control, that has income inequality, no social provision for care of the weak in any format, no central structure in health, transport and so on. So it's possible they could be similar in that they don't like the way things are - in much the same way that Villa fans and those of small heath don't like being in the championship and that makes us similar I suppose.

Or maybe it's in the way that the alt-right have adopted some of the anti-establishment rhetoric of the regressive, campus left in order to persuade enough Turkeys to join them in the yuletide festivities that's making things seems similar. I'm really not sure. Whichever, I'd like to know a bit more so I can understand what you're saying.

No it's not. I'm talking about a particular section of the right and a particular section of the left. I don't think you've got the right definition of the regressive campus left either. I'm not talking about regular left of centre folk I'm talking about a specific part of the left which cries for its safe spaces and seeks to censor people from expressing views they disagree with. To clarify, when I say views I'm not talking about outright racism or sexism but legitimate albeit hotly contested views. Often they'll seek to censor people just because they hold certain views even if said views aren't going to be discussed at whatever event they might be attending. Remember that stuff with Germaine Greer? Many Trump supporters used to moan about this but they're now adopting that mentality themselves. It's less about ideology or political views and more about nature as blandy pointed out. I know some very left-wing people for example who have the strongest of disdain for the regressive campus left (can't think of a better label for them).

Edited November 20, 2016 by Mantis

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, Mantis said:

No it's not. I'm talking about a particular section of the right and a particular section of the left. I don't think you've got the right definition of the regressive campus left either. I'm not talking about regular left of centre folk I'm talking about a specific part of the left which cries for its safe spaces and seeks to censor people from expressing views they disagree. Many Trump supporters used to moan about this but they're now adopting that mentality themselves. It's less about ideology or political views and more about nature as blandy pointed out. I know some very left-wing people for example who have the strongest of disdain for the regressive campus left (can't think of a better label for them).

Can you define them better? (the regressive campus left) I'm genuinely interested - I'm not sure I recognise the people you're describing (and I ought to, I'm out there) who are they?

I should also say at this point that I'm not entirely sure how we define 'safe spaces' other than spaces where everyone is allowed to be right, no matter what their view - how would you define a safe space?

[Mantis]

Just now, OutByEaster? said:

Can you define them better? (the regressive campus left) I'm genuinely interested - I'm not sure I recognise the people you're describing (and I ought to, I'm out there) who are they?

I should also say at this point that I'm not entirely sure how we define 'safe spaces' other than spaces where everyone is allowed to be right, no matter what their view - how would you define a safe space?

I did edit my post with a bit more detail.

Depends on which safe space you're talking about it. It's used by some to essentially mean a place where their own views cannot be challenged in any way, where they shouldn't even be exposed to things they don't like. This is a good article about the subject: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/24/safe-spaces-universities-no-platform-free-speech-rhodes

[Awol]

Apparently a Uni in Chicago wanting to assist undergrads distraught over Hillary's loss provided them an adult free 'safe space' with food and play.

To be clear that's 18 and 19 year olds needing lego, plasticine and fairy cakes to get over an election result they didn't like. At that age their Grandparents were storming the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.

Western countries will be debating transgender bathroom etiquette and how Bono can win woman of the year award when the Jihadis come in and nuke us.*

This infantilisation of our societies isn't just embarrassing, it's dangerous.

 

*Hyperbole to make a point, although they would if they could. 

[Xela]

Another example here. 

Quote

There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth at Cornell University on Wednesday, as students at the Ivy League college responded to Donald Trump’s shocking general election victory by holding a “Cry In” on campus.

Approximately 30 students took part in the event, which was furnished with poster boards, markers and chalk for students to express their emotions about the president-elect.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/10/cornell-university-students-respond-donald-trump-w/

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Xela said:

Another example here. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/10/cornell-university-students-respond-donald-trump-w/

Seriously, what use are these people ever going to be in the real world? 

Shame on the staff for encouraging this garbage. 

[OutByEaster?]

Those are both examples of safe spaces for people to get over a result they don't like though, as opposed to what we were talking about on the previous page around safe spaces for people to express an opinion.

Now I'm not particularly in favour of either, but I guess by the first example, the pub counts as a safe space, so I'm more in favour of people having a safe space to get over bad news than I am in favour of people having safe spaces where their opinions can't be challenged.

Broadly, If someone needs plasticine or ten pints to get over Brexit or Trump then I sort of sympathise, if someone needs somewhere where they can say that Trump is the answer to all of our ills or that the US needs a nationalise healthcare system like the NHS, or indeed anything they like, without any form of challenge or censure, I don't sympathise at all and think they should be argued with.

 

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

 

He goes one step further, and insults the show, while still shouting about how offensive the cast are.

And SNL

Get the **** off Twitter you moron. You're President Elect. This isn't reality TV.

 And anyway, what does the question even mean? "Equal time for us?" Who is us? I thought he was meant to stand for all Americans. He is a manbaby. Not mature or thick skinned enough to be president.

Edited November 20, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Mantis said:

No it's not. I'm talking about a particular section of the right and a particular section of the left. I don't think you've got the right definition of the regressive campus left either. I'm not talking about regular left of centre folk I'm talking about a specific part of the left which cries for its safe spaces and seeks to censor people from expressing views they disagree with. To clarify, when I say views I'm not talking about outright racism or sexism but legitimate albeit hotly contested views. Often they'll seek to censor people just because they hold certain views even if said views aren't going to be discussed at whatever event they might be attending. Remember that stuff with Germaine Greer? Many Trump supporters used to moan about this but they're now adopting that mentality themselves. It's less about ideology or political views and more about nature as blandy pointed out. I know some very left-wing people for example who have the strongest of disdain for the regressive campus left (can't think of a better label for them).

Can you explain what the word 'regressive' means in the phrase 'regressive campus left'? I don't understand what it means in this context. 

------------------------------------------------

More generally, on 'safe spaces', it certainly is true that some people are more than a bit pathetic about things. You shouldn't need a room to cry in about an election result you don't like. I mean, I've had a pretty shit year and a half for election results but I've managed to avoid blubbing and I've not got much time for people who do. If we were talking about students whose parents are about to be deported or something it might be a lot more understandable but for the most part we aren't. 

Every now and then I encounter other people on the left with daft opinions as well. I remember an argument on Twitter with a woman sincerely suggesting that white people shouldn't eat curry or do yoga as to do so is 'cultural appropriation'. Of course these people are an embarrassment. I assume they are part of the group @Mantis is talking about above. 

What I don't agree with is the equivalence between this group and the 'alt right', for three reasons:

1] I think there are fewer of these liberals, though I confess I can't be sure,

2] They aren't in power, and are generally losing everywhere, so don't seem to pose much of a threat to anything, and

3] A hippy-dippy daftie telling me off for eating a curry is annoying but not dangerous, whereas the 'alt-right' seem to be actively dangerous. 

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Those are both examples of safe spaces for people to get over a result they don't like though, as opposed to what we were talking about on the previous page around safe spaces for people to express an opinion.

Now I'm not particularly in favour of either, but I guess by the first example, the pub counts as a safe space, so I'm more in favour of people having a safe space to get over bad news than I am in favour of people having safe spaces where their opinions can't be challenged.

Broadly, If someone needs plasticine or ten pints to get over Brexit or Trump then I sort of sympathise, if someone needs somewhere where they can say that Trump is the answer to all of our ills or that the US needs a nationalise healthcare system like the NHS, or indeed anything they like, without any form of challenge or censure, I don't sympathise at all and think they should be argued with.

I was more referring to the people who are in favour of no platform and who want their courses to be free of things they don't like rather than stuff like this, although the two groups definitely overlap.

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Can you explain what the word 'regressive' means in the phrase 'regressive campus left'? I don't understand what it means in this context. 

------------------------------------------------

More generally, on 'safe spaces', it certainly is true that some people are more than a bit pathetic about things. You shouldn't need a room to cry in about an election result you don't like. I mean, I've had a pretty shit year and a half for election results but I've managed to avoid blubbing and I've not got much time for people who do. If we were talking about students whose parents are about to be deported or something it might be a lot more understandable but for the most part we aren't. 

Every now and then I encounter other people on the left with daft opinions as well. I remember an argument on Twitter with a woman sincerely suggesting that white people shouldn't eat curry or do yoga as to do so is 'cultural appropriation'. Of course these people are an embarrassment. I assume they are part of the group @Mantis is talking about above. 

What I don't agree with is the equivalence between this group and the 'alt right', for three reasons:

1] I think there are fewer of these liberals, though I confess I can't be sure,

2] They aren't in power, and are generally losing everywhere, so don't seem to pose much of a threat to anything, and

3] A hippy-dippy daftie telling me off for eating a curry is annoying but not dangerous, whereas the 'alt-right' seem to be actively dangerous. 

Regressive as in thoroughly illiberal.

As I said, I was more referring to the censorship rather than people crying about an election result. And once again as I said, this isn't really a left-right issue as there are plenty of people well on the left who are some the biggest champions of free speech and debate.

I was never suggesting equivalence either, although if these peopple were in positions of power I think they could be just as dangerous.

[OutByEaster?]

Cultural appropriation is the strangest thing - it seems to me like a goal rather than a transgression - I'd like to live in a culture made from the best bits of lots of cultures (and in many ways I do.)

 

 

[Xann]

Quote

The most powerful woman on Donald Trump’s team is not daughter Ivanka, wife Melania or intrepid spokesperson Kellyanne Conway.

Instead, at least in these early days as a Trump administration takes shape, the woman with potentially enormous influence is a 42-year-old mom with four kids who lives on the Upper West Side of New York City – a bastion of Democratic liberalism – and is part-owner of a cookie shop.

Her $28 million apartment is just up the street from Trump-branded buildings that removed his name this week.

She also has a master’s degree from Stanford, once worked as a Wall Street trader and sits on the board of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

But perhaps most important, Rebekah Mercer is the daughter of Robert Mercer, the reclusive hedge-fund billionaire who is said to be a global-warming skeptic and who funds a raft of conservative causes in addition to donating to established think tanks like Heritage and the Cato Institute.

Business Insider

 

[LondonLax]

7 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Cultural appropriation is the strangest thing - it seems to me like a goal rather than a transgression - I'd like to live in a culture made from the best bits of lots of cultures (and in many ways I do.)

 

 

I think there are a number of people who are anti globalisation and the homogenisation it brings. I am not sure if that totally explains the anti cultural appropriation thing but it probably feeds into it. 

I'm with you though, share the best bits of everyone's culture and we will live in the best possible world IMO. 

[maqroll]

It's so reassuring that the president-elect is taking time to battle "Saturday Night Live" on Twitter.

[blandy]

13 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Views that are perfectly legitimate can be defended surely?

People will always be angry about opinions that are different to theirs - in days gone by that anger used to produce debate, occasionally even change - now we have generation wuss protesting their right to never be criticised.

In my opinion, attempting to make every space safe is attempting to make every view acceptable, it's removing right and wrong, it's preventing any real debate or change.

Exactly. That's certainly my point, and I suspect Mantis too.