Has political correctness actually gone mad?

Volumiza said:
Of what? The extreme lefts' anger? It's there. The hatred and fury at protests against politicians or anyone who doesn't share their views ...

The far left may well be morally justified in their anger just as much as the far right are completely wrong in their views and beliefs but if neither side show some willingness to get beyond it then we are screwed.
Click to expand...

Being angry and furious though is completely different to actually committing acts of terrorism. You see this a lot when groups like Antifa are compared to the far-right, but the far-rights record when it comes to actually killing people is much, much worse. And you can't try to divorce views of each group for where they're approaching politics - a group of people who are angry at exploitative rich corporations or government figures just aren't as bad as groups who are really annoyed that they can't lynch black people anymore.

Historically the far-left obviously have some absolutely atrocious crimes to answer for when it comes to many communist states etc, but in modern terms people like AOC and Bernie Sanders in the US quite obviously just aren't as bad as far-right Neo-Nazis. And yet there's this weird tendency to equate the increasing confidence of the left with the emboldening of the far-right, in spite of the vastly different nature of the changes on either side.
 
hobbers said:
You think voting demographics play no part in Labour's recent lurch into brazen antisemitism?
Click to expand...
To clarify, you believe Labour is becoming anti semetic to gain votes from Muslims?
 
hobbers said:
No I think the far left of the labour party have always been as they are now. I think the total inaction and lack of concern for the growing prominence of antisemitism once Corbyn was elected was partly down to the (naive) belief that it wasn't actually going to cost them votes.
Click to expand...
What's that got to do with your original comment that Labour would "much rather have the Muslims than the Jews on their side"?
 
hobbers said:
One of the underlying demographic imbalances that explain why they thought it wouldn't cost them votes. It's one thing to want to exploit pro-Palestinian sentiment in Muslim communities, but it's another to then not care at all in the instances where that sentiment crossed over into anti-Jewish hatred.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think you're in any position to be criticising others as conspiracy theorists.
 
Just out of curiosity; is calling Israel a cnutish country for their actions considered anti-semite?
 
hobbers said:
One of the underlying demographic imbalances that explain why they thought it wouldn't cost them votes. It's one thing to want to exploit pro-Palestinian sentiment in Muslim communities, but it's another to then not care at all in the instances where that sentiment crossed over into anti-Jewish hatred.
Click to expand...

Even then no left wing person would agree with that if that is what labour is doing so I don't really see your points. Labour is more left leaning in comparison to the conservatives but absolutely no one believes they an extreme far left group.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Just out of curiosity; is calling Israel a cnutish country for their actions considered anti-semite?
Click to expand...

It doesnt, as obviously talking about the government of a country and its actions is quite different to commenting on the people. But, you just know that someone is waiting with sweaty finger tips ready to pounce, and insert all sorts of shit you didnt actually say, just so they can call you a jew hating nazi **** or something.
 
Sorry, I just need some clarity. Is politics now so fecking skewed that we have a genuine argument that Labour are a hard left Marxist party who are happily fostering anti-semitism to exploit the Muslim voting power base? The benefits if which would, of course, totally outweigh the votes lost by disgusting their left wing, and therefore politically opposed to any form of racism, voting base?

As for centrism: the centre ground in the UK as a whole is now quite right (witness Labour vote collapse in Scotland as UK centre is very right of Scotland centre) and is wholly relative.

Also, whilst compromise is good, it is not exactly clear to me what the middle ground that can be achieved with hard right racists is. It's a pretty entrenched view that doesn't really lend itself to mature debate. I have no doubt people see Corbyn as hard left. He is not to me (although this should not be confused with advocacy). I see the Tories as hard right. They are clearly not to a good chunk of England.

The Good Friday agreement is cited as an example of compromise between two implacable sides. And it is a good example...except that the right are doing everything they can to destroy it, deliberately and through indifference depending upon which party you look at.
 
At least hobbers has found a form of anti-racism that he can use to peddle his idiotic racist conspiracy theories. Just like the worst of the far left.
 
The left are full of wankers, and the right are full of wankers. I’m a leftie, but I don’t like most of us :lol:

The right are worse though purely for their beliefs. But then I would say that I guess. The right won’t jump down your throat if you disagree with them like the left do, though.
 
Cheesy said:
The problem with centrism is that some people like to see it as the only inherently sensible position, filled with rational and level-headed people who would do a great job of running the country if only they were given the chance, unlike the entrenched extremists on the left and right.

But take a gander through Twitter and you'll find that's not the case - many centrists (to use the term broadly) are just as hysterical, ideologically minded and entrenched as their counterparts on the left and right. I sympathise with the wider motivations of a lot of the People's Vote types but a lot of them are incredibly hysterical and over-dramatic at times, no less so than the worst of Corbyn's fans.

A lot of this comes down to Blair - the popular view is often that he was an unprincipled pragmatist who veered to the centre because he had to. That's entirely incorrect, he was a deeply ideological position with a very fixed and entrenched worldview of his own. Whether that ideological was good or not is another debate but he was by no means someone who liked compromise and he wasn't necessarily pragmatic either. He simply did a good job of convincing everyone else he was.
Click to expand...
Well put, as so often. I have a limited grasp of British politics and probably deviating views on some details, but couldn't agree more with the main point.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested in what the "centralists" here think we on the left should do about conversations like the gay footballer one. Do we on the left say "OK guys let's say no openly gay footballers can talk about their lives on Tuesday, Wednesday and Fridays"?

Like what is the compromise?
 
mancan92 said:
I'd be interested in what the "centralists" here think we on the left should do about conversations like the gay footballer one. Do we on the left say "OK guys let's say no openly gay footballers can talk about their lives on Tuesday, Wednesday and Fridays"?

Like what is the compromise?
Click to expand...

That’s implying that centrism is exclusively about trying to find the (absolute) middle ground in any scenario in order to please everybody / reach a compromise.

Rather, centrism is drawing conclusions based on context, evidence, reason, consideration. The actual conclusion that a centrist draws could still ultimately mean that they align with those on the left or the right.

In the example you’ve provided, the response would be an open-minded one - ‘why shouldn’t an openly gay footballer be able to talk about his experience?’

If I’ve interpreted your comment correctly!
 
Jacko21 said:
That’s implying that centrism is exclusively about trying to find the (absolute) middle ground in any scenario in order to please everybody.

Rather, centrism is drawing conclusions based on context, evidence, reason, consideration. The actual conclusion that a centrist draws could still ultimately mean that they align with those on the left or the right.

In the example you’ve provided, the response would be an open-minded one - ‘why shouldn’t an openly gay footballer be able to talk about his experience?’

If I’ve interpreted your comment correctly!
Click to expand...

My comment was more to do with a poster above who mentioned that the left needs to meet the right and compromise like centralists.

But then again you mentioned your question. What is the use of that question? You already know what both parties think. One thinks that footballers shouldn't be openly gay whilst the other side believes they should be able.

What kind of movement or solution is the question going to solve.?
 
mancan92 said:
I'd be interested in what the "centralists" here think we on the left should do about conversations like the gay footballer one. Do we on the left say "OK guys let's say no openly gay footballers can talk about their lives on Tuesday, Wednesday and Fridays"?

Like what is the compromise?
Click to expand...

I’d be interested to hear how you came to believe that liberalism is a left position when the left was always about conformity of ideas (mainly to a socialist ideology, but not exclusively) whereas liberalism and libertarianism always lived in the middle.

Are you perhaps American where the absence of centrist parties and a generally very right leaning populace places liberalism with the Democratic Party and therefore the “left”?

A centrist would say that a gay footballer can talk about whatever they like, whenever they like.
 
MadMike said:
I’d be interested to hear how you came to believe that liberalism is a left position when the left was always about conformity of ideas (mainly to a socialist ideology, but not exclusively) whereas liberalism and libertarianism always lived in the middle.

Are you perhaps American where the absence of centrist parties and a generally very right leaning populace places liberalism with the Democratic Party and therefore the “left”?
Click to expand...

Im using modern days terms not historical terms. I think you really understand anyway and are being pedantic.

I see you edit. But again you already know what I'm asking. We are talking about how these modern day terms are used not their historical context.
 
mancan92 said:
Im using modern days terms not historical terms. I think you really understand anyway and are being pedantic.

Do you want to answer the question?
Click to expand...

No you’re not. You’re using made up terms.

And I believe I did answer it.
 
MadMike said:
No you’re not. You’re using made up terms.

And I believe I did answer it.
Click to expand...

How are they made up terms? In this day and age any person who sees themselves as Liberal sit on the left and all those who see themselves as traditionalists see them selves as right leaning. That is modern day. No one here is talking about historical context. It's about how people see things now.

Your answer was a left leaning one a Liberal one in modern society.

We had a couple people in the last page describe themselves as centralists how left is worst than right etc so I'm asking how a centralist would think the compromise sits in this situation.
 
mancan92 said:
How are they made up terms? In this day and age any person who sees themselves as Liberal sit on the left and all those who see themselves as traditionalists see them selves as right leaning. That is modern day. No one here is talking about historical context. It's about how people see things now.
Click to expand...

Nobody that I know see things that way. All the liberals I know are Lib Dems and centrists. Only in America, where centrists don’t exist, are Liberals grouped with the left. And last I checked, America isn’t the world.
 
MadMike said:
Nobody that I know see things that way. All the liberals I know are Lib Dems and centrists. Only in America, where centrists don’t exist, are Liberals grouped with the left. And last I checked, America isn’t the world.
Click to expand...

As I said be pedant. In this day and age people describe lib dems as a leftist party. With leftist policies. And no I'm from the UK born and raised.

Look at this thread, look at the brexit conversations, look at politics. That's exactly how most see things.
 
mancan92 said:
How are they made up terms? In this day and age any person who sees themselves as Liberal sit on the left and all those who see themselves as traditionalists see them selves as right leaning. That is modern day. No one here is talking about historical context. It's about how people see things now.

Your answer was a left leaning one a Liberal one in modern society.

We had a couple people in the last page describe themselves as centralists how left is worst than right etc so I'm asking how a centralist would think the compromise sits in this situation.
Click to expand...

Your mixing up Liberal I the UK and Libertarianism which is quite a right wing philosophy in the US. We all know liberal in the UK, left of centre, remain Lib Dem’s etc. libertarianism is about freedom to look after yourself without interference from anyone especially government ie free will, in the US this is seen as right wing and republican ie small government.
 
Jacko21 said:
That’s implying that centrism is exclusively about trying to find the (absolute) middle ground in any scenario in order to please everybody / reach a compromise.

Rather, centrism is drawing conclusions based on context, evidence, reason, consideration. The actual conclusion that a centrist draws could still ultimately mean that they align with those on the left or the right.

In the example you’ve provided, the response would be an open-minded one - ‘why shouldn’t an openly gay footballer be able to talk about his experience?’

If I’ve interpreted your comment correctly!
Click to expand...
I really like the part in bold. Although I'm somewhat idealistic by nature, I've come to realise that the world doesn't work like that and never will, so the best solution is to use rational and realistic options.

The problem with human radicalisation comes from the fact that people never learn from history and the mistakes of humankind, so we are bound to repeat them. I guess it also involves a bit of a philosophical question, in terms of whether human history and time itself is linear or cyclical.
 
Cheesy said:
The problem with centrism is that some people like to see it as the only inherently sensible position, filled with rational and level-headed people who would do a great job of running the country if only they were given the chance, unlike the entrenched extremists on the left and right.

But take a gander through Twitter and you'll find that's not the case - many centrists (to use the term broadly) are just as hysterical, ideologically minded and entrenched as their counterparts on the left and right. I sympathise with the wider motivations of a lot of the People's Vote types but a lot of them are incredibly hysterical and over-dramatic at times, no less so than the worst of Corbyn's fans.

A lot of this comes down to Blair - the popular view is often that he was an unprincipled pragmatist who veered to the centre because he had to. That's entirely incorrect, he was a deeply ideological position with a very fixed and entrenched worldview of his own. Whether that ideological was good or not is another debate but he was by no means someone who liked compromise and he wasn't necessarily pragmatic either. He simply did a good job of convincing everyone else he was.
Click to expand...
Centrism is just a crappy and useless word to use in general(I use it out of laziness sometimes). Neoliberalism is far better because the word actual has a ideology and a history. Blair was a neoliberal politician, we can debate if he was on the left side or the right side of this political idea but he was in the end a neoliberal. The same can be said of Cameron, May, Thatcher, Clinton, Bush, Obama(You can pretty much extend this toward most of the EU as well).
 
Jacko21 said:
That’s implying that centrism is exclusively about trying to find the (absolute) middle ground in any scenario in order to please everybody / reach a compromise.

Rather, centrism is drawing conclusions based on context, evidence, reason, consideration. The actual conclusion that a centrist draws could still ultimately mean that they align with those on the left or the right.

In the example you’ve provided, the response would be an open-minded one - ‘why shouldn’t an openly gay footballer be able to talk about his experience?’

If I’ve interpreted your comment correctly!
Click to expand...

Yipes! you make them sound like bigger melts than even I suspected. That's Dawkins-gobbler levels of smug self-identification. Should Centrists be made to wear fedoras at all times to simplify the taxonomy?
 
mancan92 said:
I'd be interested in what the "centralists" here think we on the left should do about conversations like the gay footballer one. Do we on the left say "OK guys let's say no openly gay footballers can talk about their lives on Tuesday, Wednesday and Fridays"?

Like what is the compromise?
Click to expand...

On certain issues such as homophobia there are no and definitely should be no compromise.

But don't be mistaken that all people on the right are homophobic.

Centrists aren't people who just sit in the middle in everything. They just view social and political issues independently and choose a path based around their feelings for each, not guided by unshakable ideology based simply on being left or right,

For instance, a centrist may have conservative values regarding the need for and the benefits of certain aspects of capitalism but wish there was better wealth
distribution.

Although they may wish for better wealth distribution a centrist could view certain tax plans to 'soak the rich' as punitive and counterproductive. A centrist is maybe comfortable with aspiration but sympathetic to those on the poverty line and want solutions to help the poorest in society,

a centrist could be totally at ease with homosexuality and gay rights but not agree with trans men competing against women. Life is not always black and white, left or right and nor are people.
 
Random anecdote about leftist infighting. Some of my Antifa friends are involved in organising a big rally against hate and intolerance in my city. They want to ban the display of any state flags. So now they are being called anti-semitic by other activists because that obviously means Israel's flag can't be shown either. :lol:
 
mancan92 said:
How are they made up terms? In this day and age any person who sees themselves as Liberal sit on the left and all those who see themselves as traditionalists see them selves as right leaning. That is modern day. No one here is talking about historical context. It's about how people see things now.

Your answer was a left leaning one a Liberal one in modern society.

We had a couple people in the last page describe themselves as centralists how left is worst than right etc so I'm asking how a centralist would think the compromise sits in this situation.
Click to expand...

This is really weird to me and I know that only from America where liberal has another meaning and is somehow a bad word (generally, how can being liberal ever be bad).

Here in Germany the liberal party are the free-market capitalists for example. I consider myself ultra-liberal but wouldn't really call myself left.
 
Pagh Wraith said:
This is really weird to me and I know that only from America where liberal has another meaning and is somehow a bad word (generally, how can being liberal ever be bad).

Here in Germany the liberal party are the free-market capitalists for example. I consider myself ultra-liberal but wouldn't really call myself left.
Click to expand...
Same in The Netherlands. Biggest Liberal party is the VVD which is considered right wing. Albeit, moderately right wing, not full on bigot cnut right wing.
 
dumbo said:
Yipes! you make them sound like bigger melts than even I suspected. That's Dawkins-gobbler levels of smug self-identification. Should Centrists be made to wear fedoras at all times to simplify the taxonomy?
Click to expand...
Dawkins-gobbler? As in Richard Dawkins? What is a Dawkins-gobbler?
 
Pagh Wraith said:
This is really weird to me and I know that only from America where liberal has another meaning and is somehow a bad word (generally, how can being liberal ever be bad).

Here in Germany the liberal party are the free-market capitalists for example. I consider myself ultra-liberal but wouldn't really call myself left.
Click to expand...
And in many of the post-Warsaw Pact countries, with our very own Orbán leading the way with demonising a word and ideology of which he was a strong proponent back in the day.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Same in The Netherlands. Biggest Liberal party is the VVD which is considered right wing. Albeit, moderately right wing, not full on bigot cnut right wing.
Click to expand...

Are they socially liberal? The German FDP is considered let's say to the right (the left would say that, I wouldn't really) and have been the natural coalition partner of the conservatives. But only if you consider economic policies and nothing else which is a pretty narrow view. And even then they're pretty moderate and you won't find any climate change deniers or raging anti-immigrant sentiments there. They just have a "let's see if we can solve this problem with more free market first" approach. The other thing is that "right-wing" is a really bad word in Germany, perhaps more so than in other countries and noone wants to be attached to it. Not even the conservatives who of course are at least centre-right by definition.

But I find this quite one-dimentional anyway. Is a person who supports equality and social liberties but thinks taxes should be lower rather than higher right-wing? I like that political compass thing that pops up during elections where they have two axes, one for social and one for economic policies. I would, however, oppose equating being liberal with being left.
 
Jacko21 said:
That’s implying that centrism is exclusively about trying to find the (absolute) middle ground in any scenario in order to please everybody / reach a compromise.

Rather, centrism is drawing conclusions based on context, evidence, reason, consideration. The actual conclusion that a centrist draws could still ultimately mean that they align with those on the left or the right.

In the example you’ve provided, the response would be an open-minded one - ‘why shouldn’t an openly gay footballer be able to talk about his experience?’

If I’ve interpreted your comment correctly!
Click to expand...
Ugh, this is exactly why I hate the word. You make it sound like "centrists" are the only reasonable people amid a horde of screaming ideologues, trying in vain to elevate political discussion to a more cultured and nuance level.

You can, of course, evaluate solutions and policies based on evidence and facts. You can examine whether a policy achieved its stated goal. But choosing the goal itself is, ultimately, a decision based on values. You could say that an economic policy that yields an 8% growth versus one that yields 4% growth is clearly and obviously better - IF your premise is that growth is the most desirable and valuable metric. Which might not be the case. In the end, what you deem desirable is based on your own personal values, not some sort of objective, unbiased, rational consideration.
 
Pagh Wraith said:
Are they socially liberal? The German FDP is considered let's say to the right (the left would say that, I wouldn't really) and have been the natural coalition partner of the conservatives. But only if you consider economic policies and nothing else which is a pretty narrow view. And even then they're pretty moderate and you won't find any climate change deniers or raging anti-immigrant sentiments there. They just have a "let's see if we can solve this problem with more free market first" approach. The other thing is that "right-wing" is a really bad word in Germany, perhaps more so than in other countries and noone wants to be attached to it. Not even the conservatives who of course are at least centre-right by definition.

But I find this quite one-dimentional anyway. Is a person who supports equality and social liberties but thinks taxes should be lower rather than higher right-wing? I like that political compass thing that pops up during elections where they have two axes, one for social and one for economic policies. I would, however, oppose equating being liberal with being left.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ï think they're probably the same. No one really calls them right wing either. Just liberals. They're market driven, but hold much the same views on topics like immigration, healthcare, climate etc as other big parties. And yes, right-wing is a bad word here as well. It's pretty much on the same pile as alt-right now.

As for the liberals, the right call them left wing and the left call them right wing. That's a good sign they're moderate I'd say.
 
Jericholyte2 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-cocktails-ordered-alcohol-sparks-debate.html

  • Waiter overhears woman confirm she’s pregnant whilst ordering alcoholic cocktails
  • No friends stopped her
  • He maid non-alcoholic versions
  • They see the non-alcoholic drinks on the bill and the woman goes nuts
  • Waiter ends up fired

We are fecked as a species!
Click to expand...

I was going to say I’m more concerned that a newspaper would base an article on a reddit post that are so often fake for karma. Then remembered it’s the daily mail so...
 
Jericholyte2 said:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-cocktails-ordered-alcohol-sparks-debate.html

  • Waiter overhears woman confirm she’s pregnant whilst ordering alcoholic cocktails
  • No friends stopped her
  • He maid non-alcoholic versions
  • They see the non-alcoholic drinks on the bill and the woman goes nuts
  • Waiter ends up fired

We are fecked as a species!
Click to expand...
It's not proven that a couple of drinks while pregnant is harmful to the baby.
The paternalistic wanker waiter deserved the boot for deliberately screwing with their order.
 
Jippy said:
It's not proven that a couple of drinks while pregnant is harmful to the baby.
The paternalistic wanker waiter deserved the boot for deliberately screwing with their order.
Click to expand...
There’s also “no known safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy” per the CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/alcohol-use.html

That said, it’s the DM sourcing reddit, so it is anyone’s guess if that actually happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.