What can be done to stop oppressive leftists?

[Iti oj]

People who resort to violence should be prosecuted, whether of the right or the left. It is especially important to do this when free speech is at stake, because free speech is a cornerstone right -- almost all other rights depend on it.

As for condemning such violence, that's routinely done by prominent leftists. Prominent leftists like Amy Goodman or Thom Hartman are not to be confused with center right people Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, who are left only in the self-interested imaginings of the right.

Don't buy into the free speech attack bs. Only the government can violate free speech. Some ideas shouldn't be given a platform by the public even though they have The right to say it with out getting arrested.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is a very underinformed generalisation. Most of the far-left in particular is very much in favour of bottom-up organisation. It often comes down to 'We'd rather the people run things than the state, but we'll take the state over unaccountable corporations and the rich'.

True, I spoke to soon.
I am referring to the general practice of it though. Anarchism in all its glory was the aim of communism/socialism as understood by Marx. A stateless society, but that ended up with the most state power ever seen to man next to a theocracy.

Us right-wingers prefer power being in the hands of the many and capable though, we disregard the notion that a person can obtain proportions of wealth that surpass the level of individual effort.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Which is why we've had so many mass shootings performed by leftists and not the far-right. . .

. . .wait a minute

I am gonna sit here and laugh because asserting that being a right winger immediately results in mental instability is just blatantly fallacious. Mass shooters don't exactly express political preferences that are sane and reasonable.

I am REALLY reconsidering your familiarity with basic logical fallacies. Actually I am reconsidering your familiarity with basic logic.

 

[Kirran]

True, I spoke to soon.
I am referring to the general practice of it though. Anarchism in all its glory was the aim of communism/socialism as understood by Marx. A stateless society, but that ended up with the most state power ever seen to man next to a theocracy.

Us right-wingers prefer power being in the hands of the many and capable though, we disregard the notion that a person can obtain proportions of wealth that surpass the level of individual effort.

Yeah, I'm no Marxist That didn't work out so good.

Look, I'm not saying this as an attack but to really try and understand your reasoning - am I right in assuming that you support a free market economy with minimal state interference or regulation, and think that this would be more egalitarian?

I genuinely cannot understand how these are seen as compatible ideals when looking at the intrinsic functioning of free market capitalist economics.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm not saying stop people from protesting, be we can't let "protest" turn into this kind of wild anti-speech activity.

Where are we missing out on injecting respect for the political process and the sanctity of political speech into the ideologies of these young leftists?

I think what strikes me about all of this is that, since at least the 1980s, leftists have not really been free-thinkers - not like they once were. Nowadays, they act more like a bunch of trained monkeys and parrots. There's nothing wrong with protest, as long as they know what it is they're protesting against. But when they act like obvious shills of the corporate media and political machines, then it's difficult to take them seriously.

They don't even have any real coherent "ideology" anymore. That's their biggest problem. They sold out decades ago, and the worst part is, these youngsters of today don't even realize it. It's not so much a matter of what they protest against, but also noticing what they don't protest against.

In many ways, I support a lot of leftist ideals, but mainly in the economic realm - better wages, better working conditions, affordable housing/education/healthcare, etc. These are practical, tangible things to fight for, not throwing a tantrum just because someone got "offended."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The problem for the political classes is that in the past they have been able to tell us what they wanted us to know.

With the internet and social media, that is no longer the case.

This is why they so concerned about what they call ‘fake news’.

The person most concerned about fake news is TRump he is also the one who make most use of it.

Fake news and information is the lifeblood of social media.
Not all of it is malicious.
Most is quite harmless and the result of people confusing opinion with fact.
Many youtube skills videos on how to do things teach extremely dangerous methods of working.
And Wiki contains as much misinformation as truth.
The main Broad sheet papers used to separate news facts from opinion. This has not been the case for some years now.

Social media is not giving us any better or more or less accurate information. It has simply made it much harder to discern which is which.

People are grossly misinformed most of the time and have no way of discerning the truth.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am gonna sit here and laugh because asserting that being a right winger immediately results in mental instability is just blatantly fallacious. Mass shooters don't exactly express political preferences that are sane and reasonable.

I am REALLY reconsidering your familiarity with basic logical fallacies. Actually I am reconsidering your familiarity with basic logic.

I am not ever certain that mental illness turns any one into a right winger.
being a right winger is simply a selfish attitude taken into the political field.

 

[Sunstone]

This thread wasn't intended to be about "x doesn't condemn its radicals". I'm sure they do. Everyone, except the ******** that want violence, does.

>snip<

Is it that they believe they have the silent support of other leftists?

You seem to contradict yourself...

 

[Sunstone]

Don't buy into the free speech attack bs. Only the government can violate free speech. Some ideas shouldn't be given a platform by the public even though they have The right to say it with out getting arrested.

I agree with you except in these respects: No one has a right to shut down speech through violence, and publicly funded organizations and institutions such as the University of California are obliged by the fact they are publicly funded to respect free speech rights.

 

[Kirran]

I agree with you except in these respects: No one has a right to shut down speech through violence, and publicly funded organizations and institutions such as the University of California are obliged by the fact they are publicly funded to respect free speech rights.

Do you think that, for example, we should allow Anjem Choudhary to speak and preach wherever he likes?

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think that, for example, we should allow Anjem Choudhary to speak and preach wherever he likes?

A private person or entity can put whatever restrictions it wants on Choudhary's speech on their property. A government cannot, unless his speech incites to violence, etc.

 

[Kirran]

A private person or entity can put whatever restrictions it wants on Choudhary's speech on their property. A government cannot, unless his speech incites to violence, etc.

That last is what is interesting - where do we draw the line regarding 'incites to violence'? Choudary, to follow this example, openly praises the "martyrs" involved in the Twin Tower attacks and the 2005 London bombings, and supports ISIS. Does preaching these sentiments count as incitement to violence?

It is absolutely demonstrable that growing up in a homophobic household is massively damaging for young LGBT+ people - preaching homophobic sentiments is increasing the likelihood of this happening, what does that count as?

Preaching against Muslims and black people etc, even if it doesn't directly call for violence, gives a narrative to those who do go and commit violence.

Violence is not a simplistic thing either - psychological violence is very real.

 

[Laika]

I do not believe Leftists as a whole understand Marx as a whole. I took my time to study him and evaluate him and even reject him for his assertions. Marx is very fond of violence as a means to an end and views it as an inevitable aspect of social progression. He is by no means Hitler advocating for extermination, he merely views it as an evolutionary aspect of governance or lack thereof.

A lot of us right-wingers like tossing words like Marxist, socialist or commie around which I apologize for. They tend to be somewhat ignorant of philosophical socialism compared to socialism in historical practice.

Thats fine.

Its just really disconcerting when many conservatives give the impression that there is an army of raving revolutionaries waiting to take over. Statistically The threat from the far left (anarchists/communists) is negligible and has almost never been weaker in the west- but the language has got so distorted that those committed to democratic institutions and individual liberty like democratic socialist and social liberals/progressives are treated as if they were the same. Relatively peaceful groups are getting labelled as the "enemy within" and thats really bad.

We're in the absurd position where people who agree on 90-95% of the issues are treating each other as potential enemies. That can't go on indefinetely.

 

[Kirran]

Thats fine.

Its just really disconcerting when many conservatives give the impression that there is an army of raving revolutionaries waiting to take over. Statistically The threat from the far left (anarchists/communists) is negligible and has almost never been weaker in the west- but the language has got so distorted that those committed to democratic institutions and individual liberty like democratic socialist and social liberals/progressives are treated as if they were the same. Relatively peaceful groups are getting labelled as the "enemy within" and thats really bad.

We're in the absurd position where people who agree on 90-95% of the issues are treating each other as potential enemies. That can't go on indefinetely.

Honestly, I think that the majority of the populations of the USA, Taiwan, Canada, Western Europe and many other areas of the world are actually supporters of progressive causes. There's just this phobia of the word leftist sometimes, due to right-wing smear campaigns.

 

[Laika]

Honestly, I think that the majority of the populations of the USA, Taiwan, Canada, Western Europe and many other areas of the world are actually supporters of progressive causes. There's just this phobia of the word leftist sometimes, due to right-wing smear campaigns.

People have the right to be afriad of ending up in a country like north korea- but the kind of debate thats now going on isn't really based on any sort of proportionate response or even just trying to look at the numbers. People's fears are being manipulated to help some really unpleasant people get power and implement policies by manufacturing a threat that isn't really there. Its really evil actually.

 

[oldbadger]

That last is what is interesting - where do we draw the line regarding 'incites to violence'? Choudary, to follow this example, openly praises the "martyrs" involved in the Twin Tower attacks and the 2005 London bombings, and supports ISIS. Does preaching these sentiments count as incitement to violence?

You would need to read and scrutinize the legislation of your country with care to obtain a 'rough' idea of what 'incitrementi is defined as. For an exact definition then maybe a specialised lawyer would need to be hired.

Now, because friggin' lawyers charge loads (to keep their yachts afloat ) a good techniques is to always keep back from the grey area surrounding any legislation.

Boots and Braces approach is a good policy.
(I was a commercial detective, so I used this a lot!)

 

[Kirran]

You would need to read and scrutinize the legislation of your country with care to obtain a 'rough' idea of exactly what 'incitrementi is defined as. For an exact definition then maybe a specialised lawyer would need to be hired.

Now, because friggin' lawyers charge loads (to keep their yachts afloat ) a good techniques is to always keep back from the grey area surrounding any legislation.

Boots and Braces approach is a good policy.
(I was a commercial detective, so I used this a lot!)

I'm not a big one for going to the current laws of the country in which I happen to reside as a basis for morality or appropriate courses of action! There are laws in this country that I disagree with strongly.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm not a big one for going to the current laws of the country in which I happen to reside as a basis for morality or appropriate courses of action! There are laws in this country that I disagree with strongly.

Are you still in Wales?
If you live in El Salvador then 'fair enough', bu Welsh legislation is not bad at all.


Where are you?

 

[Kirran]

Are you still in Wales?
If you live in El Salvador then 'fair enough', bu Welsh legislation is not bad at all.

Where are you?

Manchester. There are various problems with the laws in the UK. For example, there are problems with trans recognition and the legality of transition.

 

[Laika]

I'm not a big one for going to the current laws of the country in which I happen to reside as a basis for morality or appropriate courses of action! There are laws in this country that I disagree with strongly.

US law is based on the "imminent lawless action" doctorine to distinguish between advocacy of illegal action and advocacy in the abstract. I looked it up a while back as RF is under US law.

Imminent lawless action - Wikipedia