Lefty loonies and liberals, what the hell happened to us?

[Revasser]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".

Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

 

[Sunstone]

All movements are stupid to one extent or another.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I agree with some parts of your post and disagree with others.

• I think many liberals have a tendency to be unduly politically correct and tame when it comes to criticizing certain concepts and ideologies. There is this idea that if you question certain aspects of liberalism, you are advocating fundamentalism or opposing pluralism. As far as I can see, this is most salient in liberals' general hesitation to criticize the negative aspects of other cultures. When someone does that, many liberals far too often label him or her a "xenophobe,"cultural supremacist," or "fascist."

An example of this is that if you point out that certain religions, or at least some interpretations of those religions, indeed pose a threat to modern civilization and that some cultures have many unethical and irrational values and traditions, moral relativists among liberals may call you a xenophobe or Western supremacist. I think this tendency is especially ironic because far-left liberals would almost certainly be the first people to get shoved out of the public sphere if fundamentalists from those religions and cultures had any amount of significant power to do so.

Another example is, as you mentioned, blaming most or all of the plights and shortcomings of other cultures on Western imperialism and interventionism. Saying that Afghanistan and Iraq had and still have backward, oppressive cultures is guaranteed to have you labeled a racist or xenophobe by all too many liberals because they believe that the United States' interventionism in those countries' affairs and later invasion of them are the main reasons for the current problems of those countries.

While it is true that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were ethical and economic catastrophes, I don't think anyone should let that cloud their judgment when it comes to the very real and deep-rooted problems the cultures of those countries have. If the U.S. and other global superpowers had never invaded Afghanistan, for example, or interfered in Pakistan's affairs and commanded drone strikes there, that wouldn't have changed the fact that both countries are home to some of the most oppressive, irrational, and outdated traditions in the 21st century. I think overlooking that is both dangerous and quite myopic.

Where liberalism falls short far too often, in my opinion, is in its undue political correctness toward a lot of harmful ideologies and cultural traditions. One of the very few things I can give conservatism credit for is its willingness to discuss the flaws of other cultures openly and without looming hesitation out of fear that conservatives may sound like xenophobes or supremacists.

• Modern feminism, like any other social or political movement, has its share of flaws and overzealous supporters. I think pointing that out in a constructive way is helpful and should be encouraged so as to help in reforming said flaws as much as possible. Zeal, no matter how well-intentioned, should never affect people's judgment concerning possible flaws in the ideologies they support.

The part I disagree with you on is that most modern feminists or progressive supporters of feminism try to shut down criticism without rationally arguing against it. Most feminists often present arguments to explain why feminism is very much needed and important in today's world. Feminism, at least as I understand it, primarily supports autonomy and free choice for women to make their own decisions concerning the different areas of their rights that are still contested by many people even in the 21st century—areas such as wage equality, proper legal procedures to deal with sexual assault and harassment of women, reproductive rights, and even the right to vote in some parts of the world, among other things.

I think it is quite true that many of the people who oppose feminism do so because they hold outdated beliefs about gender roles and the supposedly ideal roles for men and women in society, especially when feminists present facts to demonstrate why there's a need for feminism in many parts of the world and opponents of feminism still hold on to the idea that feminism is about some sort of female supremacy or misandry.

It seems to me that if someone opposed a movement advocating the autonomy and freedom of, say, black people because of flaws that are found among a minority of said movement's supporters, even most critics of feminism would find that unconscionable. Yet they suddenly lower the standard of what they consider rational criticism when it comes to feminism. I believe that usually has to do with misogyny or, at the very least, inconsistency in how they view and address different ideologies.

I believe that any ideology is susceptible to fundamentalism and dogma, no matter how much it attempts to oppose them. This is true for liberalism, conservatism, feminism, socialism, and any other -ism you can think of. The important thing is to recognize the areas where fundamentalism and dogma start to creep in and attempt to address them, and while all sets of supporters of different ideologies have their imperfections, I think some of those sets are certainly better at self-examination than others.

 

[gsa]

This isn’t new.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

I agree with this, but I also think you have to be cognizant of the limits of the "marketplace of ideas." Like any market, it is subject to not only political control, but monopolization and fraud. For all the criticism of the left and its shortcomings (and they exist), the primary problems, to me, are caused or at least exacerbated by the dominance of money, which can shape political reality much more effectively than truth.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

Did you go to university? I encountered this all the time.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

This is a problem. Navigating the middle road on this one is exacerbated by the existence of real anti-Muslim bias, which can be racist, and the undeniable threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. There is no getting around the tension, but the commitment to free speech and free thought is paramount in my opinion.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

I don't see this one very often, so I don't know what you are addressing specifically.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

I do not think everyone feels this way. I do think it is important to criticize the anti-humanist and hypocritical policies of the West, because they aren’t consistent with these values. What good does it do to criticize Islamic fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, for example, when our governments are committed to emboldening "lite" (i..e, not ISIS) versions?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

The New Left in America lived with this tension. So does the left today.

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

Honestly it doesn't seem that way to me, and I've been told to check my privilege in the past. On online forums, anyway (and once while moderating a debate). It has always been an issue that waxes and wanes.

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

No offense, but you're Australian? I don't think you even have the equivalent of our religious right. We're nowhere close to them on the left. Not even in the line of sight.

 

[Sunstone]

I think liberals have indeed largely failed to adequately address certain aspects of Islam. But I don't see that as a failure of the ideology so much as a failure of the contemporary leadership. There is, so far as I know, nothing in liberal ideology that would suggest tolerance for the human rights abuses that are apparently either condoned or encouraged by Islam. What there is, however, are liberal leaders who often enough do not seem willing or able to distinguish between criticism of Islam and Islamophobia.

 

[Revasser]

I agree with some parts of your post and disagree with others.
• Modern feminism, like any other social or political movement, has its share of flaws and overzealous supporters. I think pointing that out in a constructive way is helpful and should be encouraged so as to help in reforming said flaws as much as possible. Zeal, no matter how well-intentioned, should never affect people's judgment concerning possible flaws in the ideologies they support.

The part I disagree with you on is that most modern feminists or progressive supporters of feminism try to shut down criticism without rationally arguing against it. Most feminists often present arguments to explain why feminism is very much needed and important in today's world. Feminism, at least as I understand it, primarily supports autonomy and free choice for women to make their own decisions concerning the different areas of their rights that are still contested by many people even in the 21st century—areas such as wage equality, proper legal procedures to deal with sexual assault and harassment of women, reproductive rights, and even the right to vote in some parts of the world, among other things.

I'm just going to go ahead and address this bit separately since I'm mostly happy to go along with the rest of your post.

If I seem extra snarky on this point it's because this in particular is what caused me to start questioning whether I've really been on the right side of things recently and I don't mind acknowledging my views here are more muddled and generally less solid than elsewhere. I've always considered myself a feminist (insofar as male humans are permitted this title) since I understood what the word meant and as far as the broad "dictionary definition" goes, I still believe strongly in it's stated principles and feel that the movement has achieved a lot of good, perhaps more than it sometimes given credit for.

Basically, I've had my personally held and fairly well cherished views on this subject battered recently and I'm still trying to figure out what the house is going to look like it when I've finished rebuilding it.

Where I've come a cropper lately is whether it, as an independent unit or as a part of a great progressive political movement, has succeeded on the backs of it's luminaries and in-practice machinations or in spite of them. Whether it is capable - as a movement - of recognising it's successes and examining it's own continued relevance in Western societies or whether it's simply become a self-sustaining vehicle for learned helplessness and the people at the top who make a ton of money from selling the narrative that women are natural perpetual victims and should be expected to be "situational adults" without being questioned.

I look at this and wonder why the women in my life allow themselves to be infantilised in this way and will brook not even the slightest disagreement.

I look at it and I see people like Mary Koss lobbying for and succeeding in having definitions of rape used for social science studies broadened in ways to capture as many women as possible and narrowed in others to exclude men (and then outright ignoring the actual responses of some of the subjects) to deliberately skew stats to fit a preferred narrative. I just don't see this kind of dishonesty helping anybody. Nor do I see hyperbolic exaggerations of the wage gap that fly around - in spite of some excellent studies published last year that actually show we've really made HEAPS of progress in this area - really helping to address what real issues remain here.

I look back at the history of people like Kate Millett, Andrea Dworkin or Susan Brownmiller - all extremely intelligent people whose writings have been hugely influential in shaping modern feminism - and see them, since the 1970s advocating the co-opting of minority rights movements to further theirs, engaging in vicious shaming of male homosexuals and generally opining that the solution to any problem that touches on gender is more feminism (even when a case can made that feminism helped cause or exacerbate the problem in the first place).

And when I've questioned this, I've been told "Oh we're not all like that" as if I hadn't just been on the receiving end of a polemic informing me that "#NotAllMen" (or whatever taunt is fashionable) is a cop out. I mean, am I nuts or am I really a misogynist for expecting people who self-identify with and support a movement to own their ****?

Anyway, there's my small personal irrational rant on that subject. Like I said, I'm muddled on it and not sure where I fall anymore. I absolutely support gender equity in society but I'm having a little bit of a personal ethical crisis on whether supporting 21st century feminism is really a way to achieve that anymore and apparently should know where I'm not wanted. We'll see.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What happened was the victim mentality took over, along with post-modern deconstructionism and political correctness has strangled everything. It breeds like a pestilence on college campuses which have transformed into wastelands of multiple sorts. At root is a severe hatred of the West and a childish impulse to see it destroyed. After playing along with it for a bit, I got fed up with it and dumped it. Now I'm a Western nationalist.

 

[Revasser]

I agree with this, but I also think you have to be cognizant of the limits of the "marketplace of ideas." Like any market, it is subject to not only political control, but monopolization and fraud. For all the criticism of the left and its shortcomings (and they exist), the primary problems, to me, are caused or at least exacerbated by the dominance of money, which can shape political reality much more effectively than truth.

No, I'm with you here. But this really comes down to needing to be aware of this and being willing to not only question ideas but also the motives of the those advocating them.

Did you go to university? I encountered this all the time.

Hah! Actually, to the chagrin of my parents ("You could do ANYTHING YOU WANT with your life! You're wasting your talent!"), I chose not to.

I do know heaps of 20-something uni students though so I'm all too familiar with the attitude.

This is a problem. Navigating the middle road on this one is exacerbated by the existence of real anti-Muslim bias, which can be racist, and the undeniable threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism. There is no getting around the tension, but the commitment to free speech and free thought is paramount in my opinion.

Obviously this is topical at the moment and I agree there's no getting around the tension. There really are actual xenophobes and fascists and racists fueling anti-Muslim sentiment for selfish ends. My problem however is that these people are the only ones even participating in the mainstream discussion.

It's like people on "my side" have seen the Right take a up position and just decided to line up neatly opposite, fix bayonets and start shooting regardless of the merits.

I'm personally seeing - and especially across Europe in the media - inquiring young minds sympathetic to general progressive causes driven into the waiting arms of the far Right because they want to talk about Islam in this context and the only ones willing to do it are fascists. This is how our OWN young people get radicalised and turned into hateful adults.

I don't see this one very often, so I don't know what you are addressing specifically.

It's cool and you can see my rant above for where my issues here are coming from. I'm still sorting this out in my head as well. I'm hoping at some point to really be able to discuss it calmly and freely and have my assumptions challenged to help me solidify my views but as it stands, none of my personal acquaintances are interested.

I do not think everyone feels this way. I do think it is important to criticize the anti-humanist and hypocritical policies of the West, because they aren’t consistent with these values. What good does it do to criticize Islamic fundamentalism and authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, for example, when our governments are committed to emboldening "lite" (i..e, not ISIS) versions?

I'm with you here, though I don't think the fact that our own rulers are doing their best to tear down classic modern Western values (which I'm a big fan of obviously) is a reason NOT to equally criticise authoritarianism wherever it's found.

No offense, but you're Australian? I don't think you even have the equivalent of our religious right. We're nowhere close to them on the left. Not even in the line of sight.

Hah! Yes, people think that and the US definitely has some incredibly loud and openly crazy people on that side of politics there.

Ours is easy to miss out of necessity. Culture here is strongly biased against what we call "wowsers" and thus our RR - while powerful - also has to be much more subtle and will tend to use proxy issues to get their way (ie. fear of Muslims as above or "traditional Aussie values"). But make no mistake, we've got one and it gets its way more often than not, but it does it in ways that don't always make the driving force obvious.

Though we've been steadily importing Tea Party style politics for a few years now, so who knows.

 

[Ultimatum]

I really hate placing myself on a left/right spectrum, even though it is useful to use when identifying with talking about people on a specific policy, perhaps.
Every issue, whether you are a liberal or conservative, needs to be looked at with fresh eyes, unbiased, and with a common sense.

 

[Laika]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

There appears to be an enormous "culture war" being waged on the internet between the advocates of political correctness and free speech. The short-comings of both sides are that take to absurdity, they are counter-productive to their own ends, with free speech endorsing racist, sexist, homophobic etc. language and political correctness being the restriction of this "free" expression.
I am of the opinion that "political correctness" is counter-productive as an end in itself because it sustains the illusion of equality that is common to liberal systems (equality of opportunity and equality of rights) without ever addressing the socioeconomic inequalities that feed into these problems. The New Left 'failed' to achieve it's revolutionary objectives of actual social equality in favour is the illusion of equality and was co-opted by liberalism (especially neoliberalism). So at the heart of it, the battle between free speech and political correctness has very little to do with progressive values since it is about concealing the social problems faced by minorities which are perpetuated by neoliberalism and capitalism when we substitute socio-economic change for cultural change on it's own.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".

Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?

Fascism comes in all shapes and sizes and it often comes in varying degrees too. It is not simply an ideology but a psychological pattern of authoritarianism and the need for certainty, especially as the expense of the uncertainty of freedom. One of the hardest things I find in being on the left is trying to tell the difference between the "reds" and the fascists who use "red" ideology as a way to control others and enforce their own insecurities. It is easy to fall for the idea that the fascists in red are all that has ever been and all that ever will be- but this is to surrender our humanity to the illusion of "human nature" in which all the noblest sentiments are surrendered to a barbaric "realism".
Not all that glitters is gold and it has become very rare nowadays (at least in the public eye) to see genuine, committed radicals. Neither free thought, nor individuality are automatic properties of human behaviour; they have to grow and develop, but with all forms of collectivism, there is a constant danger that the "herd mentality", the unthinking submission to group think and therefore to the loudest voice regardless of whether what they are saying is true, will win out over the kind of collective thinking which allows genuine individuality.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

My opinions on Islam are deeply confused and conflicted because on the one hand I know Islamaphobia is real, but on the other it is hard to escape the "war on terror" mentality which we have been conditioned into that the "enemy" is hiding in plain sight waiting for us to let are guards down. The paranoia is a manufactured fiction, but that doesn't mean propaganda looses it's sting and my quasi-willful ignorance on the subject doesn't help either.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

Regrettably, I think we're seeing on a much smaller scale what happened in Communist regimes such as Russia in the 30's and China during the Cultural revolution, where the emphasis on "right thinking" became an end in itself. I was surprised to see Benedict Cumberbatch offering an apology for his use of the word colored as it is a word I am familiar with (but on deeper reflection I get it because it assumes "whites" are not colored and therefore normal and has cultural hegemony). What is dangerous with political correctness is the psychological propensity to project hostile onto another person and to assume malicious intent to conceal our own insecurities, that those who disagree or who do not live up to such standards are the "enemy". For the most part I don't believe it is necessary, it doesn't need major headlines to sensationalise or feed the flames of bigotry on both sides of the culture war. Maybe a single line in a newspaper like for an editorial error is more appropriate if at all. The public recantations of using "forbidden words" is not unlike the use of "criticism and self-criticism" or "struggle sessions" in the Communist bloc- only that in the latter it explicitly constituted a form of psychological abuse, pure and simple. it's a tad worrying.

I'm just going to go ahead and address this bit separately since I'm mostly happy to go along with the rest of your post.

If I seem extra snarky on this point it's because this in particular is what caused me to start questioning whether I've really been on the right side of things recently and I don't mind acknowledging my views here are more muddled and generally less solid than elsewhere. I've always considered myself a feminist (insofar as male humans are permitted this title) since I understood what the word meant and as far as the broad "dictionary definition" goes, I still believe strongly in it's stated principles and feel that the movement has achieved a lot of good, perhaps more than it sometimes given credit for.

Basically, I've had my personally held and fairly well cherished views on this subject battered recently and I'm still trying to figure out what the house is going to look like it when I've finished rebuilding it.

Where I've come a cropper lately is whether it, as an independent unit or as a part of a great progressive political movement, has succeeded on the backs of it's luminaries and in-practice machinations or in spite of them. Whether it is capable - as a movement - of recognising it's successes and examining it's own continued relevance in Western societies or whether it's simply become a self-sustaining vehicle for learned helplessness and the people at the top who make a ton of money from selling the narrative that women are natural perpetual victims and should be expected to be "situational adults" without being questioned.

I look at this and wonder why the women in my life allow themselves to be infantilised in this way and will brook not even the slightest disagreement.

I only recently got into feminism (it was a side effect of realizing I had white privilege after watching the Boondocks on Youtube last year. [Go Huey!]). I would actually agree that it has become a way of perpetuating learning helplessness because the goal of feminism (along with all other progressive movements) should not be equality as an end in itself but positive freedom (freedom of action).
I'm also in a similar position as I feel uneasy identifying as a feminist because of it's confrontational character. I'm a man who is aware of how his sense of masculinity often implicitly implies dominance [I long to be a sexually liberated "bad boy" as well as a feminist and the two conflict more often than not; where's the line between sexual objectification and sexual attraction in real life after all?] but I'm also bisexual and so a victim of the often homophobic undertones of masculinity and gender stereotype because homosexuals/bisexuals are assumed to be feminine and submissive. Personally, I was glad to see Emma Watson's speech to the UN as that largely says what I'm thinking that men can and should be feminists and need to fight the same power structures as well.

I look at it and I see people like Mary Koss lobbying for and succeeding in having definitions of rape used for social science studies broadened in ways to capture as many women as possible and narrowed in others to exclude men (and then outright ignoring the actual responses of some of the subjects) to deliberately skew stats to fit a preferred narrative. I just don't see this kind of dishonesty helping anybody. Nor do I see hyperbolic exaggerations of the wage gap that fly around - in spite of some excellent studies published last year that actually show we've really made HEAPS of progress in this area - really helping to address what real issues remain here.

I look back at the history of people like Kate Millett, Andrea Dworkin or Susan Brownmiller - all extremely intelligent people whose writings have been hugely influential in shaping modern feminism - and see them, since the 1970s advocating the co-opting of minority rights movements to further theirs, engaging in vicious shaming of male homosexuals and generally opining that the solution to any problem that touches on gender is more feminism (even when a case can made that feminism helped cause or exacerbate the problem in the first place).

And when I've questioned this, I've been told "Oh we're not all like that" as if I hadn't just been on the receiving end of a polemic informing me that "#NotAllMen" (or whatever taunt is fashionable) is a cop out. I mean, am I nuts or am I really a misogynist for expecting people who self-identify with and support a movement to own their ****?

Anyway, there's my small personal irrational rant on that subject. Like I said, I'm muddled on it and not sure where I fall anymore. I absolutely support gender equity in society but I'm having a little bit of a personal ethical crisis on whether supporting 21st century feminism is really a way to achieve that anymore and apparently should know where I'm not wanted. We'll see.

I can't speak for feminism here, but for what it is worth is that in recognizing that there is a subjective content to our understanding of society and therefore of bias, intellectual honesty because that much harder as you're constantly looking over you're shoulder wondering whose side you're on. it takes a lot of emotional security to do this (and I struggle with it because obviously you invest a lot of self-worth in a progressive identity and to feel that it might be taken away from you at a moments notice is disturbing. the psychology of group identity and the desire to be part of the herd can defeat our intellect more often than we would like to think. it is a very human failing, but when politics is involved, very dangerous.
We seem to be in a stage of social evolution where the very definition of our collective and individual identity is changing faster than we recognize, as technology now means we socialize in ways that were never possible before (e.g. this forum, facebook, mobile phones etc). the boundaries between individual and social life are being re-written, and our control over information and ideas (and therefore the role they play in our identity) is becoming more fluid. whether it is privacy on Facebook, access to pornography, illegal downloads and intellectual property, the accuracy of Wikipedia entries as a demonstration of collective knowledge or ignorance, what we consider "ethical" behavior is being outstripped by technological change. political correctness is part of the fluid change in our sense of self as we struggle to know right from wrong as the possibility for causing offense exponentially increases with our means to communicate. eventually, we're going to have to let it go and technology will win, but when this will happen is anybody's guess.

 

[Revasser]

Terrific post, Red. Thanks for taking the time.

I'm going to snip some of the quotes for the sake of length on the page, but assume I'm responding to the whole section.

I am of the opinion that "political correctness" is counter-productive as an end in itself because it sustains the illusion of equality that is common to liberal systems (equality of opportunity and equality of rights) without ever addressing the socioeconomic inequalities that feed into these problems. The New Left 'failed' to achieve it's revolutionary objectives of actual social equality in favour is the illusion of equality and was co-opted by liberalism (especially neoliberalism). So at the heart of it, the battle between free speech and political correctness has very little to do with progressive values since it is about concealing the social problems faced by minorities which are perpetuated by neoliberalism and capitalism when we substitute socio-economic change for cultural change on it's own.

I'm going to be honest and say that it's been a long time since I've thought along these lines, not since my teens actually. So while I'm familiar with what you're saying, it's quite distant for me.

I think there is tendency for one to simply accept some things the way they are once you've been in "the system" for a while and having someone point them out so that you can recognise the way you've penned in your own thinking is refreshing.

I've got some books to buy and some thinking to do

Fascism comes in all shapes and sizes and it often comes in varying degrees too. It is not simply an ideology but a psychological pattern of authoritarianism and the need for certainty, especially as the expense of the uncertainty of freedom. One of the hardest things I find in being on the left is trying to tell the difference between the "reds" and the fascists who use "red" ideology as a way to control others and enforce their own insecurities. It is easy to fall for the idea that the fascists in red are all that has ever been and all that ever will be- but this is to surrender our humanity to the illusion of "human nature" in which all the noblest sentiments are surrendered to a barbaric "realism".

Yes, and note that when I say "fascist" I'm not necessarily referring to those who take that title voluntarily as specific political statement, but basically what you're describing here. There is a definite attraction to the striking confidence of these kinds of authoritarians but what frustrates me is that there are issues where there are no other voices. You either talk to them to try to filter out the crap or you shut up and do and believe as you're told by the authoritarians on your own "side".

My opinions on Islam are deeply confused and conflicted because on the one hand I know Islamaphobia is real, but on the other it is hard to escape the "war on terror" mentality which we have been conditioned into that the "enemy" is hiding in plain sight waiting for us to let are guards down. The paranoia is a manufactured fiction, but that doesn't mean propaganda looses it's sting and my quasi-willful ignorance on the subject doesn't help either.

I honestly have my doubts as whether "Islamophobia" as a term even deserves to be given any respect or power at all. Whilst the prejudice that it can describe is real, at this point the term is just used to shut down dissent. It's a conversation ender. I see it as what I recently saw (I think) @Revoltingest describe in another thread as "weaponised jargon".

Regrettably, I think we're seeing on a much smaller scale what happened in Communist regimes such as Russia in the 30's and China during the Cultural revolution, where the emphasis on "right thinking" became an end in itself.

Just gonna nod my head and agree with you here.

I can't speak for feminism here, but for what it is worth is that in recognizing that there is a subjective content to our understanding of society and therefore of bias, intellectual honesty because that much harder as you're constantly looking over you're shoulder wondering whose side you're on. it takes a lot of emotional security to do this (and I struggle with it because obviously you invest a lot of self-worth in a progressive identity and to feel that it might be taken away from you at a moments notice is disturbing. the psychology of group identity and the desire to be part of the herd can defeat our intellect more often than we would like to think. it is a very human failing, but when politics is involved, very dangerous.
.

The part I've bolded really resonates with me.

And this because there comes a point for me when there's so many times where I end up feeling like an outsider, or at best a peon who is expected to toe the line or risk being labelled as "part of the problem" by recognised or self appointed moral guardians that it becomes too difficult to reconcile.

The inclination to take a slash and burn approach to my personal values becomes quite insistent. I apparently got it wrong, so it's time to tear it all down, start again and see what still fits. This is where I am right now, so it's really helpful to get some insight from different viewpoints and see what goes where.

 

[Laika]

Terrific post, Red. Thanks for taking the time.

I'm going to snip some of the quotes for the sake of length on the page, but assume I'm responding to the whole section.

No probs. glad to be of help.

I'm going to be honest and say that it's been a long time since I've thought along these lines, not since my teens actually. So while I'm familiar with what you're saying, it's quite distant for me.

I think there is tendency for one to simply accept some things the way they are once you've been in "the system" for a while and having someone point them out so that you can recognise the way you've penned in your own thinking is refreshing.

I've got some books to buy and some thinking to do

That's the spirit!

I've had several phases when I've wanted to give up Marxism as I keep hitting it's inadequacies, but there is a usually a subtle and dialectical loophole to stop me from becoming a "responsible adult". the sense of it being both simultaneously familiar and alien is something I know quite well. Often it's not what we see, but what we miss that tells us what's going on; the media particularly has a way of focusing our attention on things that we can do very little about and we miss the big picture in 5 minutes snap shots TV new articles. Without this "big picture" it is easy to feel lost in the chaos and that's where being a little crazy has an advantage.

Yes, and note that when I say "fascist" I'm not necessarily referring to those who take that title voluntarily as specific political statement, but basically what you're describing here. There is a definite attraction to the striking confidence of these kinds of authoritarians but what frustrates me is that there are issues where there are no other voices. You either talk to them to try to filter out the crap or you shut up and do and believe as you're told by the authoritarians on your own "side".

I think it was Bertrand Russell who said something about how a lot of the problems in the world arise from the fact the bad people are so sure of themselves and all the good ones being really uncertain. the lure of certainty, of absolutes is very attractive, but slowly you kind of realize it is an illusion of conviction and of strength as it filters out that which is hostile to a person's beliefs. The ability to entertain doubt and to recognize that some measure of criticism is a necessary part of personal growth is probably a much better measure of conviction.

I honestly have my doubts as whether "Islamophobia" as a term even deserves to be given any respect or power at all. Whilst the prejudice that it can describe is real, at this point the term is just used to shut down dissent. It's a conversation ender. I see it as what I recently saw (I think) @Revoltingest describe in another thread as "weaponised jargon".

I agree it is a conversation ender, but mainly because the weight it carries is so heavy. It is hard to differentiate legitimate criticisms of Islam as a religion when it conflicts with the dominant liberal and secular values, from often bigoted criticism of Islam as fundamentalist, at least in this political climate. In so far as the voice of religious moderates is being drowned out I think the concept of Islamaphobia has it's uses.
I feel conflicted because I'm deeply skeptical and hostile of religion, and yet feel an often misguided impulse to take the side of the "underdog". It is certainly true that violence is wrong, but there is an implicit assumption that the "good guys" get to use violence. Only violence hostile to "the system" is denounced as extremist in the media and the very concept of extremism is there to give moral weight to the idea that people hostile to our "way of life" are driven by innate evil rather than try to rationally understand the reasons behind violence. Religion is a cover for politics and creating a culture in which Islam is equated with the "devil" makes the conflict harder to solve, not easier.
In much the same way Muslim moderates are silenced in the name of "freedom and democracy", the fundamentalists deny the possibility of moderation in the "jihad". The difference should be that freedom is not just a word. Moderate muslims deserve the right to their identity and individuality and not to be confused with those who do use violence. Yes, they ultimately have to chose sides, but we should make it as easy for them as possible by not treating them as the "enemy" because of their beliefs. The hardest part of war is making peace.

The part I've bolded really resonates with me.

And this because there comes a point for me when there's so many times where I end up feeling like an outsider, or at best a peon who is expected to toe the line or risk being labelled as "part of the problem" by recognised or self appointed moral guardians that it becomes too difficult to reconcile.

The inclination to take a slash and burn approach to my personal values becomes quite insistent. I apparently got it wrong, so it's time to tear it all down, start again and see what still fits. This is where I am right now, so it's really helpful to get some insight from different viewpoints and see what goes where.

I think "slash and burn" is a bit hasty. Revolutions only happen are a very long period of evolution, so take you're time and read up on stuff before coming to a conclusion. Part of the problem with "fascists" is how they force our hand and that gives them control. we should not let them set our own agenda, especially on the basis of ignorance and bigotry. The most powerful weapon of all is fear of something going wrong or worse, the humiliation of being seen to be wrong by "everyone else". Humans are social animals, so even when you're right and doing something because you genuinely care about others, standing out is a real burden.
I spend most days with an uneasy truce between the part of me that is a conservative saying "that sounds a bit risky, and even if it worked it be futile anyway- be realistic, you're an adult now! you've got responsibilities. you can't fight the system! the bad guys always win!" and that perpetual rebel that wants to raise the red flag and says "to hell with it, dam you all! I'm not negotiating my freedom. stop asking me to be reasonable. it's my life and I can screw it up if I want to". I think you're a bit older than me, so if you have any suggestions as to how to sooth the savage beast, they're very welcome.
Giving up is not an option though so I know which side is going to win. But ultimately, when it goes wrong they can be two sides of the same coin that hate freedom and want to be destructive to my own happiness. fanatics are the same no matter what they say as it arises out of a poverty of spirit, an unwillingness to forgive ourselves and others out of a sense of perfectionism. the best thing to do is to over-come the sense of moral inferiority that gives fascists there power. causing offense isn't the worst thing people do and pettiness rules too often. learning to be loving and forgiving of ourselves and others is a step to being ourselves, but it's hard as it's been ingrained into us over many years.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My best response to the criticism about feminism is to read or listen to the feminists who apply the "lean in" approach. It's nothing new, and you can find them all throughout it's history for hundreds of years.

I think it's good to have a balance of rhetoric, since if women feel we constantly have to sell feminism so that men don't feel like we hate them, or use "weaponized jargon" (in response to hearing constantly that we don't really see what we see daily), then feminism would feel like propaganda or a marketing scheme rather than a sociopolitical philosophy and movement, all - again - the focus being men being happy and content.

Gotta throw a little fire in there. Because believe me, when a woman has been looked over for decades for a position and has watched less qualified men be promoted over her...and she's told for decades that she's not working hard enough or she's imagining things or she got pregnant even though these same men were called to military service and left the country for a year or more...and the vast majority of these responses to her are men...you get old women holding up signs saying "I can't believe I'm still fighting this ****."

So, Emma Watson is the most recent of the "lean in" feminists. She'll make some waves. It's good.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

Worry not. You've 2 new approaches to crappy opinions.
1) Blame the fog of old age.
2) There is no blame.

Note: #2 has exceptions. Example: When Wirey had a brain tumor declaring war on his thinking organ, it would at times alter his personality.....for the worse!

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.
I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.
I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.
Lately, I've been doubting that.
Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.
When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".
When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".
Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?
Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.
Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.
Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?
What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?
Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?
TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

Interesting post you have here. It's difficult to tell whether things are getting worse, or whether we ourselves are changing such that we notice it more. I belong to various groups which make me cringe when I see how my fellows act at times. To recognize faults within our own ranks is a good defense against becoming one of those face palmogenic types. It helps to remember that we have good friends who dwell in the dark side......liberals, conservatives, heathens, fundies, feminists, baseball fans, etc. If I insult fundies or commies, then I'm insulting friends.....so I must watch my wagging tongue.

Edit:
And yes, even other libertarians can embarrass me at times. Ain't nobody perfect. Is it even possible that the reverse is true? Nah!

 

[StarryNightshade]

What happened to liberalism is a stranglehold of hyper-political correctness and ivory tower academia. If you have any thought, idea, or view that dares to even marginally differ (even in the most minute way) outside of the groupthink, then you are a sexist, homophobe, racist, privileged, and "not really progressive". Heck, maybe all of the aforementioned if you're convenient,

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What happened to liberalism is a stranglehold of hyper-political correctness and ivory tower academia. If you have any thought, idea, or view that dares to even marginally differ (even in the most minute way) outside of the groupthink, then you are a sexist, homophobe, racist, privileged, and "not really progressive". Heck, maybe all of the aforementioned if you're convenient,

I have white and cis privilege. I don't experience the hardship that a woman of color or a trans person has. It isn't an insult, but a descriptor of perspective and daily life experience that is useful.

Are there ways to describe inequality on a mass scale that doesn't offend people's sensitivities?

 

[StarryNightshade]

I have white and cis privilege. I don't experience the hardship that a woman of color or a trans person has. It isn't an insult, but a descriptor of perspective and daily life experience that is useful.

Are there ways to describe inequality on a mass scale that doesn't offend people's sensitivities?

As a white, cis-gendered male, I most certainly have privileges that many others in our society don't. That's not what I was really talking about.

What I mean is that, in the effort to being politically correct, it seems that nothing ever gets done. That what is considered important to some is not important to others. What really seems to be more important is whose theory is more correct, or which professor/feminist/cultural marxist is more relevant.

To use a very subjective example, I used to be a part of my colleges LGBT support group. I only went to a few meetings before I stopped going. Mainly because I didn't feel welcomed there. When I had mentioned that I was religious, and that maybe we could have a function for other religious LGBT, I was basically told that a queer being religious was "being hypocritical" and had my ideas totally shot down. I was also called a neo-colonialist and cultural appropriator, because I'm a white male who practices Hinduism. No real inclusiveness, no working together with the knowledge of diversity, just a fixed idea of what constituted being LGBT is "supposed to be" and a near rejection of what differed.

Granted, this is a very personal example, but it's very similar to what I see with liberalsim and political correctness and academia in general. So to answer your second question, no, I guess there's no real way to discuss anything without upsetting someone or pissing others off. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is the crux of the problem with modern liberalism. Everyone seems too busy crying "I'm the true victim" instead of working together to actually fix the problem.

 

[Apex]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".

Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

You might be interested in this:
http://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf

 

[Poeticus]

What happened was the victim mentality took over, along with post-modern deconstructionism and political correctness has strangled everything. It breeds like a pestilence on college campuses which have transformed into wastelands of multiple sorts. At root is a severe hatred of the West and a childish impulse to see it destroyed. After playing along with it for a bit, I got fed up with it and dumped it. Now I'm a Western nationalist.

What happened to liberalism is a stranglehold of hyper-political correctness and ivory tower academia. If you have any thought, idea, or view that dares to even marginally differ (even in the most minute way) outside of the groupthink, then you are a sexist, homophobe, racist, privileged, and "not really progressive". Heck, maybe all of the aforementioned if you're convenient,

I was once discussing liberalism and conservatism with a fellow Indian back in India. "For someone coming from the West, I expected you to be more liberal and understanding---more open-minded", I was told. "Open-minded in the sense that I agree with almost everything you say with only little room for leeway", I replied.

That little exchange has stayed with me ever since. And here I'm talking about the "progressive" wing of a country whose urban populations desire to implement Western modes of idealism, but in doing so they come across, at least to observers like me, as: getting it incredibly wrong in their implementation, fanboying it excessively, and developing an environment where it is like McCarthyism all over again.

What's even more discouraging is to be lambasted as an Uncle Tom by my own minority groups here in the States. How in the world am I Uncle Tom-ing it when I go down the empirical route?

 

[Father Heathen]

Okay, so here's something that's been bothering me for a while. I'd like to hear some other opinions. Maybe it's just me getting grumpy as the big Three-Oh (otherwise known as GAY DEATH) approaches at a terrifying rate and I won't any longer be able to claim youth as an excuse for whatever crappy opinions I might have.

I'm a economically left leaning. I'm a die hard social liberal. I was raised to believe (and have been further convinced by life) that everybody is my equal, regardless of gender, ethnicity, creed, wealth or occupation. Nobody is of intrinsically lesser or greater value than anybody else.

I believe that the free exchange of ideas is fundamentally important to a liberal society. Robust and sincere dialogue is the best and maybe only real way we can arrive at the "truth." No idea is above question and no ideology should be protected from criticism. Short of outright exhortation to violence, nobody should have their ideas shouted down and suppressed just because I or you may not like or agree with them. If you think they're wrong, persuade them or put your own ideas out there too.

I have always believed that my fellow citizens on the progressive side of politics generally shared these ideals and these were, indeed, the basis of a progressive liberal view.

Lately, I've been doubting that.

Whenever I see somebody question the narrative pushed by progressive luminaries in the media, I see a mob descend throwing insults, shaming and generally belittling the questioner for daring to step out of line.

When I see somebody who simply honestly hasn't read up on all the preferred jargon and says something "problematic" I see them hounded out of progressive circles and shrilly told to "check their privilege".

When I see somebody look critically at the canon of studies behind the "killer stats" du jour and point out that maybe there are some faults or, heaven forfend, deliberate obfuscation, I see them rounded on and derided for being anti science or just being plain unintelligent for not "getting it".

Where did we go wrong? What happened to healthy scepticism? What happened to freedom of thought and intelligent discussion of ideas? What happened to education, not indoctrination?

Why is it that if a progressive wants to discuss the merits of Islam as an ideology, it's relative value as a religion and how that intersects with Western culture in the 21st century, they pretty much have to find a borderline or outright fascist because they're the only ones willing to talk about it. Their fellow progressives won't even countenance the discussion because racism, because Islamophobia, because you're the wrong colour of person to be allowed to voice an opinion on the subject.

Why is it that if a progressive wants to examine and talk about the ongoing merits of modern feminism and how it affects people and society today, unless they are gushing praise for it they are immediately shouted down and labelled a misogynist and a generally ****ty person. And if this person has a penis, they're probably a rape apologist (or an actual rapist!) and if they have a vagina they're a traitor or some kind of 1950s stepford wife with Stockholm syndrome. Want a frank discussion on this topic? You've got to find some bitter, damaged men who can't be objective and angry women lashing out on their behalf because nobody else on the progressive side will tolerate challenges to dogma.

Why is it that if a progressive expresses views on foreign affairs that may not be entirely dependent on the West being responsible for pretty much every perceived wrong in the world and that maybe our liberal Western values might actually be worth something, they are labelled a racist, a colonial apologist or worse?

What the hell happened to us? When did we become this? When did we become so obsessed with orthodoxy and so hostile to critical thinking? When did we decide different viewpoints must be suppressed?

Maybe I'm just imagining it, but this really does seem to be a trend that's being steadily getting worse and is utterly dominant on social media. Or am I just another entitled ****lord who needs to check his ****** privilege?

TL;DR - We're supposed to oppose the Religious Right. When did we BECOME them?

Too true. It happens here, too. Even if you staunchly support racial and gender equality, you'll still be accused of being a racist or misogynist if you dare question whether or not people's reactions toward various events or issues are objective, proportionate, substantiated, etc. rather than hopping aboard the knee-jerk band wagon.
It's also annoying when people toss accusations of racism around whenever someone critiques or scrutinizes Islam.
Not all muslims are arab, and not all arabs are muslim.
If someone doesn't know the difference between race and religion then they have no business participating in such discussions/debates.