So coming back to this after a couple of days.
The Romulan Republic wrote:And you continue to engage in sweeping generalizations about the media and the Left that, frankly, sound like they come right out of Trumpian propaganda (well, in fairness, the Donald would probably phrase them less articulately).
Generalisations which are accurate, as you yourself say.
The Romulan Republic wrote: It is no doubt true that some people have made exaggerated claims of prejudice and bigotry, weather out of malice, in genuine error, or out of frustration/a desire to adopt a strong stance on an important issue.
So you're agreeing that they're doing wrong, but they're doing it for a good reason so we can just ignore it?
This is the first problem. Nothing is every our fault they say. It's someone else's. We can be terrible, unethical, immoral but since we know in our hearts we are right, we are justified.
It is this elitism and a lack of self reflection that has turned people against the left in the UK and Europe.
Rationilisations for poor practises result in terrible practises performed by people that have shielded themselves from the consequences and realities of such things. In a democratic society given alternatives, they will not remain in power. As situations degrade, less and less savory alternatives start to look like more viable options.
The Romulan Republic wrote:However, that does not justify dismissing all such accusations without regard for evidence or the specifics of the circumstances. This is at best intellectually lazy, and at worst dishonest. And it sounds very much like a self-reinforcing position: You are inclined to assume that any accusation of bigotry is malicious and false, which reinforces your tendency to think badly of anyone who raises such concerns, which makes it more likely that you will dismiss any future allegations of discrimination as well.
When you cry wolf, you cannot complain if people fail to respond when you cry wolf. This is a centuries old lesson we teach children.
If left leading media/social media/elected parties burns its legitimacy by using labels to smear their opponents, their opponents voter base and declare hyperbolic apocalyptic outcomes to things which never come to pass then no-one is going to trust them, and those labelled by them unjustly are going to oppose them.
If claims of bigotry or racism are to be taken seriously again, then it has to be done in a situation where these claims are made honestly and not for political gain. Until such a cultural shift has occurred to return to sanity, the blame on the those who have cried wolf and continue to do so.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
Nor do I buy the Right wing narrative that the "victory" of Trump and Brexit is a backlash against "political correctness" or womens'/minorities' rights activism (I put "victory" in quotes because Trump did not actually win the popular vote). Keep in mind that more voters voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump by nearly three million, and neither got a majority, so the outcome of the election cannot be fairly treated as a popular endorsement or repudiation of anything, and if it could, its more an endorsement of the Left than a repudiation, if you go by public opinion. And given that both votes were relatively close (especially the US election), their are potentially any number of factors where, had one or two things gone just slightly differently, it might have changed the outcome. Trying to attribute those results simply to a backlash against the Left's support for Social Justice is an agenda-driven argument, not a fact-based one. It amounts to an attempt to delegitimize civil rights campaigners, to dismiss them as irrelevant, and to basically say "You need to shut up and know your place."
In which case, again... if the only way we can "win" is to shut up and concede the debate... well, then, we might as well go down swinging. No one ever won a fight by surrendering.
I mean, you appear to be essentially saying "If the Left wants to win, it needs to start saying what the Right approves of it saying." In which case, we become our enemies, or at any rate a paper opposition, an opposition in name only.
No, the way to win is not to concede the debate. It is to debate.
The left has forgotten how. Ideas should be put forth, challenged, argued on their merits, modified or discarded depending on the strengths of those arguments. Instead we find that issues are ignored on cases of ideology or political beliefs. Shut down with baseless claims and rhetoric, or is simply not reported on at all.
Simply put, the polarised political viewpoints now have at their extreme camps sides that believe they are right and the opposition is wrong. Therefore they do not have to listen, nor challenge their beliefs. Why should they? They believe this is a war to fight, and the other side has to be destroyed.
That's your viewpoint at least, you talk of battle. Not compromise.
If you cannot win a debate without underhanded and anti-enlightenment approaches then you don't deserve to win.
You talk about being silenced, but it is not the right silencing the left as it was in the age of the religious right trying to censor in the 90s. It is the left trying to silence the right. From universities, to the media, to even general discussion.
Is your concern that a cultural shift of power to the right will lead to the same strategies being applied against your political viewpoint? Should you not consider then, that these methods and practises are wrong?
The Romulan Republic wrote:
Also... you can't have it both ways.
If the surge in Right wing populism is not based in bigotry, but in economic concerns, then it cannot be taken as a repudiation of Left wing positions on civil rights.
If it is a repudiation of Left wing views on civil rights, then that reinforces the belief that it was motivated primarily by bigotry.
[/quote][/quote]
Populism is an approach to appeal to the common concerns of ordinary people. We can see in your statement though the core of the problem in how you approach viewing the world.
A simple statement, a logical loop that justifies your belief that you are right. If it's not that the opposition are hateful bigots, how could the left lose? So many individuals with differing viewpoints and very human concerns thus labelled. If your reasons for voting were not economic, you are the enemy.
The utter failure to engage or deal with the concerns the common man lies at the heart of right's continuing increase in popularity while the left crumbles. Political parties thought this support was guaranteed or these votes were theirs by default. However years of neglect and a seeming disdain for the common working man have changed this.
Thread ends here. Cut along dotted line.
------8<--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty much the upshot of what I just said in regards to your last statement. You know, the mistaken impression that there's some "silent majority" that agrees with your ideology that leaves you unable to comprehend why the "British people would reward the Conservatives."
